Dear AFTAH Readers,

Homo-fascism is escalating, and good people — and the national interest – are its tragic victims.  The idea that Americans should be smeared as ”hateful” because they take a stand against oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” — when citizens in 31 states voted to defend traditional (real) marriage — is beyond absurd.  (In fact, it is hateful!)  The name of the game is INTIMIDATION — and after so many years of practice, the “gay” activists are quite good at it.  But their strategy could not work without the liberal media acting as a de facto arm of the Homosexual Lobby.

Of course, my heart goes out to Peter Vidmar — and all victims of homosexualist intolerance — but at some point leaders will have to stand up to the “gay” bullies or America will cease to be a free land.  You can call or write Vidmar (760-603-8010) using THIS FORM, or send him an e-mail at info@speakersoffice.com.  To call Congress to voice your strong opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – a federal “sexual orientation” bill that would surely create thousands of new “Peter Vidmars” (always in the name of “tolerance” and ”gay civil rights,” of course…) – call 202-224-3121 (Senate) or 202-225-3121 (House).  Or go to www.Congress.org.  [More info on ENDA: Click HERE for a GovTrack report on the 2011 version of ENDA, HR 1397; click HERE to read my piece: "14 Good Reasons to Oppose the 'ENDA Our Freedom' Bill"]

Stay strong: the homo-fascists may be winning now, but Americans will see through their schemes, and fight back against their evil agenda of demonizing religious people by equating the defense of historic Judeo-Christian values with  ”hate and bigotry.”  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org; americansfortruth@gmail.com    

American Family Association’s “One News Now” reports:

_______________________________________________________

Gold medalist resigns, thanks to pro-’gay’ criticism

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 5/12/2011 [Click HERE to read story online; to listen to the report, click the microphone icon at the upper right of the story on the One News Now page.]

Pressure from homosexual activist groups has compelled the head of the 2012 U.S. Olympic gymnastics team to quit.

Two-time gymnastics gold medal winner Peter Vidmar has resigned upon receiving harsh criticism from homosexual and lesbian athletes and activists, who complained that he had donated $2,000 to promote California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

“I wish that Peter Vidmar had not resigned,” laments Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH). “I wish that he’d stood up for his right to defend marriage, and I wish that he’d forced them to fire him if that’s what they were going to do, because that would engender the sort of national discussion that we need against this escalating intolerance against…opposition to gay marriage.”

And he disagrees with openly homosexual Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir, who describes Vidmar’s position on marriage as “disgraceful.”

“How dare he seek to marginalize Peter Vidmar, who simply stood up for his beliefs,” LaBarbera contends. “Most people believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. The radical redefinition of marriage still does not have majority support in this country, despite the huge media blitz in support of it.”

The AFTAH president concludes that the homosexual movement is clearly “seeking to intimidate people into silence, and we’ve got to stand up to their bullying.”

Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, does not fault Vidmar for his decision. She told CitizenLink that the Olympic medalist’s entire career and livelihood were at risk when the “gay rights movement decided to go after him.” Vidmar, she points out, is currently one of the leading corporate motivational speakers in America.

Chaps Klingenschmitt

Part Two of our  interview with “Chaps” Gordon Klingenschmitt of the Pray in Jesus Name Project. This was pre-recorded and aired Jan. 22,  2010 on WYLL-AM 1160 in Chicagoland. This is the second of a two-part interview; click HERE to listen to Part One. AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera and Chaps discuss the next steps in the debate over “homosexualizing” the U.S. military — following the lame-duck congressional repeal of the ban against homosexual servicemembers. They discuss the prospects of Republicans in Congress making a serious move to thwart or reverse the implemtation of the new plan to open up the Armed Forces to open homosexuals. Chaps also rebuts left-wing accounts that accuse him of deceit in his public efforts as a then-Navy chaplain to “pray in Jesus’ name.”

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

1-22-11, Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt

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

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

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

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

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

Ann Coullter comes to Chicagoland Thursday, Oct. 7th. Coulter outraged "queer" liberals like Perez Hilton when she told 'conservative' homosexuals at GOProud's "Homocon" event that same-sex "marriage" "is not a civil right -- you're not black!"

WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS

[CORRECTION: we received a note from homosexual blogger Joe Jervis (Joe.My.God.) pointing us to a Human Events article by Lisa De Pasquale that clarifies some careless reporting by Politico of Ann Coulter's GOProud speech: it was not a GOProud member (as I reported, relying on Politico) but rather a joking Greg Gutfeld of the latenight FOX show "Red Eye" who "heckled" Coulter, blurting out, "What's wrong with fisting?" after she -- using her patented comic hyperbole -- accused liberals of wanting to teach kindergartners about "fisting." Coulter and Gutfeld are friends. (Her point of reference was surely the infamous 2000 Boston "Fistgate" incident, in which middle- high school kids actually WERE instructed verbally about "fisting" -- at a Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Netword (GLSEN)-sponsored conference. ("Fisting" is a dangerous homosexual sadomasochistic perversion in which a man inserts his arm up another man's rectum.) 

[We have removed the portion of this article in which we speculated that it was a GOPround member or supporter who asked, "What's wrong with fisting?" Also, it also should be noted that, despite the value of correcting the record on Coulter's speech, De Pasquale works for American Conservative Union, which supports GOProud and defended the homosexual group's sponsorship of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) -- against complaints by conservative Christian groups who accused CPAC of promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. AFTAH opposed GOProud's sponsorship of CPAC.  -- Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org]

_______________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Dear AFTAH Readers,

If you are near Chicago, I’d like you to consider attending an Ann Coulter speaking event a week from today — put on by my good friend Sandy Rios, president of Culture Campaign, a pro-family action group based in Illinois. Sandy, a FOX News contributor, is a brave truth-teller who surely would have gone farther in the media had she not stayed true to her Christian principles; please support her by coming out this Thursday night!

I know that’s sort of an odd request given the swirl of controversy and debate surrounding Coulter’s recent speech at ‘HomoCon,’ an event put on by the homosexual Republican group ‘GOProud.‘ But trust me, you will be blessed by this event — and you’ll be helping out a solid organization, Culture Campaign, that has stood strongly against the homosexualist agenda.

First, here are the details:

WHEN: Thursday, Oct. 7, 7:30 PM — less than a week away

WHERE: The Meadows Club, 2950 W. Golf Rd., Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 (suburb north of Chicago). Online map here: http://www.themeadowsclub.com/location.htm

WHO: Ann Coulter, feisty conservative pundit and author of “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and their Assault on America,” and other books.

COST: $50; $35 for students; tickes will NOT BE SOLD AT THE DOOR

HOW TO ORDER TICKETS: Go online to Culture Campaign’s online order form: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/747925064. Tickets can be ordered up to 3 hours before the event’s start time (7:30 PM, Oct. 7th).

SPECIAL VIP DINNER OPPORTUNITY: Before the main event you can be a part of an exclusive VIP Reception & Dinner that includes a photo with Ann along with a personally signed book. For more information on this limited seating function contact Michael Glenn, Executive Director of Culture Campaign, at mglenn@culturecampaign.com.  

_______________________________________

If you come, I will see you there. Here’s why I’m going – even after my disappointment with Ann Coulter for lending legitimacy to a Republican upstart “gay” group (GOProud) that talks a good game about being conservative but really isn’t. As GOProud Chairman Chris Barron said in an August 4 Twitter post: “We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people.”

(The core purpose of GOProud is to promote the acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships. Promoting ”pride” in a sin, supporting a judge who imposes ”gay marriage” against the expressed will of millions of California voters, and backing governmental/taxpayer recognition of aberrant sexual relationships is not conservative — period. However, GOProud does take conservative positions on issues like gun control and lower taxes – and it has even endorsed the Republican opponent of homosexual Barney Frank (D-MA), for which they were pilloried by liberal activist homosexuals.)

All that said, I agree pretty much with Bryan Fischer of AFA below (writing for Renew America) that Coulter redeemed her much-discussed GOProud booking to defend truth, including the idea that “same-sex marriage” has nothing to do with civil rights. Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily went further in his recent debate with GOProud founder Christopher Barron in Miami — exposing GOProud’s hypocrisy in claiming to be for “limited government” while failing to condemn a federal judge (reported homosexual Vaughn Walker) for invalidating the people’s vote in California in favor of traditional marriage. After Walker’s ruling, GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia made these comments — perfectly reflecting GOProud’s desire to have it both ways on ”conservatism” and “gay marriage.” The FrumForum blog quotes LaSalvia:

“As long as the government is in the marriage business it should treat gay couples as equal to their straight counterparts.  Accordingly, we are pleased with the outcome of the Prop 8 case.”

That said, LaSalvia qualified his satisfaction by noting that, “As conservatives, however, we continue to have reservations about using the courts to achieve these ends.”

GOProud’s Barron debates WND’s Farah

Christopher Barron of GOProud (left) debates WND's Joseph Farah. Photo: WND.com

It took some guts for Barron to come to the WND “Take America Back” conference and debate Joseph Farah (see photo) — although it also fits Barron’s masterful PR strategy of using controversy to stay in the news. I attended the event, and it was fascinating as much for what was not debated as for what was. (For example, when questioned from the floor, Barron acknowledged that rights come from God but he was never asked whether and on what basis he defends homosexual practice itself as moral and “conservative.”) 

Suffice it to say that Barron played a good game of dodging and weaving regarding his promotion of homosexual activist goals – even stating that GOProud did not “celebrate” the recent court ruling invalidating Prop 8 in California when clearly – like all other homosexualist groups — GOProud cheered the radical decision. I would welcome a debate with Barron that is less restrictive and more free-wheeling than the WND event, with more opportunity for follow-up questions.

Some gays don’t want ”gay rights” laws

Despite his and GOProud’s previous cheap shot at me after I challenged Coulter on the GOProud speech, I could sit down over a cup of coffee and discuss issues with Barron and we’d probably agree on as much as we disagree on. (When I met Barron at the debate and challenged him on his attack on me, he responded that I specialize in cheap shots.) The fact is, there are many homosexuals who disagree with the demands of the largely liberal-Democratic Homosexual Lobby – and who also disagree with its anti-religious stridency. Many don’t want “special rights,” as conservatives once widely called “sexual orientation” laws. And while GOProud equivocates and tries to ride the fence by claiming neutrality on dangerous big-government-gay bills like ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act), some homosexuals completely reject the “gay rights” political agenda and just want to be left alone. (Barron says he does support Americans’ First Amendment and religious right to disagree with homosexual practice, but by advocating for federal Domestic Partner legislation, he would essentially force all citizens to subsidize it with their tax dollars.)

Like Farah, I will grant Barron this: you can hold conservative positions on a number of issues like guns and taxes yet have a homosexuality problem (or a theological one: Barron considers himself a Catholic yet says he is “married” to another man). But if you form an organization dedicated philosophically to advancing homosexuality – thereby undermining the historic, biblically-based moral/religious basis for American freedoms and prosperity – that ain’t “conservative” because you are working to reconfigure — not “conserve” — marriage and family as God designed them.

As Farah said at the debate: “Chris, your argument is not with me. It is with God. It’s with 6,000 years of Judeo-Christian history and the founding principles of this country.”

The same could be said of anyone — straight or “gay,” conservative or liberal, socialist or libertarian, religious or secular — who advocates for “same-sex marriage” and/or state and corporate recognition of homosexual relationships as a social good – or of homosexuality as the basis for civil rights.

Coulter’s GOProud Gold

I didn’t see a full text of Ann Coulter’s GOProud speech, but good for her for nailing the fraudulent case for oxymoronic “gay marriage” and homosexuality as a “civil right” with a couple of catchy one-liners. From Politico’s Ben Smith, who attended the event:

Coulter’s jokes Saturday riffed on the theme that GOProud doesn’t make same-sex marriage central to its appeal; it considers, Barron says, national security and the economy more important.

Marriage “is not a civil right – you’re not black,” Coulter said to nervous laughter. She went on to note that gays are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the country.

“Blacks must be looking at the gays saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’”

Hello, Republicans… Want to get more black votes? Then don’t abandon the fight against homosexual “marriage”!

GOProud member to Coulter: ‘What’s wrong with fisting?’

I read this liberal homosexual account of Coulter’s GOProud appearance on the website of homosexual Hollywood gossip writer Perez Hilton, who titled his piece, “Ann Coulter Sinks to New Lows of Vileness!” (emphasis added):

According to Talking Points Memo’s Megan Carpentier:

In fact, despite opening her speech with a joke about the difficulty of “coming out” as a fiscal conservative to one’s parents — something she congratulated the attendees on — Coulter’s speech to GOProud mystifyingly focused on social issues and not the fiscal and foreign policy issues that brought most of the attendees there. For instance, she told GOProud that the conservative gay rights movement ought to make common cause with the anti-abortion movement because, she said, “as soon as they find the gay gene, you know who’s getting aborted.” Coulter also made a forceful case against sex education in schools, accusing liberals of attempting to teach kindergartners about “fisting” (which garnered her a heckler, who shouted out “What’s wrong with fisting?”) [Editor's Note: see clarification at top: the heckler was Coulter's friend and FOX "Red Eye" host Greg Gutfeld--making a joke] and told the crowd that most parents didn’t want their children learning about the “homosexual lifestyle” instead of reading and writing.

As for Coulter being accused of “vileness” by the intolerant, vulgar and über-obnoxious Hilton (the guy who trashed Carrie Prejean with his gay-potty mouth running wild), that definitely commends Coulter. (Hilton, ever the sophisticated critic, completed his attack on Coulter with one of his patented mark-ups of her web photo with horns and something white scribbled on her mouth (don’t ask).

Homosexual activist blogger Jeremy Hooper (“Good As You”) cited this remark by Coulter as evidence that she’s a B-A-A-A-D person:

Coulter: the gays “ought to start being antiabortion because “once they find the gay gene, guess who’s getting aborted”

Hooper is probably too young to know that Coulter was merely parroting the line of a homosexual group called PLAGAL (Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians), which — at the height of the media’s hype of over the supposed genetic basis for homosexuality – made news by arguing that homosexuals should be pro-life because most parents would abort their unborn child if he or she was discoverd in utero to possess the postulated ”gay gene.”

Gay Porn Kings for the GOP!

Somehow I doubt that homosexual porn magnates make up an important voting bloc for the GOP, but with GOProud’s help, the Republicans could make a dent in that slimy constituency. Check out this from Politico’s coverage of Coulter’s speech (emphasis added):

Coulter’s talk drew a mixed response, but her presence marked the increasingly mainstream Republican embrace of gay rights. Coulter had a falling out with a conservative website that has published her, WorldNetDaily, over her attendance. “She’s doing something important – she’s showing her base that it’s OK,” said one attendee, Michael Lucas. (Lucas also confided to a reporter, “I wonder what Ann will think about the fact that I am the biggest producer of gay porn on the East Coast and probably in the whole U.S.”)

Perhaps Lucas could form another gay offshoot: GOPorn, for Republicans, gay and straight, who proudly produce and use pornography — but who also favor low taxes and smaller government. Traditional morality-hating Libertarians would surely jump on board in solidarity.

In his extremism, Lucas illustrates our basic point: you can support the Republican Party for (most of) its conservative platform – even if, in other areas of your life, you are the farthest thing from “conservative” imaginable. But don’t pretend that forming an organization that will help to mainstream your particular immoral behavior is “conservative.”

I’ll see you at the Coulter event Thursday. She won’t get any questions from pornographers, to be sure. But this will be our opportunity to solicit her views in a friendly setting on the Republican Party, conservatives, and homosexual-agenda politics. We have so few friends in the pundit world … let’s see where Ann really stands on this issue.

____________________________________

Below is a Renew America column by Bryan Fischer of American Family Association expressing satisfaction with Coulter’s GOProud speech:

September 27, 2010

Ann Coulter gets her “Warrior Princess” badge back

By Bryan Fischer

I criticized Ann Coulter last month when news surfaced that she had accepted an invitation to speak at HomoCon 2010, a gathering of so-called conservative homosexuals. (They can’t call themselves conservatives, for the simple reason that using the anal cavity for sex is not a conservative value.)

You also will notice that they have no hesitation calling themselves “homos,” as in “HomoCon,” but take umbrage if anybody else uses their own chosen moniker.

I did say that Ann might surprise us all and take the homosexuals straight on, but guessed that a desire not to upset her hosts, who surely paid a princessly sum to entice her into speaking and appearing on all their promotional posters, would likely prevent her from getting up in their business.

Well, I was wrong.

Ann took them straight on and gave them some straight talk I doubt they were ready for. There is no amount of sugar that will help this medicine go down.

According to the leftwing website Politico.com, she complimented the Christian audiences before whom she speaks by telling these homosexuals that the people who get her “gay jokes are gays.” Christians get them, she hinted, but “out of sweetness they don’t laugh at the gay jokes.” Alas, she was suggesting, if only Christians were as mean-spirited as everyone says they are! I have to leave my gay jokes in the green room because those Christians are just too darned civil and courteous and kind!

Then she let the air out of the tires on the tired argument that homosexual marriage is the civil rights issue of our day. Reminding them that blackness is an innate characteristic but sexual behavior is a choice, same-sex marriage, she said pointedly, “is not a civil right — you’re not black.”

As Gen. Colin Powell himself said, the comparison between homosexual behavior and race is “convenient but invalid.” People are born black, but they are not born gay. And many people who enter the homosexual lifestyle later leave it. So there are plenty of ex-gays, but you will never meet an ex-black.

Then she punctured a hole in the entire oppressed-minority argument by pointing out that homosexuals are among the wealthiest demographic groups in the nation, again making the civil rights argument utterly invalid.

Survey after survey has revealed that homosexuals tend to be more highly educated than their straight counterparts and have higher levels of income.

“Blacks must be looking at the gays, saying, ‘Why can’t we be oppressed like that?’” said Coulter.

So Christians are too tolerant to make fun of gays, homosexuals have no civil right to marry, and homosexuals can’t claim oppressed minority status. This from the keynote speaker at HomoCon, who got at least five figures to get right in the grill of her hosts.

Anybody at HomoCon want their money back?

And Ann, all is forgiven. Humble pie has never tasted so sweet. You are no longer the “Joan of Arc of homosexuality,” as I described you last month, you are now Daniella of the Lion’s Den. Good on ya, lass.

Twitter post by close NOM ally Louis Marinelli, Sept. 9, 2010.

Wayne Besen’s hateful sidekick over at the comically-named Truth Wins Out, Evan Hurst, speculates that AFTAH pulled a post from today because we did not want to offend National Organization for Marriage (NOM). Yes, and no. We pulled the post because a Tweet we thought was produced by NOM was actually put up by a NOM ally, Louis Marinelli (who was heavily involved in NOM’s multi-city ”Summer for Marriage Tour”). The tweet, shown at right, is unfortunate – coming as it does from a pro-family leader who should know better – but much less so than if it had been produced by the leading advocacy group for traditional marriage. I apologize for the error. We will have more on this story later. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Ret. Col. Dick Black said that new rules for the military under President Obama have politicized and made more difficult the reporting of illegal homosexual misconduct.

This is Part One of our interview with decorated war hero and former Virginia state legislator Col. Dick Black. It aired on WYLL-Chicago Sept. 25, 2010. Col. Black is a decorated Marine (including a Purple Heart Medal, three Legions of Merit, the Army Staff General Badge and Naval Aviators’ Wings of Gold) who flew 269 combat helicopter missions in Vietnam. Later, he was commissioned as a Major in the JAG Corps and was responsible for criminal prosecutions. Col. Black has a unique understanding of the importance of maintaining the ban on homosexuality in the Armed Forces. He discusses the “pro-homosexual” elites in the military working to bring homosexuals into the ranks, and notes that ending the homosexual ban will result ultimately in more HIV-positive soldiers throughout the military – who end up being non-deployable. [Click HERE for interview.] 

Col. Black and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera also discuss the Democrats’ penchant for undermining the military and U.S. foreign policy – including the Democrat-led congressional cut-off of funding to American ally South Vietnam in the 1970s, which led to the triumph of the Communists in that country and the subsequent mass exodus of South Vietnamese “boat people” fleeing oppression. The U.S. aid cut-off also led to the ascendancy of Communist “Khmer Rouge” rebels in Cambodia led by the genocidal Pol Pot, who murdered millions of his own countrymen as part of his bizarre quest to achieve agrarian Marxism.

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

9-25-10, Col. Dick Black, All

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

America owes a debt of gratitude to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for leading the fight against the Democratic leadership’s destructive and reckless attempt to homosexualize the military by ending the ban on homosexual servicemen. Allowing open homosexuality in the Armed Services would turn the military into a massive, “gay”-promoting bureaucracy — eroding morale and driving moral-minded soldiers and sailors out of the service. See the Defense Authorization bill vote tally HERE. Contact Sen. McCain via his online contact form HERE. We tried calling Sen. McCain in his D.C. office (phone: 202-224-2255; fax: 202-228-2862) but the voicemail was full. You can reach his local offices HERE. And go to this page to read McCain’s previous floor statement against the repeal effort. McCain has occasionally disappointed conservatives in the past, but in this case he stood strong and defeated a huge potential threat to our nation — extending well beyond national security. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________

Associated Press initially reported after the vote [click HERE to see a subsequent, longer AP story]:

Republicans block bill to lift military gay ban

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer, 9-21-10
 
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked an effort to repeal the ban on gays from serving openly in the military, handing gay rights groups a defeat in their last chance any time soon to overturn the law known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Democrats fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance the legislation, which authorized $726 billion in defense spending. The vote was 56-43.
 
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, had been seen as the crucial 60th vote because she supports overturning the military ban. But Collins sided with her GOP colleagues in arguing that Republicans weren’t given sufficient leeway to offer amendments to the wide-ranging policy bill.
 
The vote fell mostly along party lines, although Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, both D-Ark., sided with Republicans to block the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date.
 
Advocates of lifting the 17-year-old ban had been optimistic that the Democratic-controlled White House and Congress could overcome objections to repeal. The move is unpopular among Republicans, military officers and social conservatives.
 
Gay rights advocates now worry they have lost a crucial opportunity to change the law. If Democrats lose seats in elections this fall, repealing the ban will prove even more difficult — if not impossible — next year.
 
An estimated 13,000 people have been discharged under the law since its inception in 1993. Although most dismissals have resulted from gay service members outing themselves, gay rights’ groups say it has been used by vindictive co-workers to drum out troops who never made their sexuality an issue.
 
Top defense officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, have said they support a repeal but want to move slowly to ensure changes won’t hurt morale.

Statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness, in 2008 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, in support of Section 654, Title 10, the law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators TODAY to support Sen. John McCain’s filibuster of legislation designed to overturn the ban on homosexuality in the military: 202-224-3121 (http://www.contactingthecongress.org/). A vote on the repeal is scheduled for tomorrow.

Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick compared servicemembers who oppose President Obama's policy of allowing open homosexuals in the military to "racists" and said they will have to leave the Armed Forces if they cannot bend to the new pro-LGBT rules. Why is Obama already moving ahead with homosexualizing the military in violation of U.S. law, which bans homosexuals from serving?

TAKE ACTION: The beginning of the process to vote on repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military starts Tuesday. Call and urge your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) to oppose turning the Armed Forces into Homosexuality-Affirmation Zones that officially discriminate against normal, faith-based servicemembers and chaplains (see bigoted comments by Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick below).

Also, call Sen. John McCain (202-224-2235) and thank him for leading the opposition to negating the 1993 law barring homosexuals from military service. Read McCain’s formal remarks from the Senate floor yesterday HERE or watch the FOX News video (start at 7:44) on his website HERE. 

________________________________________

Background:

Excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

The U.S. Senate took the initial steps of moving forward with the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” on Thursday as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) filed cloture on major defense budget legislation that includes repeal language.

Reid’s motion to proceed on the fiscal year 2011 defense authorization bill was met with objection by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), prompting Reid to move to end debate by filing cloture.

This manuever means a vote to start official consideration of the defense bill and amendments will take place Tuesday at 2:15 pm. Moving forward will require 60 votes from members for the U.S. Senate.  [Continued at the BLADE HERE...]

___________________________________________

AFTAH COMMENTARY:

See below where Lt. General Thomas Bostick equates those who defend normalcy and oppose sexual deviance in the military with racists.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and President Obama are rushing to homosexualize the U.S. military to satisfy a vocal and aggressive GLBT lobby made up of men and women desperate to have their disordered sexual lifestyle affirmed at any cost. If they succeed, they will severely undermine military morale by turning our Armed Forces into a zone of “Sexual Correctness” that punishes dissent, leading tens of thousands of moral-minded men and women to leave the service or otherwise not enlist.

The comments by Bostick are only the latest evidence that President Obama’s pro-homosexual “non-discrimination” plan for the military WILL DISCRIMINATE against normal and religious servicemembers who disagree with his immoral and impractical plan. Thus we face the specter that a type of ”homo-supremacy” will grow in the ranks:  ”open and proud” homosexuals and bisexuals will be welcomed into the Armed Forces, while those who defend faith, tradition and common sense on this issue (including Bible-honoring chaplains?) will be shown the door.

Lt. Gen. Bostick’s twisted comparison — which echoes the standard anti-Christian rhetoric of homosexual activists — is itself an act of bigotry that shows insensitivity toward people of faith. Opposing people based on their (unchangeable) skin color is bigoted; defending a time-honored sexual moral code in the military’s unique environment is not. Opposing the celebration of perversion is not “hate” or prejudice but the right thing to do!

Note also how Bostick is discussing the implementation of a homosexuals-in-the-military plan before any action by Congress has been taken. When you are The Annointed One as president, who needs Congress, right? – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________________________________ 

Excerpted from the Washington Times editorial:

Friday, Sept. 17, 2010

New Gay Army

Next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is expected to begin floor debate on a defense authorization bill that would repeal the Clinton-era “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and allow homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces. Last month, a top military official offered a glimpse of how the military might look should the new policy take effect: Those serving who oppose the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda are no longer welcome.

Those were the views of Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Bostick, the Army’s deputy chief of staff in charge of personnel matters who spoke about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before several hundred troops at the European Command headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany. “Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them,” Lt. Gen. Bostick said. “But these people opposing this new policy will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out. No matter how much training and education of those in opposition, you’re always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.”

The strong words take additional significance from Lt. Gen. Bostick’s direct involvement with a Pentagon panel charged with shaping military policy on this issue. Although Lt. Gen. Bostick presented the question of homosexuals in the military as if it were about civil rights, it is nothing of the kind. The services must discriminate to function. Those who are too old, too weak or too overweight must be shown the door even when similar actions in the private sector might spark a lawsuit. The reason for the military’s existence is to win battles and wars, not to ensure feelings aren’t hurt or to serve as a playground for social experimentation

The military’s long-standing ban on homosexual conduct is rooted in the principles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which also criminalizes adulterous conduct among heterosexuals insofar as it undermines the good order and discipline of the armed forces. Lt. Gen. Bostick suggested he would employ the same strict disciplinary standards to provide “education and training” that would ensure soldiers, sailors and airmen embrace the new LGBT agenda….. [Editorial continues at Washington Times HERE]

_______________________________________

SAVE THE DATE: AFTAH Banquet

Pastor Ken Hutcherson to keynote AFTAH banquet Sat. Nov. 13.

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

WHEN: Saturday, Nov. 13, 2010; 6:00 PM; dinner served

BACKGROUND on Hutch: http://americansfortruth.com/news/ken-hutcherson-to-keynote-aftah-banquet-nov-13.html

Cost/register: $50 for early regristration; $75 after Nov. 8 and at the door. Send to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522, or pay online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate.

Those who have attended previous AFTAH banquets know that they are intensely educational and uplifting experiences that build you up and equip you to stand for righteousness in a dying culture. Pastor Ken Hutcherson is a bold man of God whose talk promises to be another special time of celebrating God’s timeless Truth. I look forward to hearing from – and learning from — ’Hutch.’  Info requests to: americansfortruth@gmail.com  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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.