Americans For Truth » Democrat Party

Table of Contents of Senate Majority Leader Reid’s Health Care Bill, HR 3590

Peterlab — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:13:34 +0000

SENATE HEALTHCARE BILL — H.R. 3590

“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

November 18, 2009

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

(The version of the Senate Bill on Senator Reid’s website does not include page numbers on the Table of Contents. This document — created by a private citizen who laboriously entered the page numbers on the attached Table of Contents — was provided by Texas education advocate Donna Warner. We apologize that the Page Numbers on the right side are not flush with the right side of the page.)

TAKE ACTION: Call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and click here to reach your U.S. Senators and Congressman: www.congress.org

Page #

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the

5 ‘‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’’.

6 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents of

7 this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

2

TITLE I—QUALITY, AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL

AMERICANS

Subtitle A—Immediate Improvements in Health Care Coverage for All 15

Americans

Sec. 1001. Amendments to the Public Health Service Act. 15

‘‘PART A—INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET REFORMS 15

‘‘SUBPART II—IMPROVING COVERAGE 16

‘‘Sec. 2711. No lifetime or annual limits 16

‘‘Sec. 2712. Prohibition on rescissions. 16

‘‘Sec. 2713. Coverage of preventive health services. 17

‘‘Sec. 2714. Extension of dependent coverage. 18

‘‘Sec. 2715. Development and utilization of uniform explanation of coverage 19

documents and standardized definitions.

‘‘Sec. 2716. Prohibition of discrimination based on salary. 26

‘‘Sec. 2717. Ensuring the quality of care. 26

‘‘Sec. 2718. Bringing down the cost of health care coverage. 30

‘‘Sec. 2719. Appeals process. 33

Sec. 1002. Health insurance consumer information. 34

Sec. 1003. Ensuring that consumers get value for their dollars. 37

Sec. 1004. Effective dates. 40

Subtitle B—Immediate Actions to Preserve and Expand Coverage 41

Sec. 1101. Immediate access to insurance for uninsured individuals with a preexisting 41

condition.

Sec. 1102. Reinsurance for early retirees. 48

Sec. 1103. Immediate information that allows consumers to identify affordable 54

coverage options.

Sec. 1104. Administrative simplification. 57

Sec. 1105. Effective Date 77

Subtitle C—Quality Health Insurance Coverage for All Americans 78

PART I—HEALTH INSURANCE MARKET REFORMS 78

Sec. 1201. Amendment to the Public Health Service Act. 78

‘‘SUBPART I—GENERAL REFORM 78

‘‘Sec. 2701. Fair health insurance premiums. 80

‘‘Sec. 2702. Guaranteed availability of coverage. 82

‘‘Sec. 2703. Guaranteed renewability of coverage. 83

‘‘Sec. 2704. Prohibition of preexisting condition exclusions or other discrimination 78

based on health status.

‘‘Sec. 2705. Prohibiting discrimination against individual participants and 83

beneficiaries based on health status.

‘‘Sec. 2706. Non-discrimination in health care. 95

‘‘Sec. 2707. Comprehensive health insurance coverage. 96

‘‘Sec. 2708. Prohibition on excessive waiting periods. 97

PART II—OTHER PROVISIONS 97

Sec. 1251. Preservation of right to maintain existing coverage. 97

3

Sec. 1252. Rating reforms must apply uniformly to all health insurance issuers 99

and group health plans.

Sec. 1253. Effective dates. 99

Subtitle D—Available Coverage Choices for All Americans 100

PART I—ESTABLISHMENT OF QUALIFIED HEALTH PLANS 100

Sec. 1301. Qualified health plan defined. 100

Sec. 1302. Essential health benefits requirements. 102

Sec. 1303. Special rules. 116

Sec. 1304. Related definitions. 124

PART II—CONSUMER CHOICES AND INSURANCE COMPETITION THROUGH 128

HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES

Sec. 1311. Affordable choices of health benefit plans. 128

Sec. 1312. Consumer choice. 153

Sec. 1313. Financial integrity. 160

PART III—STATE FLEXIBILITY RELATING TO EXCHANGES 164

Sec. 1321. State flexibility in operation and enforcement of Exchanges and related 164

requirements.

Sec. 1322. Federal program to assist establishment and operation of nonprofit, 168

member-run health insurance issuers.

Sec. 1323. Community health insurance option. 182

Sec. 1324. Level playing field. 200

PART IV—STATE FLEXIBILITY TO ESTABLISH ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS 201

Sec. 1331. State flexibility to establish basic health programs for low-income individuals 201

not eligible for Medicaid.

Sec. 1332. Waiver for State innovation. 212

Sec. 1333. Provisions relating to offering of plans in more than one State. 219

PART V—REINSURANCE AND RISK ADJUSTMENT 226

Sec. 1341. Transitional reinsurance program for individual and small group 226

markets in each State.

Sec. 1342. Establishment of risk corridors for plans in individual and small 233

group markets.

Sec. 1343. Risk adjustment. 236

Subtitle E—Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans 238

PART I—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS 238

SUBPART A—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST-SHARING REDUCTIONS 238

Sec. 1401. Refundable tax credit providing premium assistance for coverage 238

under a qualified health plan.

Sec. 1402. Reduced cost-sharing for individuals enrolling in qualified health 259

plans.

SUBPART B—ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 269

4

Sec. 1411. Procedures for determining eligibility for Exchange participation, 269

premium tax credits and reduced cost-sharing , and individual

responsibility exemptions.

Sec. 1412. Advance determination and payment of premium tax credits and 290

cost-sharing reductions.

Sec. 1413. Streamlining of procedures for enrollment through an exchange and 295

State Medicaid, CHIP, and health subsidy programs.

Sec. 1414. Disclosures to carry out eligibility requirements for certain programs. 302

Sec. 1415. Premium tax credit and cost-sharing reduction payments disregarded 306

for Federal and Federally-assisted programs.

PART II—SMALL BUSINESS TAX CREDIT 307

Sec. 1421. Credit for employee health insurance expenses of small businesses. 307

Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for Health Care 320

PART I—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY 320

Sec. 1501. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. 320

Sec. 1502. Reporting of health insurance coverage. 340

PART II—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES 346

Sec. 1511. Automatic enrollment for employees of large employers. 346

Sec. 1512. Employer requirement to inform employees of coverage options. 347

Sec. 1513. Shared responsibility for employers. 348

Sec. 1514. Reporting of employer health insurance coverage. 357

Sec. 1515. Offering of Exchange-participating qualified health plans through 362

cafeteria plans.

Subtitle G—Miscellaneous Provisions 364

Sec. 1551. Definitions. 364

Sec. 1552. Transparency in government. 364

Sec. 1553. Prohibition against discrimination on assisted suicide. 364

Sec. 1554. Access to therapies. 366

Sec. 1555. Freedom not to participate in Federal health insurance programs. 367

Sec. 1556. Equity for certain eligible survivors. 367

Sec. 1557. Nondiscrimination. 368

Sec. 1558. Protections for employees. 369

Sec. 1559. Oversight. 371

Sec. 1560. Rules of construction. 371

Sec. 1561. Health information technology enrollment standards and protocols. 373

Sec. 1562. Conforming amendments. 377

TITLE II—ROLE OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS 396

Subtitle A—Improved Access to Medicaid 396

Sec. 2001. Medicaid coverage for the lowest income populations. 396

Sec. 2002. Income eligibility for nonelderly determined using modified gross income. 418

Sec. 2003. Requirement to offer premium assistance for employer-sponsored insurance. 427

Sec. 2004. Medicaid coverage for former foster care children. 428

Sec. 2005. Payments to territories. 430

5

Sec. 2006. Special adjustment to FMAP determination for certain States recovering 432

from a major disaster.

Sec. 2007. Medicaid Improvement Fund rescission. 436

Subtitle B—Enhanced Support for the Children’s Health Insurance Program 436

Sec. 2101. Additional federal financial participation for CHIP. 436

Sec. 2102. Technical corrections. 442

Subtitle C—Medicaid and CHIP Enrollment Simplification 445

Sec. 2201. Enrollment Simplification and coordination with State Health Insurance 445

Exchanges.

Sec. 2202. Permitting hospitals to make presumptive eligibility determinations 451

for all Medicaid eligible populations.

Subtitle D—Improvements to Medicaid Services 453

Sec. 2301. Coverage for freestanding birth center services. 453

Sec. 2302. Concurrent care for children. 456

Sec. 2303. State eligibility option for family planning services. 457

Sec. 2304. Clarification of definition of medical assistance. 466

Subtitle E—New Options for States to Provide Long-Term Services and

Supports 466

Sec. 2401. Community First Choice Option. 466

Sec. 2402. Removal of barriers to providing home and community-based services. 479

Sec. 2403. Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration. 488

Sec. 2404. Protection for recipients of home and community-based services 489

against spousal impoverishment.

Sec. 2405. Funding to expand State Aging and Disability Resource Centers. 490

Sec. 2406. Sense of the Senate regarding long-term care. 490

Subtitle F—Medicaid Prescription Drug Coverage 492

Sec. 2501. Prescription drug rebates. 492

Sec. 2502. Elimination of exclusion of coverage of certain drugs. 502

Sec. 2503. Providing adequate pharmacy reimbursement. 503

Subtitle G—Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments 510

Sec. 2551. Disproportionate share hospital payments. 510

Subtitle H—Improved Coordination for Dual Eligible Beneficiaries 515

Sec. 2601. 5-year period for demonstration projects. 515

Sec. 2602. Providing Federal coverage and payment coordination for dual eligible 517

beneficiaries.

Subtitle I—Improving the Quality of Medicaid for Patients and Providers 522

Sec. 2701. Adult health quality measures. 522

Sec. 2702. Payment Adjustment for Health Care-Acquired Conditions. 526

Sec. 2703. State option to provide health homes for enrollees with chronic conditions. 528

Sec. 2704. Demonstration project to evaluate integrated care around a hospitalization. 538

6

Sec. 2705. Medicaid Global Payment System Demonstration Project. 542

Sec. 2706. Pediatric Accountable Care Organization Demonstration Project. 544

Sec. 2707. Medicaid emergency psychiatric demonstration project. 547

Subtitle J—Improvements to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access 553

Commission (MACPAC)

Sec. 2801. MACPAC assessment of policies affecting all Medicaid beneficiaries. 553

Subtitle K—Protections for American Indians and Alaska Natives 565

Sec. 2901. Special rules relating to Indians. 565

Sec. 2902. Elimination of sunset for reimbursement for all medicare part B 567

services furnished by certain indian hospitals and clinics.

Subtitle L—Maternal and Child Health Services 568

Sec. 2951. Maternal, infant, and early childhood home visiting programs. 568

Sec. 2952. Support, education, and research for postpartum depression. 595

Sec. 2953. Personal responsibility education. 604

Sec. 2954. Restoration of funding for abstinence education. 618

Sec. 2955. Inclusion of information about the importance of having a health 619

care power of attorney in transition planning for children aging

out of foster care and independent living programs.

TITLE III—IMPROVING THE QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF

HEALTH CARE 621

Subtitle A—Transforming the Health Care Delivery System 621

PART I—LINKING PAYMENT TO QUALITY OUTCOMES UNDER THE

MEDICARE PROGRAM 621

Sec. 3001. Hospital Value-Based purchasing program. 622

Sec. 3002. Improvements to the physician quality reporting system. 652

Sec. 3003. Improvements to the physician feedback program. 658

Sec. 3004. Quality reporting for long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation

hospitals, and hospice programs. 663

Sec. 3005. Quality reporting for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals. 673

Sec. 3006. Plans for a Value-Based purchasing program for skilled nursing facilities

and home health agencies. 676

Sec. 3007. Value-based payment modifier under the physician fee schedule. 680

Sec. 3008. Payment adjustment for conditions acquired in hospitals. 687

PART II—NATIONAL STRATEGY TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE QUALITY 692

Sec. 3011. National strategy. 692

Sec. 3012. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality. 699

Sec. 3013. Quality measure development. 702

Sec. 3014. Quality measurement. 709

Sec. 3015. Data collection; public reporting. 717

PART III—ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OF NEW PATIENT CARE MODELS 723

Sec. 3021. Establishment of Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation

within CMS. 723

Sec. 3022. Medicare shared savings program. 739

Sec. 3023. National pilot program on payment bundling. 751

7

Sec. 3024. Independence at home demonstration program. 764

Sec. 3025. Hospital readmissions reduction program. 775

Sec. 3026. Community-Based Care Transitions Program. 789

Sec. 3027. Extension of gainsharing demonstration. 795

Subtitle B—Improving Medicare for Patients and Providers 796

PART I—ENSURING BENEFICIARY ACCESS TO PHYSICIAN CARE AND OTHER

SERVICES 796

Sec. 3101. Increase in the physician payment update. 796

Sec. 3102. Extension of the work geographic index floor and revisions to the 797

practice expense geographic adjustment under the Medicare

physician fee schedule.

Sec. 3103. Extension of exceptions process for Medicare therapy caps. 801

Sec. 3104. Extension of payment for technical component of certain physician 801

pathology services.

Sec. 3105. Extension of ambulance add-ons. 802

Sec. 3106. Extension of certain payment rules for long-term care hospital services 803

and of moratorium on the establishment of certain hospitals

and facilities.

Sec. 3107. Extension of physician fee schedule mental health add-on. 803

Sec. 3108. Permitting physician assistants to order post-Hospital extended care 803

services.

Sec. 3109. Exemption of certain pharmacies from accreditation requirements. 804

Sec. 3110. Part B special enrollment period for disabled TRICARE beneficiaries. 808

Sec. 3111. Payment for bone density tests. 810

Sec. 3112. Revision to the Medicare Improvement Fund. 813

Sec. 3113. Treatment of certain complex diagnostic laboratory tests. 813

Sec. 3114. Improved access for certified nurse-midwife services. 816

PART II—RURAL PROTECTIONS 817

Sec. 3121. Extension of outpatient hold harmless provision. 817

Sec. 3122. Extension of Medicare reasonable costs payments for certain clinical 818

diagnostic laboratory tests furnished to hospital patients in certain

rural areas.

Sec. 3123. Extension of the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program. 818

Sec. 3124. Extension of the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program. 821

Sec. 3125. Temporary improvements to the Medicare inpatient hospital payment 822

adjustment for low-volume hospitals.

Sec. 3126. Improvements to the demonstration project on community health integration 824

models in certain rural counties.

Sec. 3127. MedPAC study on adequacy of Medicare payments for health care 825

providers serving in rural areas.

Sec. 3128. Technical correction related to critical access hospital services. 826

Sec. 3129. Extension of and revisions to Medicare rural hospital flexibility program. 826

PART III—IMPROVING PAYMENT ACCURACY 828

Sec. 3131. Payment adjustments for home health care. 828

Sec. 3132. Hospice reform. 836

Sec. 3133. Improvement to medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) 842

payments.

8

Sec. 3134. Misvalued codes under the physician fee schedule. 846

Sec. 3135. Modification of equipment utilization factor for advanced imaging 852

services.

Sec. 3136. Revision of payment for power-driven wheelchairs. 857

Sec. 3137. Hospital wage index improvement. 858

Sec. 3138. Treatment of certain cancer hospitals. 861

Sec. 3139. Payment for biosimilar biological products. 863

Sec. 3140. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration program. 865

Sec. 3141. Application of budget neutrality on a national basis in the calculation 867

of the Medicare hospital wage index floor.

Sec. 3142. HHS study on urban Medicare-dependent hospitals. 867

Subtitle C—Provisions Relating to Part C 869

Sec. 3201. Medicare Advantage payment. 869

Sec. 3202. Benefit protection and simplification. 903

Sec. 3203. Application of coding intensity adjustment during MA payment 908

transition.

Sec. 3204. Simplification of annual beneficiary election periods. 909

Sec. 3205. Extension for specialized MA plans for special needs individuals. 911

Sec. 3206. Extension of reasonable cost contracts. 918

Sec. 3207. Technical correction to MA private fee-for-service plans. 918

Sec. 3208. Making senior housing facility demonstration permanent. 919

Sec. 3209. Authority to deny plan bids. 920

Sec. 3210. Development of new standards for certain Medigap plans. 921

Subtitle D—Medicare Part D Improvements for Prescription Drug

Plans and MA–PD Plans 923

Sec. 3301. Medicare coverage gap discount program. 923

Sec. 3302. Improvement in determination of Medicare part D low-income 943

benchmark premium.

Sec. 3303. Voluntary de minimis policy for subsidy eligible individuals under 943

prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans.

Sec. 3304. Special rule for widows and widowers regarding eligibility for low income 945

assistance.

Sec. 3305. Improved information for subsidy eligible individuals reassigned to 946

prescription drug plans and MA–PD plans.

Sec. 3306. Funding outreach and assistance for low-income programs. 947

Sec. 3307. Improving formulary requirements for prescription drug plans and 950

MA–PD plans with respect to certain categories or classes of drugs.

Sec. 3308. Reducing part D premium subsidy for high-income beneficiaries. 952

Sec. 3309. Elimination of cost sharing for certain dual eligible individuals. 961

Sec. 3310. Reducing wasteful dispensing of outpatient prescription drugs in 962

long-term care facilities under prescription drug plans and

MA–PD plans.

Sec. 3311. Improved Medicare prescription drug plan and MA–PD plan complaint 963

system.

Sec. 3312. Uniform exceptions and appeals process for prescription drug plans 964

and MA–PD plans.

Sec. 3313. Office of the Inspector General studies and reports. 965

Sec. 3314. Including costs incurred by AIDS drug assistance programs and Indian 970

Health Service in providing prescription drugs toward the

annual out-of-pocket threshold under part D.

Sec. 3315. Immediate reduction in coverage gap in 2010. 972

9

Subtitle E—Ensuring Medicare Sustainability 974

Sec. 3401. Revision of certain market basket updates and incorporation of productivity 974

improvements into market basket updates that do not

already incorporate such improvements.

Sec. 3402. Temporary adjustment to the calculation of part B premiums. 999

Sec. 3403. Independent Medicare Advisory Board. 1,000

Subtitle F—Health Care Quality Improvements 1,053

Sec. 3501. Health care delivery system research; Quality improvement technical 1,053

assistance.

Sec. 3502. Establishing community health teams to support the patient-centered 1,067

medical home.

Sec. 3503. Medication management services in treatment of chronic disease. 1,075

Sec. 3504. Design and implementation of regionalized systems for emergency 1,081

care.

Sec. 3505. Trauma care centers and service availability. 1,091

Sec. 3506. Program to facilitate shared decision making. 1,105

Sec. 3507. Presentation of prescription drug benefit and risk information. 1,113

Sec. 3508. Demonstration program to integrate quality improvement and patient 1,115

safety training into clinical education of health professionals.

Sec. 3509. Improving women’s health. 1,118

Sec. 3510. Patient navigator program. 1,132

Sec. 3511. Authorization of appropriations. 1,133

TITLE IV—PREVENTION OF CHRONIC DISEASE AND IMPROVING 1,134

PUBLIC HEALTH

Subtitle A—Modernizing Disease Prevention and Public Health Systems 1,134

Sec. 4001. National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council. 1,134

Sec. 4002. Prevention and Public Health Fund. 1,141

Sec. 4003. Clinical and community preventive services. 1,142

Sec. 4004. Education and outreach campaign regarding preventive benefits. 1,150

Subtitle B—Increasing Access to Clinical Preventive Services 1,156

Sec. 4101. School-based health centers. 1,156

Sec. 4102. Oral healthcare prevention activities. 1,167

Sec. 4103. Medicare coverage of annual wellness visit providing a personalized 1,174

prevention plan.

Sec. 4104. Removal of barriers to preventive services in Medicare. 1,184

Sec. 4105. Evidence-based coverage of preventive services in Medicare. 1,189

Sec. 4106. Improving access to preventive services for eligible adults in Medicaid. 1,190

Sec. 4107. Coverage of comprehensive tobacco cessation services for pregnant 1,192

women in Medicaid.

Sec. 4108. Incentives for prevention of chronic diseases in Medicaid. 1,195

Subtitle C—Creating Healthier Communities 1,203

Sec. 4201. Community transformation grants. 1,203

Sec. 4202. Healthy aging, living well; evaluation of community-based prevention 1,209

and wellness programs for Medicare beneficiaries.

10

Sec. 4203. Removing barriers and improving access to wellness for individuals 1,220

with disabilities.

Sec. 4204. Immunizations. 1,221

Sec. 4205. Nutrition labeling of standard menu items at chain restaurants. 1,228

Sec. 4206. Demonstration project concerning individualized wellness plan. 1,237

Sec. 4207. Reasonable break time for nursing mothers. 1,239

Subtitle D—Support for Prevention and Public Health Innovation 1,240

Sec. 4301. Research on optimizing the delivery of public health services. 1,240

Sec. 4302. Understanding health disparities: data collection and analysis. 1,241

Sec. 4303. CDC and employer-based wellness programs. 1,252

Sec. 4304. Epidemiology-Laboratory Capacity Grants. 1,255

Sec. 4305. Advancing research and treatment for pain care management. 1,257

Sec. 4306. Funding for Childhood Obesity Demonstration Project. 1,265

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Provisions 1,265

Sec. 4401. Sense of the Senate concerning CBO scoring. 1,265

Sec. 4402. Effectiveness of Federal health and wellness initiatives. 1,265

TITLE V—HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE 1,266

Subtitle A—Purpose and Definitions 1,266

Sec. 5001. Purpose. 1,266

Sec. 5002. Definitions. 1,267

Subtitle B—Innovations in the Health Care Workforce 1,278

Sec. 5101. National health care workforce commission. 1,278

Sec. 5102. State health care workforce development grants. 1,297

Sec. 5103. Health care workforce assessment. 1,309

Subtitle C—Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce 1,316

Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds. 1,316

Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program. 1,318

Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs. 1,319

Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs. 1,324

Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs. 1,329

Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs. 1,331

Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps. 1,333

Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics. 1,334

Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned Corps. 1,336

Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps. 1,336

Subtitle D—Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training 1,339

Sec. 5301. Training in family medicine, general internal medicine,

general pediatrics, and physician assistantship. 1,339

Sec. 5302. Training opportunities for direct care workers. 1,346

Sec. 5303. Training in general, pediatric, and public health dentistry. 1,349

Sec. 5304. Alternative dental health care providers demonstration project. 1,355

Sec. 5305. Geriatric education and training; career awards;

comprehensive geriatric education. 1,359

Sec. 5306. Mental and behavioral health education and training grants. 1,368

11

Sec. 5307. Cultural competency, prevention, and public health and individuals 1,374

with disabilities training.

Sec. 5308. Advanced nursing education grants. 1,377

Sec. 5309. Nurse education, practice, and retention grants. 1,378

Sec. 5310. Loan repayment and scholarship program. 1,382

Sec. 5311. Nurse faculty loan program. 1,384

Sec. 5312. Authorization of appropriations for parts B through D of Title VIII. 1,389

Sec. 5313. Grants to promote the community health workforce. 1,389

Sec. 5314. Fellowship training in public health. 1,395

Sec. 5315. United States Public Health Sciences Track. 1,397

Subtitle E—Supporting the Existing Health Care Workforce 1,411

Sec. 5401. Centers of excellence. 1,411

Sec. 5402. Health care professionals training for diversity. 1,416

Sec. 5403. Interdisciplinary, community-based linkages. 1,417

Sec. 5404. Workforce diversity grants. 1,430

Sec. 5405. Primary care extension program. 1,431

Subtitle F—Strengthening Primary Care and Other Workforce Improvements 1,440

Sec. 5501. Expanding access to primary care services and general surgery services. 1,440

Sec. 5502. Medicare Federally qualified health center improvements. 1,446

Sec. 5503. Distribution of additional residency positions. 1,449

Sec. 5504. Counting resident time in outpatient settings and allowing flexibility 1,458

for jointly operated residency training programs.

Sec. 5505. Rules for counting resident time for didactic and scholarly activities 1,461

and other activities.

Sec. 5506. Preservation of resident cap positions from closed hospitals. 1,465

Sec. 5507. Demonstration projects To address health professions workforce 1,469

needs; extension of family-to-family health information centers.

Sec. 5508. Increasing teaching capacity. 1,485

Sec. 5509. Graduate nurse education demonstration. 1,500

Subtitle G—Improving Access to Health Care Services 1,508

Sec. 5601. Spending for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). 1,508

Sec. 5602. Negotiated rulemaking for development of methodology and criteria 1,510

for designating medically underserved populations and health

professions shortage areas.

Sec. 5603. Reauthorization of the Wakefield Emergency Medical Services for 1,514

Children Program.

Sec. 5604. Co-locating primary and specialty care in community-based mental 1,515

health settings.

Sec. 5605. Key National indicators. 1,518

Subtitle H—General Provisions 1,528

Sec. 5701. Reports. 1,528

TITLE VI—TRANSPARENCY AND PROGRAM INTEGRITY 1,529

Subtitle A—Physician Ownership and Other Transparency 1,529

Sec. 6001. Limitation on Medicare exception to the prohibition

on certain physician referrals for hospitals. 1,529

12

Sec. 6002. Transparency reports and reporting of physician 1,542

ownership or investment interests.

Sec. 6003. Disclosure requirements for in-office ancillary services exception to 1,564

the prohibition on physician self-referral for certain imaging services.

Sec. 6004. Prescription drug sample transparency. 1,564

Sec. 6005. Pharmacy benefit managers transparency requirements. 1,567

Subtitle B—Nursing Home Transparency and Improvement 1,571

PART I—IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF INFORMATION 1,571

Sec. 6101. Required disclosure of ownership and additional disclosable parties 1,571

information.

Sec. 6102. Accountability requirements for skilled nursing facilities and nursing 1,579

facilities.

Sec. 6103. Nursing home compare Medicare website. 1,585

Sec. 6104. Reporting of expenditures. 1,603

Sec. 6105. Standardized complaint form. 1,605

Sec. 6106. Ensuring staffing accountability. 1,607

Sec. 6107. GAO study and report on Five-Star Quality Rating System. 1,609

PART II—TARGETING ENFORCEMENT 1610

Sec. 6111. Civil money penalties. 1,610

Sec. 6112. National independent monitor demonstration project. 1,619

Sec. 6113. Notification of facility closure. 1,625

Sec. 6114. National demonstration projects on culture change and use of information 1,628

technology in nursing homes.

PART III—IMPROVING STAFF TRAINING 1,630

Sec. 6121. Dementia and abuse prevention training. 1,630

Subtitle C—Nationwide Program for National and State Background Checks 1,632

on Direct Patient Access Employees of Long-term Care Facilities and Providers

Sec. 6201. Nationwide program for National and State background checks on 1,632

direct patient access employees of long-term care facilities and

providers.

Subtitle D—Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 1,648

Sec. 6301. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research. 1,648

Sec. 6302. Federal coordinating council for comparative effectiveness research. 1,702

Subtitle E—Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP Program Integrity Provisions 1,703

Sec. 6401. Provider screening and other enrollment requirements under Medicare, 1,703

Medicaid, and CHIP.

Sec. 6402. Enhanced Medicare and Medicaid program integrity provisions. 1,720

Sec. 6403. Elimination of duplication between the Healthcare Integrity and 1,747

Protection Data Bank and the National Practitioner Data

Bank.

Sec. 6404. Maximum period for submission of Medicare claims reduced to not 1,760

more than 12 months.

13

Sec. 6405. Physicians who order items or services required to be Medicare enrolled 1,762

physicians or eligible professionals.

Sec. 6406. Requirement for physicians to provide documentation on referrals to 1,764

programs at high risk of waste and abuse.

Sec. 6407. Face to face encounter with patient required before physicians may 1,765

certify eligibility for home health services or durable medical

equipment under Medicare.

Sec. 6408. Enhanced penalties. 1,768

Sec. 6409. Medicare self-referral disclosure protocol. 1,773

Sec. 6410. Adjustments to the Medicare durable medical equipment, prosthetics, 1,775

orthotics, and supplies competitive acquisition program.

Sec. 6411. Expansion of the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program. 1,777

Subtitle F—Additional Medicaid Program Integrity Provisions 1,778

Sec. 6501. Termination of provider participation under Medicaid if terminated 1,783

under Medicare or other State plan.

Sec. 6502. Medicaid exclusion from participation relating to certain ownership, 1,783

control, and management affiliations.

Sec. 6503. Billing agents, clearinghouses, or other alternate payees required to 1,784

Sec. 6504. Requirement to report expanded set of data elements under MMIS 1,785

to detect fraud and abuse.

Sec. 6505. Prohibition on payments to institutions or entities located outside of 1,786

the United States.

Sec. 6506. Overpayments. 1,786

Sec. 6507. Mandatory State use of national correct coding initiative. 1,788

Sec. 6508. General effective date. 1,790

Subtitle G—Additional Program Integrity Provisions 1,791

Sec. 6601. Prohibition on false statements and representations. 1,791

Sec. 6602. Clarifying definition. 1,793

Sec. 6603. Development of model uniform report form. 1,793

Sec. 6604. Applicability of State law to combat fraud and abuse. 1,794

Sec. 6605. Enabling the Department of Labor to issue administrative summary 1,795

cease and desist orders and summary seizures orders against

plans that are in financially hazardous condition.

Sec. 6606. MEWA plan registration with Department of Labor. 1,797

Sec. 6607. Permitting evidentiary privilege and confidential communications. 1,797

Subtitle H—Elder Justice Act 1,798

Sec. 6701. Short title of subtitle. 1,798

Sec. 6702. Definitions. 1,799

Sec. 6703. Elder Justice. 1,799

Subtitle I—Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice 1,858

Sec. 6801. Sense of the Senate regarding medical malpractice. 1,858

TITLE VII—IMPROVING ACCESS TO INNOVATIVE MEDICAL 1,859

THERAPIES

Subtitle A—Biologics Price Competition and Innovation 1,859

Sec. 7001. Short title. 1,859

Sec. 7002. Approval pathway for biosimilar biological products. 1,859

14

Sec. 7003. Savings. 1,906

Subtitle B—More Affordable Medicines for Children and Underserved 1,906

Communities

Sec. 7101. Expanded participation in 340B program. 1,906

Sec. 7102. Improvements to 340B program integrity. 1,913

Sec. 7103. GAO study to make recommendations on improving the 340B program. 1,924

TITLE VIII—CLASS ACT 1,925

Sec. 8001. Short title of title. 1,925

Sec. 8002. Establishment of national voluntary insurance program for purchasing 1,925

community living assistance services and support.

TITLE IX—REVENUE PROVISIONS 1,979

Subtitle A—Revenue Offset Provisions 1,979

Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage. 1,979

Sec. 9002. Inclusion of cost of employer-sponsored health coverage on W–2. 1,996

Sec. 9003. Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin. 1,997

Sec. 9004. Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs and Archer 1,998

MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses.

Sec. 9005. Limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria 1,999

plans.

Sec. 9006. Expansion of information reporting requirements. 1,999

Sec. 9007. Additional requirements for charitable hospitals. 2,001

Sec. 9008. Imposition of annual fee on branded prescription pharmaceutical 2,010

manufacturers and importers.

Sec. 9009. Imposition of annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers. 2,020

Sec. 9010. Imposition of annual fee on health insurance providers. 2,026

Sec. 9011. Study and report of effect on veterans health care. 2,033

Sec. 9012. Elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D 2,034

subsidy.

Sec. 9013. Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses. 2,034

Sec. 9014. Limitation on excessive remuneration paid by certain health insurance 2,035

providers.

Sec. 9015. Additional hospital insurance tax on high-income taxpayers. 2,040

Sec. 9016. Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations. 2,044

Sec. 9017. Excise tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures. 2,045

Subtitle B—Other Provisions 2,047

Sec. 9021. Exclusion of health benefits provided by Indian tribal governments. 2,047

Sec. 9022. Establishment of simple cafeteria plans for small businesses. 2,050

Sec. 9023. Qualifying therapeutic discovery project credit 2,057

(Note – Page 2074 is the last page of the document.)

(11/19/09)

_____________________________

Text of HR 3590: http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

Traditional Marriage Advocates – including Democratic Bill Owens in NY-23 – Won on Election Night

Peterlab — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:59:05 +0000

New Jersey's new governor-elect Chris Christie, a Republican, campaigned against homosexual "marriage" -- and beat two pro-"gay marriage" opponents in a deep blue state.

By Peter LaBarbera

Social conservatives did quite well on Tuesday. Not only did traditional marriage win in Maine, but in several high-profile races, such as New Jersey’s governor’s race, the pro-traditional-marriage candidate won. In Virginia, Republican Ken Cuccinelli won the race for attorney general handily despite being smeared as a “bigot” by the powerful Washington Post for his principled opposition to granting “rights” based on unnatural behavior.

The victorious candidate for governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, is a strong pro-family, pro-life conservative who helped enact legal protections for the definition of marriage in the state. The following is from his website:

Bob McDonnell believes marriage is the union between one man and one woman. As a legislator, Bob McDonnell was chief sponsor and author of a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage (Chief Patron, HJ 187, 2004). As Attorney General, Bob supported Virginia’s marriage amendment and wrote an official opinion explaining that it would not affect the current legal rights of unmarried persons.

In the House of Delegates, Bob McDonnell was twice named “Legislator of the Year” by the Virginia Family Foundation. In his 2005 race for Attorney General, Bob was honored to receive the endorsement of the Virginia Society for Human Life.

Christie ran on traditional marriage

In New Jersey, GOP victor Chris Christie was the only one of three candidates to oppose homosexual “marriage,” and sent out a mailer on that issue (this “gay” Advocate account sums it up). The Advocate reported Nov. 2:

The New Jersey legislature is widely expected to vote on a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the lame-duck session following the election. Governor Corzine has pledged to sign the bill. Christie opposes marriage equality.

Even in the only race that the White House likes to talk about — Democrat Bill Owens’ victory in the heated NY-23 Congressional race (he was endorsed by the GOP’s exiting moderate liberal candidate, Dede Scozzafava) — the news is not good for “same-sex-”marriage” advocates. Turns out that Owens, running in upstate New York, opposed allowing homosexuals to “marry.” However, he appears to support “civil unions.” See HERE and HERE.

The New York Observer reports:

On the wedge issue of same-sex marriage, Owens is to the right of his Republican opponent Scozzafava. He does not support full marriage–he opposes any federal action on the “states rights issue”–telling me, “I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process.”

Transcript of Obama’s Speech to the Gay Lobby Group Human Rights Campaign

Peterlab — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:02:32 +0000

The following is President Obama’s speech to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a homosexual activist lobby group, as the keynote speaker at HRC’s annual fund-raising dinner. Source: White House press office. For more on AFTAH’s response to the speech — in which Obama asserts that homosexual relationships are as “admirable” as normal, male-female relationships, click HERE. (Click on photo from HRC website (left) to enlarge.)

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release October 10, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER

Walter E. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.
8:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, you’re making me blush. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who’s doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC. (Applause.) To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC. (Applause.) Representative Patrick Kennedy. (Applause.) David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa. (Applause.) John Berry, our Director of OPM, who’s doing a great job. (Applause.) Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality. (Applause.) Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank. (Applause.) And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who’s in the house. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I’ve made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That’s not easy. For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship — (applause) — for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — (applause) — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need. (Applause.) And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America. (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now. And I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (Applause.) For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. (Applause.) We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Applause.)

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole. (Applause.) You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures. You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job. You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance. You’re soldiers. You are neighbors. You are friends. And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future. (Applause.)

So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with. But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems. And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach. (Applause.)

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. (Applause.) 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. (Applause.) You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son. (Applause.)

This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. (Applause.) They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment. (Applause.) Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. (Applause.) And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law. (Applause.)

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation. (Applause.) And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated. And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear. Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love. (Applause.)

But we know there’s far more work to do. We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. (Applause.) For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (Applause.)

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. (Applause.) We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future. (Applause.) We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. (Applause.) We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you. (Applause.)

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country. And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation. But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we can; I believe we will. (Applause.)

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. (Applause.) I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. (Applause.) And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law. It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another. It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment. It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes: to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love — (applause) — to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger. (Applause.)

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences. That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message. (Applause.) And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America. (Applause.)

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford. It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police. Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids. Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose. So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard. And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.” (Laughter.) Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know. Why are you bothering him?” (Applause.)

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York. She carried a sign that stated her support. People cheered. Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents. And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well. At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up. But slowly, interest grew. Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS. But the cause endured. Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays — (applause) — has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person. I didn’t even cross the street against the light.” (Laughter.) “But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.” (Applause.)

That’s the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit. (Applause.)

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person. For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow. These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today. (Applause.) These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable. That’s the promise of America, HRC. That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill. (Applause.) Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Thank you for the work you’re doing. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:35 P.M. EDT

Homosexual Agenda Bills in Congress 2009

Peterlab — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:07:01 +0000

We apologize for the coding errors in yesterday’s AFTAH e-mail about President Obama’s “Family Day” promotion of “same-sex” (homosexual) parenting and are working to fix the problem.

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

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

Knight: New ENDA Bill ‘Turns Private Sin into a Public Right’

Peterlab — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 02:47:43 +0000

From AFA’s One News Now; sign up for ONN’s daily news briefs HERE

Aug. 7, 2009

A conservative Christian leader says a Senate bill that would ban job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity “turns private sin into a public right.”

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) has introduced a new version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would add perceived and actual sexual orientation and gender identity to categories protected under federal law against discrimination [read homosexual newspaper Washington Blade account of Merkley's ENDA bill HERE]. Proponents of the legislation call it a “fully inclusive” ENDA because it contains “gender identity” in the language. Democrats have been divided over whether the legislation should protect transsexuals and cross-dressers in addition to homosexuals.

Robert Knight (left), the senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, says the Merkley ENDA bill is more dangerous than previous versions because it includes gender identity.

“It takes away the idea that sex is created by God in two different categories — male and female — and it makes it entirely a radical, self-determined persona. The larger problem of this is it turns private sin into a public right,” he contends. “It puts Christian and Jewish employers on the defensive, saying that if you don’t give in and accord civil-rights privileges based on behavior that you know is sinful, ‘We’re coming after you. We’re going to fine you. We’re going to punish you.’”

According to Knight, the bill “criminalizes God’s biblical morality in the workplace.”

Ted Kennedy Played Crucial Role in Blocking Massachusetts Vote on Marriage Amendment

Peterlab — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:12:40 +0000

Homosexual lobby reveals intensive, behind-the-scenes Kennedy role in thwarting popular vote

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

_________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

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

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

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

MassResistance reports:

__________________________________________

August 28, 2009

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

By Brian Camenker

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

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

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

Here’s what Solomon told Bay Windows:

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

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

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

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

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

Click HERE to read the entire Bay Windows article

Kept secret until now

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

Flood of praise in Boston media

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

Barack Obama’s Doublespeak on ‘Gay Marriage’ — Now He Takes on DOMA

Peterlab — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:43:24 +0000

State senate candidate Obama unequivocally supported legalizing same-sex “marriage” in 1996

Obama Was For “Same-Sex Marriage” (and he Still Is): Above is a graphic that appeared in the Chicago homosexual newspaper Windy City Times — showing a “gay” questionnaire revealing Barack Obama’s explicit support for “legalizing same-sex marriage,” as a candidate for Illinois State Senate in 1996. Obama would later adapt his position because “strategically,” he understood that Republicans would use his radical support for homosexual “marriage” against him. Click on graphic to enlarge.

By Peter LaBarbera

Barack Obama sure has a strange way of showing his much-touted support for traditional “marriage.” On Monday, Obama’s Justice Department filed a legal brief against DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by the last Democrat to occupy the Oval Office: Bill Clinton. Weeks before that, Obama’s administration had defended DOMA, setting off a flurry of protests from his gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender-whatever allies.

DOMA — which only Congress can repeal — passed overwhelmingly in 1996 with bipartisan consensus (a mere 14 Democratic Senators voted “No”). It protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.” Its growing unpopularity among Democrats signals the near-complete moral collapse of the party of Harry S Truman, who surely would bristle at the Dems’ current overwhelming support of abortion-on-demand and homosexuality as non-negotiable, litmus-test issues.

In this respect, Obama’s anti-DOMA crusade epitomizes his party’s flight from Judeo-Christian norms and tradition. But then again, who needs the Bible when you’ve got Barack in the White House? In 2007, during the Democratic primary campaign, the Anointed One “corrected” Gen. Peter Pace — the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and old-school Catholic who was naive enough to honestly answer a Chicago Tribune reporter’s question about homosexuals in the military. Gen. Pace said, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” For that apostasy he was angrily denounced by “queer” activist who, like spoiled children, are not used to hearing “No.”

It all went downhill from there for Pace, who was mercilessly maligned by the politically correct thought police, which is to say, the media. Pressed to respond to Gen. Pace, Obama (and Hillary Clinton) proclaimed that to the contrary, homosexuality was “not immoral.”

I wonder if Almighty God got their memo. And when will Barack and the Democrats get around to revising the Ten Commandments?

But redefining sin is child’s play for the all-knowing Theologian in Chief: against all biblical evidence to the contrary, Obama has had the chutzpah to imply that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is a “gay”-affirming text — while dismissing as “obscure” verses in the New Testament Book of Romans that clearly describe homosexual acts as a sign of a self-centered society spiraling downward.

So much arrogance, so little time.

We keep hearing from the media about how incredibly smart Obama is. But if he’s so intelligent, shouldn’t he know that you cannot rationally hold two contradictory positions at the same time? Of course, the Obama-adoring media have allowed him to get away with his cynical double-game — telling voters again and again that he supports traditional marriage as they buried his opposition to DOMA and ignored his subservience to the Gay Lobby.

(By the way, add Bill Clinton and Al Gore to the growing list of Democratic pols who have switched from supporting “civil unions” to outright homosexual “marriage.” This is a study in that “evolving” liberal morality: heck, if you’re going to sell out your Creator, why not go all the way?)

Truth is, the vainglorious Obama is a spectacular phony on “gay marriage,” as he is a poser on social issues and morality in general. (He claims to want to “reduce abortions” even as he championed Planned Parenthood and supports the radical, sweeping “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would eviscerate pro-life reform laws nationwide.) Obama may have drifted rightward and milked the media image of supporting one-man, one-woman marriage to get elected president, but as sure as stimulus dollars are being wasted, in his heart he is for homosexual “marriage” in every way except calling them “marriages.”

Oops. Strike that. On February 15, 1996, then-candidate for Illinois State Senate Barack Obama did come out for legalizing same-sex “marriage,” in responding to a candidate questionnaire. This little tidbit was reported by a Chicago homosexual newspaper — conveniently, after the 2008 election. Obama told the gay newspaper Outlines in 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” No wiggle room there. Moreover, Politico reports, “On another questionnaire the same year, Obama said he would support a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.”

But eight years later, in 2004, in another “gay” newspaper interview, Obama — now running for U.S. Senate — had seen the light on traditional marriage (wink, wink to powerful “gay” friends). Even so, note his highly political — not moral — rationale for opposing “gay marriage” (emphasis added):

Lesbian reporter Tracy Baim: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?
Barack Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. … What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. …

Entrusting the defense of marriage to this fellow would be like entrusting your 80-year-old grandmother to Obama-care for that urgent operation she needs to stay alive. Morality and timeless truths, like grandma, are thrown overboard as the politics of expediency override principle. On marriage, the playbook was obvious for the ambitious chameleon-candidate: running for office in a very liberal Chicago district, Obama pandered to the Democratic Left by strongly supporting full “same-sex marriage.” But years later, a more savvy U.S. Senate candidate Obama needed to jettison his “gay marriage” position lest the common voter figure out that he has a radical social agenda.

Of course, this was perfect training for the strategy that the cunning Obama would use in his successful run for the presidency — playing the role of moderate on a whole host of issues to fool America’s centrist, independent and faith-based voters, only to govern from the left once in office. Granted, he’s hardly the first politician to do that and he won’t be the last. But thankfully, Average American Joes and Janes are finally catching on to the real Obama — the one who plays a dangerous game with transcendent truth while deceiving the public about the real “change” he is pushing for.

Peter LaBarbera is founder and president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org, based outside Chicago, Illinois.

VIDEO: Michelle Obama’s 2008 Speech to the DNC’s Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council

Peterlab — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:51:07 +0000

Calls Prop 8 “divisive,” touts DOMA repeal, links “Selma to Stonewall”

America is getting to know the real Barack Obama — and he’s a lot more radical than a 2008 presidential candidate by the same name. This aggressively pro-homosexual speech by Michelle Obama to the Democratic National Committee’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council (June 27, 2008) had only 56,805 views on YouTube as of August 7, 2009. Most Americans have never seen this side of Michelle Obama, just as most have not seen the side of her husband that celebrated America’s biggest abortion “provider,” Planned Parenthood, in a 2007 campaign speech. (That speech had only 84,875 views on YouTube as of Aug. 7.) Social liberals and “gay” activists will cheer this speech by Michelle; everyone else won’t recognize her vis-à-vis the “apolitical” First Lady described by the national media. (A transcript follows the video; emphasis and web links added.) — Peter LaBarbera

To put it in perspective: timeless truth from that “obscure” passage in the New Testament.–Ed.:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:26-27)

_______________________________________

Incomplete transcript of Michelle Obama speech to DNC’s Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council, June 27, 2008 (emphasis and web links added):

Reprinted from TransGriot website: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2008/06/michelle-obamas-remarks-to-dncs-gay-and.html

Thank you Howard Dean [then Democratic National Committee Chairman], for all your hard work building our party. We are proud to have you as our party Chairman. I want to recognize the members of UNITE HERE Local 6 who are working this event tonight. And thank you all for inviting me to spend some time with you.

I’m honored to be with you in a week that reminds us just how far we’ve come as a country. Five years ago today, the Supreme Court delivered justice with the decision in Lawrence v. Texas that same-sex couples would never again be persecuted through use of criminal law. And on Saturday, we recognize the anniversary of the day people stood up at Stonewall and said “enough.”

These anniversaries remind us that no matter who we are, or where we come from, or what we look like, we are only here because of the brave efforts of those who came before us. That we are all only here because of those who marched and bled and died, from Selma to Stonewall, in a pursuit of that more perfect union that is the promise of this country.

Over the course of this campaign, we’ve seen a fundamental change in the level of political engagement in this country. We’ve seen a renewed sense of possibility and a hunger for change. We’ve seen people of all ages and backgrounds investing time and energy like never before; writing $20, $30, $50 checks; investing for the first time ever in a political candidate. We’ve seen people talking to their neighbors about candidates and issues; working hard to clarify misperceptions; challenging one another to think differently about the world and our place in it.

It’s precisely this type of individual engagement and investment that has been the mission of my husband’s life. Barack has always believed that there is more in this country that unites us than divides us; that our common stories and struggles and values are what make this country great; that meaningful change never happens from the top down but from the bottom up.

I’ll never forget the first time I realized there was something special about Barack. It was nearly 20 years ago this summer. Barack and I were just getting to know one another, and he thought the best way for me to get to know him better was to get a better sense of the work he cared about most — his work as a community organizer.

He took me to a small church basement on the South Side of Chicago, where a group of neighborhood residents were gathered; folks he knew from his years as a community organizer before he went to law school. They were desperate for change. They were regular Americans struggling to build a decent life for themselves and their families. Single mothers living paycheck to paycheck; grandparents raising grandkids despite an income that wouldn’t allow it; men unable to support their families because jobs had disappeared when steel mills closed. Like most Americans, they didn’t want much; they weren’t asking for much: just dignity and respect.

I watched as Barack walked into the room, took off his jacket, rolled up his sleeves, and instantly connected with each and every person in that room. He spoke eloquently of “the world as it is” and “the world as it should be.” He said the key to change is understanding that our job as citizens of this nation is to work hard each and every day to narrow the gap between those two ideas. He explained that we often settle for the world as it is even if it doesn’t reflect our personal values. But he reminded us that it is only through determination and hard work that we slowly make the world as it is and the world as it should be one in the same. His words were powerful not only because they made us believe in him – they challenged each of us to believe in ourselves.

One of the many reasons I’m proud of the way Barack has handled himself in this campaign is that he is still the same man I fell in love with in that church basement. His unyielding belief in that simple idea – closing the gap between the world as it is and the world as it should be – is precisely why he’ll be a President you can be proud of.

Barack is not new to the cause of the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community. It has been a conviction of his career since he was first elected to public office. In his first year in the Illinois State Senate, he cosponsored a bill amending the Illinois Human Rights Act to include protections for LGBT men and women. He worked on that bill for seven years, serving as chief cosponsor and lobbying his colleagues to reject the political expedience of homophobia and make LGBT equality a priority. In 2004, his efforts paid off as that bill finally became law, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, in housing, and in public places.

He’s led on gender-based violence with his work on the Illinois Gender Violence Act, successfully reaching across the aisle to put in place the nation’s strongest law giving the survivors of sexual assault or domestic violence legal remedy against their attackers. He joined his colleagues in fighting to include explicit protections for the LGBT community in that act. He lost that battle, but his efforts brought gender violence in the LGBT community into the political consciousness like never before.

In 2004, after hearing from gay friends and supporters about the hurtful impact of DOMA, Barack went on record during his U.S. Senate race calling for its complete repeal. And as a U.S. Senator, he voted to protect our Constitution from the stain of discrimination by voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Barack’s record is clear. There is so much at stake in this election. The direction of our country hangs in the balance. We are faced with those two clear choices: The world as it is, and the world as it should be. We have to ask ourselves: Are we willing to settle for the world as it is or are we willing to work for the world as it should be?

Despite the extraordinary challenges we face today, we have a candidate who believes that the country is moving in the right direction, despite the inequalities created over the last 8 years.

And then we have Barack Obama, who believes that we must fight for the world as it should be.

A world where together we work to reverse discriminatory laws like DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

A world where LGBT Americans get a fair shake at working hard to get ahead without workplace discrimination.

A world where our federal government fully protects all of us — including LGBT Americans — from hate crimes.

And, a world where our federal laws don’t discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law.

A world that recognizes that equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it’s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. Barack has made crystal clear his commitment to ensuring full equality for LGBT couples. That is why he supports robust civil unions. That is why he has said that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage. And that is why he opposes all divisive and discriminatory constitutional amendments – whether it’s a proposed amendment to the California and Florida Constitutions or the U.S. Constitution. Because the world as it should be rejects discrimination.

But, it’s not just about the positions you take, it’s also about the leadership you provide.

Barack’s got the courage to talk to skeptical audiences; not just friendly ones. That’s why he told a crowd at a rally in Texas that gays and lesbians deserve equality. Now, the crowd got pretty quiet. But Barack said “now, I’m a Christian, and I praise Jesus every Sunday.” And the crowd started cheering. Then he said, “I hear people saying things that I don’t think are very Christian with respect to people who are gay and lesbian.” And you know what? The crowd kept cheering.

That’s why he told evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback church that we need a renewed call to action on HIV and AIDS.

That’s why he went to Ebenezer Baptist Church and said that we need to get over homophobia in the African-American community; that if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll embrace our gay brothers and sisters instead of scorning them. And that’s why he stood up at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and told all of America that we refuse to be divided anymore.

That’s the choice in this election. Between slipping backward and moving forward. Between being timid or being courageous. Between fighting for the world as it should be, or settling for the world as it is.

My husband is running for President to build an America that lives up to the ideals written into our Constitution. We have just come through a historic primary election where a woman and a black man were running to become President of the United States. It hasn’t been painless, but change never is. As I travel this country, I am certain that we have arrived at a moment in our collective history where we are ready to move forward and create the “world as it should be.”

I know which world Barack will fight for each and every day as your President. But he can’t do it alone. As he said in that church basement, change happens when ordinary people are ready to take the reins of their own destiny. He needs you by his side every step of the way. That kind of change won’t be easy. There will be powerful forces who believe that things should stay just the way they are.

That’s where you come in. Your voices of truth and hope and of possibility have to drown out the skeptics and the cynics.

If you stand with my husband; if you reach for what is possible and if you refuse to let this chance get away; we can begin building that better world in November.

Thank you.

U.S. Census Bureau to Count Homosexual ‘Marriages’ — Where Are the Republican Protests?

Peterlab — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:00:49 +0000

Of course, conservative columnist Debbie Schlussel is right below. Keep in mind that the Democratic Party has advanced most homosexual agenda goals — a fact that Republicans could exploit if they weren’t mired in agnosticism as to whether or not they will abide by (and campaign on) their party’s solidly pro-family platform. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com.

Schlussel writes on her website:

We’ve Lost: U.S. Census to Count Gay Marriages

[Aug. 3, 2009] On Friday, the U.S. Census Bureau and its parent, the U.S. Department of Commerce, announced that legally married gay couples (from California pre-Prop 8 and from other states in which it’s legal) will be counted as marriages in the 2010 U.S. Census. But, strangely, you can only find out about this disturbing prospect in the gay media.

Although the federal government left the issue of who can marry to the states, this is a frightening turn, as it essentially transforms the issue into a federal one–very dangerous when liberal Democrats run the show in almost every branch. Today, the U.S. Census Bureau, tomorrow, the IRS and lots of other federal agencies. And, as you probably know, the Census isn’t just used to apportion Congressional districts. It’s used for doling out lots of federal cash.

What’s that rustling sound? The fast revolutions of several Constitutional drafters spinning in their graves. No doubt, the Founding Fathers never intended us to count men “married” to men and women “married” to women when they crafted, Article I, Section 2–the portion of the Constitution requiring that a national census be taken.

Exit Question: Now that we’ve lowered the bar, when do we start counting menages-a-trois as marriages? And will they count as two marriages or one-and-a-half? Most of Hollywood need to know. ….

Click HERE to read more from Debbie Schlussel’s website on the liberal push to get government to recognize sodomitic couples.

Liberty Counsel’s Condemns Sen. Reid’s ‘Bullying Tactics’ on ‘Hate Crimes’ Amendment

Peterlab — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:04:01 +0000

Liberty Counsel Press Release

Hate Crimes Amendment Will Face More Hurdles After Passing Senate in Late Night Vote

July 17, 2009

Senator Harry Reid’s bullying tactics paved the way for the Senate to pass the so-called Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill late last night. The cloture vote taken late last night was 63-28, with every Democrat voting for the amendment, except Senators Byrd (WV) and Kennedy (MA), who were not present. Approval of the cloture motion meant that the hate crimes amendment was adopted.

The hate crimes amendment will not become law unless the $680 billion Defense Authorization bill passes and the amendment is reconciled with the version of the hate crimes bill passed by the House. The Senate Defense Authorization bill includes funding for F-22 jets. President Obama has threatened to veto the Defense bill if it funds the F-22.

Read our News Release for more details.

Call to Action on Hate Crimes

See how your Senator voted and then call their office (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) to express your approval or disapproval of their vote. Call Reid’s office and tell him you disapprove of him burying this amendment in the defense bill and forcing a late night vote. Call Reid’s Majority Leader office at 202-224-5556 and his D.C. Senate office at 202-224-3542.

Watered Down Hate Crimes Measure Advances in Senate

Peterlab — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:53:53 +0000

Dear AFTAH Readers,

A watered-down version of the “hate crimes” amendment passed the Senate last night. I watched on CSPAN as Sen. Brownback (R-KS) offered a successful amendment adopting language from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — protecting all speech except that specifically intended to incite violence. Brownback’s amendment would make it harder for overzealous, pro-homosexual prosecutors to use the “hate crimes” law to suppress moral speech and Bible preaching against homosexuality.

AP reports: “Republicans will have the opportunity to propose several more changes to the hate crimes bill on Monday, but that will not change its status as part of the must-pass defense bill.” The “hate crimes” measure — outrageously attached by the Democrats to a DoD spending bill — remains a dangerous Trojan Horse.

TAKE ACTION: Urge your Senators to challenge other portions of the “hate crimes” amendment, such as language that would make it the first federal law to create federal “civil rights” protections based on gender confusion (”gender identity”). Call Congress at 202-224-3121 or write your Senators through www.congress.org.

Despite the AP’s characterization, “hate crimes” still might not become law as President Obama could veto the defense bill to which it is attached (he objects to some military spending in the bill). Keep checking our website, www.aftah.org, for more details. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; donate online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/

P.S. Remember Arthur Goldberg’s dinner-talk TONIGHT at AFTAH’s office in Carol Stream:

Dinner-Lecture July 17: Arthur Goldberg, Co-Director of JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality), will be the featured speaker at AFTAH’s next dinner lecture on Friday, July 17. Dinner starts at 6:00 PM and Arthur’s talk and Q&A will run from 7:00-9:00. Arthur will be discussing his new book, “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change” [order HERE]. You will not want to miss this informative presentation from a man who — although not ex-”gay” himself — knows firsthand the reality that men and women can leave the homosexual lifestyle because that is his life’s work. RSVP to Angela at aftahangela@gmail.com. AFTAH’s office is at 25W560 Geneva Rd. in Carol Stream, IL (just west of Gary on Geneva Rd.). Donations will be accepted to cover expenses.

Sen. McCain’s Floor Remarks Slamming Majority Leader Reid for Attaching ‘Hate Crimes’ to Defense Bill

Peterlab — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:18:01 +0000

Courtesy Restore America (emphasis theirs):

McCain Exposes Democrats’ ‘Gay’ Political Payoff Priorities over the Best Interests of our Men and Women in Uniform

The following are Sen. John McCain’s floor remarks, July 15, 2009, regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) decision to tack a “hate crimes” amendment (S 909) on to an unrelated defense appropriations bill:

“Mr. McCain: Mr. President, we have just seen, I know there are a lot of other issues that are consuming the interest of my colleagues and the American people such as the confirmation hearings of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the “Help” committee of which I am a member, is reporting out one of the most massive takeovers and expenditures of taxpayers’ dollars in history and we have this bill on the floor and there are other issues so it has probably gone unnoticed we’ve seen another really, if not unprecedented, certainly highly unusual action on the part of the majority.

Frankly, to my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the American people, elections have consequences. What we have just seen is an amendment before this body that I think you could argue is probably of more importance than any other that we consider because it authorizes the measures necessary to preserve the security of this nation, care for the men and women who are serving in the military and future threats that we will face in the 21st century.

So what has happened here is that the majority leader with the agreement of my friend from Michigan who I highly respect and regard have made it clear that their highest priority is not that.

Their highest priority is a hate crimes bill, a hate crimes bill that has nothing to do whatever with defending this nation. Now, my friend from Michigan just complained we haven’t had time for a vote. Of course we haven’t had a time for the vote on the pending amendment because we have been made aware a hate crimes bill, 17 pages, encompassing piece of legislation before this body that has not moved through the judiciary committee, the Appropriate Committee of oversight.

So the majority leader of the United States Senate comes to the floor after prevailing upon the distinguished chairman to withdraw his amendment – an amendment of some consequence, $1.75 billion expenditure and a far more important than even the money, a real confrontation between special interests and the national interests so that we can move to the hate crimes bill. Now, the hate crimes bill is not without controversy, I say. In fact, it’s interesting that on June 16, 2009, the United States Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the Vice President, to the leaders of the Congress, opposing — opposing — the hate crimes bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be made part of the record.

The presiding officer: Without objection.

Mr. McCain: The United States Commission on Civil Rights sends a letter saying Dear Mr. President, Distinguished Senators, we write today to urge you to vote against the Matthew Shepherd Hate Crimes Prevention Act. That’s basically the bill that the majority leader has just inserted into the process of the legislation designed to defend this nation’s national security. And of course there are strong feelings on it.

This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the judiciary committee but more importantly could hang up this bill for a long period. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important — more important than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.

I’m sure the men and women in the military serving in his home state would be interested to know about his priorities. So here we are. Now we will go through – I’m sure the majority leader will file cloture and we’ll go through 30 hours of debate and have another vote and all of this is unnecessary. Why couldn’t we move the Hate Crimes Bill? Remember, this is not a single shot amendment on a small issue. This is a huge issue, the whole issue of hate crimes is a huge issue.

This is a complete abdication of the responsibilities of the judiciary committee but more importantly could hang up this bill for a long period. While we have young Americans fighting and dying in two wars we’re going to take up the hate crimes bill because the majority leader thinks that’s more important — more important than legislation concerning the defense of this nation.

It requires citizens hearings, and debate. But what are we going to do? For reasons that I guess the majority leader can make clear because I don’t get it, wants to put it on the national defense authorization bill and pass it that way. Now, [he will] probably succeed and he’s calling it bipartisan. The last time I checked it has 44 Democrat sponsors and two Republicans. That’s the definition around here of ‘bipartisan’ bills. That’s the way the stimulus package was bipartisan. That’s how the omnibus spending bill was bipartisan.

And I’m confident if the health care reform – “reform” – it will be reasonable in another “bipartisan” fashion. So we’ll have some hours of debate. We’ll have more exacerbated feel ensure between this side of the aisle and that side of the aisle. I would imagine that the hate crimes bill, given the way, the makeup of this body, may even be put on a defense authorization. A huge issue. A huge issue. It will now be placed on a defense authorization bill and passed through the congress and signed by the president. That’s a great disservice to the American people, Mr. President. The American people deserve debate and discussion and hearings and witnesses on this legislation.

They don’t deserve to have a hate crimes bill put on this legislation which has no relation whatever to hate crimes. Now, I’ll probably have a lot more to say about this in the hours ahead but I’ve been around this body a fair amount of time. I’ve watched the defense authorization bill move its way through Congress and occasionally, including at other times. I’ve seen amendments put on the bills which are non germaine. But I haven’t seen the majority leader of the Senate whose responsibility is to move legislation through the Senate -- take a totally nonrelevant, all encompassing controversial piece of legislation and put it on a bill that is as important to the nation’s security as this legislation is. We’re breaking new ground here, Mr. President. Let’s have no doubt about it.

Its one thing to have one member or two or others propose amendments that happen to be their pet project or their pet peeve, sometimes; it’s an entirely different thing, an entirely different thing, and I have never seen it before that the majority leader of the United States Senate comes to the near and introduces an irrelevant piece of legislation that is controversial., that is fraught with implications for this and future generations to a bill that is totally nonrelevant and after 30 hours of debate we’ll have a vote on closing that debate and including it in the legislation. I’m deeply, deeply disappointed. And I would question anyone’s priorities, anyone’s priorities who puts this kind of legislation ahead of the needs of the men and women who are serving our military with bravery, courage, and distinction. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.”

Obama Says Foes of Homosexuality Hold to ‘Worn Arguments and Old Attitudes’

Peterlab — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:34:52 +0000

‘Worn Arguments, Old Attitudes’: That’s how President Obama describes the thinking of millions upon millions of Americans who oppose homosexual behavior [watch his elitist "gay pride" speech HERE.] At a recent Oval Office ceremony, President Obama shakes the hand of Frank Kameny — a hero to homosexual activists but a bigoted extremist to pro-family activists on the receiving end of his intemperate letters. Kameny smears Christian conservatives as “Christianofascists” and says “gay is godly,” even though he’s an atheist. (Kameny also wrote AFTAH that bestiality is OK “as long as the animal doesn’t mind.”) Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all moral-minded Americans must resist Obama’s use of the bully pulpit to undermine timeless truths by advancing the “gay” agenda of turning aberrant and unhealthy sex and gender confusion into “civil rights.” Click on White House photo to enlarge.

_________________________

TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators today to oppose the “Hate Crimes” bill, S 909; then call your Congressman and your Senators and voice your opposition to homosexualizing the armed forces and ENDA — the Employment NonDiscrimination Act, which would compel small businesses to subsidize and reward immoral behavior. Call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or go to www.congress.org.

_________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

So (President) Barack Obama is going to teach us (and by extension, God) a few things about the supposed morality of homosexual relationships? “Audacity” suddenly seems like too small a word for Mr. Obama. A few years ago this fellow was a back-bencher in Springfield, Illinois, unable to summon up the strength of character to vote for a bill designed to protect babies “born alive” through botched abortions. Now he’s President of the greatest and most blessed nation on earth and is so sure of his moral rectitude (or, conversely, cynical of divine absolutes) that he dismisses those “worn arguments and old attitudes” against homosexual behavior — you know, the ones rooted in Genesis in the Old Testament and Romans in the New.

Go HERE to watch the president’s elitist slap at faith-motivated Americans; start watching at the 1:00 minute mark of the speech to homosexual activists celebrating “gay pride month.” A transcript of the speech accompanies the Youtube video.

Who can quantify the arrogance of politicians, whose gargantuan egos lead them to make moral pronouncements that are, theologically and philosophically speaking, way “beyond their pay grade” (to paraphrase the strategically humble Obama)? This is not the first time Obama has played God: in the Democratic primary both he and Hillary Clinton — faced with the comment by Gen. Peter Pace that homosexual acts are immoral and incompatible with miliary service — simply declared that Gen. Pace was wrong because homosexuality is not immoral. Who knew that overturning five millennia of Judeo-Christian teachings was so simple?

Now, with the President using his bully pulpit to promote such ignoble and dubious causes as placing children in homes that are intentionally fatherless or motherless (he champions “gay adoption”), who could blame porn-users, compulsive liars, philanderers, and tax-cheats for lobbying the presumptive Theologian-in-Chief to declare that their misconduct is “not immoral”? (South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford could benefit right about now from a follow-up presidential proclamation declaring July ‘Adulterers Pride Month.’)

But the president is not acting alone. In fact, he’s following a fairly well-established Democratic script (and socially liberal Republicans are not far behind). Remember last year when Al Gore, one-time Southern Baptist, decided that — notwithstanding the inconvenient truth of God’s Word — two men or two women should be able to get “married”? Or, back in the eighties, when once-solid pro-lifer Rep. Dick Gephardt decided that unborn babies didn’t have a right to live after all? (By sheer coincidence, Gephardt’s cruel conversion came just in time for his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.)

We could fill a thousand books with similar Profiles in Cowardice of hollow, unprincipled and yet incredibly self-inflated men who transmit the adulation of politics into the idea that somehow they are above the laws of Nature and Nature’s God. But there is no time for that now. Our task is to resist this one man who could sign legislation that injects open homosexuality into our military, helps destroy the meaning of marriage, compels small businessmen to subsidize homosexuality and gender confusion, and starts America down the path of criminalizing opposition to sexual sin.

Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews — indeed, even tradition-respecting atheists who share our opposition to privileging unnatural and changeable behavior in the law — stick to your worn arguments and old attitudes, which are far superior to today’s newfangled brand of perversion-based “civil rights.” None of you have anything to learn about the supposed morality of homosexual behavior from Mr. Obama. He may have the power to order a nuclear strike or change the balance of the Supreme Court, but as a mere man he has zero authority to repudiate God’s transcendent moral law on sex and marriage.

Go HERE to watch the president’s elitist slap at faith-motivated Americans with their “worn arguments and old attitudes”; start watching at the 1:00 minute mark of the speech to homosexual activists celebrating “gay pride month.” A transcript of the speech accompanies the Youtube video.

WATCH IT: Video and Transcript of Obama’s White House Speech Celebrating ‘Gay Pride’ Month

Peterlab — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:54:15 +0000

Slams “worn arguments and old attitudes of those who believe homosexuality is wrong; “so-called” Defense of Marriage Act

To view the president’s elitist slap at Americans who oppose homosexuality as adhering to “worn arguments and old attitudes,” start watching at the 1:00 mark of the YouTube video below of the June 29th White House reception with homosexual activists celebrating “gay pride month” (read AFTAH’s reaction to the speech HERE):

The following is the official White House transcript of Obama’s “LGBT”(lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender) speech June 29 (emphasis added):

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 29, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT LGBT PRIDE MONTH RECEPTION

East Room

4:35 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Hello, hello, hello. (Applause.) Hey! Good to see you. (Applause.) I’m waiting for FLOTUS here. FLOTUS always politics more than POTUS.

MRS. OBAMA: No, you move too slow. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: It is great to see everybody here today and they’re just — I’ve got a lot of friends in the room, but there are some people I want to especially acknowledge. First of all, somebody who helped ensure that we are in the White House, Steve Hildebrand. Please give Steve a big round of applause. (Applause.) Where’s Steve? He’s around here somewhere. (Applause.)

The new chair of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg. (Applause.) Where’s Fred? There’s Fred. Good to see you, Fred. Our Director of the Institute of Education Sciences at DOE, John Easton. Where’s John? (Applause.) A couple of special friends — Bishop Gene Robinson. Where’s Gene? (Applause.) Hey, Gene. Ambassador Michael Guest is here. (Applause.) Ambassador Jim Hormel is here. (Applause.) Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown is here. (Applause.)

All of you are here. (Laughter and applause.) Welcome to your White House. (Applause.) So –

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Somebody asked from the Lincoln Bedroom here. (Laughter.) You knew I was from Chicago too. (Laughter.)

It’s good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I’ve received from so many of you. Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well. (Applause.) And you have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

Now this struggle, I don’t need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it’s important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made. There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we’ve made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.

And yet all of you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make but also by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and leaders in the community. And that’s important, and I’m glad that so many LGBT families could join us today. (Applause.) For we know that progress depends not only on changing laws but also changing hearts. And that real, transformative change never begins in Washington.

(Cell phone “quacks.”)

Whose duck is back there? (Laughter.)

MRS. OBAMA: It’s a duck.

THE PRESIDENT: There’s a duck quacking in there somewhere. (Laughter.) Where do you guys get these ring tones, by the way? (Laughter.) I’m just curious. (Laughter.)

Indeed, that’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality — not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship; who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It’s the story of progress sought by those who started off with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion and courage and sometimes defiance wherever and whenever they could.

That’s the story of a civil rights pioneer who’s here today, Frank Kameny, who was fired — (applause.) Frank was fired from his job as an astronomer for the federal government simply because he was gay. And in 1965, he led a protest outside the White House, which was at the time both an act of conscience but also an act of extraordinary courage. And so we are proud of you, Frank, and we are grateful to you for your leadership. (Applause.)

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, which took place 40 years ago this week, when a group of citizens — with few options, and fewer supporters — decided they’d had enough and refused to accept a policy of wanton discrimination. And two men who were at those protests are here today. Imagine the journey that they’ve travelled.

It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; and who continue to fight this scourge; and who demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion and support in a time of need — that we all share the capacity to love.

So this story, this struggle, continues today — for even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and will not — put aside issues of basic equality. (Applause.) We seek an America in which no one feels the pain of discrimination based on who you are or who you love.

And I know that many in this room don’t believe that progress has come fast enough, and I understand that. It’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans who were petitioning for equal rights a half century ago.

But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I’ve made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by the time you receive — (applause.) We’ve been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration. (Applause.)

Now, while there is much more work to do, we can point to important changes we’ve already put in place since coming into office. I’ve signed a memorandum requiring all agencies to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as current law allows. And these are benefits that will make a real difference for federal employees and Foreign Service Officers, who are so often treated as if their families don’t exist. And I’d like to note that one of the key voices in helping us develop this policy is John Berry, our director of the Office of Personnel Management, who is here today. And I want to thank John Berry. (Applause.)

I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination — (applause) — to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I’ve made that clear.

I’m also urging Congress to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act, which will guarantee the full range of benefits, including health care, to LGBT couples and their children. (Applause.) My administration is also working hard to pass an employee non-discrimination bill and hate crimes bill, and we’re making progress on both fronts. (Applause.) Judy and Dennis Shepard, as well as their son Logan, are here today. I met with Judy in the Oval Office in May — (applause) — and I assured her and I assured all of you that we are going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill into law, a bill named for their son Matthew. (Applause.)

In addition, my administration is committed to rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The Office of Management and Budget just concluded a review of a proposal to repeal this entry ban, which is a first and very big step towards ending this policy. And we all know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. And that’s why this past Saturday, on National HIV Testing Day, I was proud once again to encourage all Americans to know their status and get tested the way Michelle and I know our status and got tested. (Applause.)

And finally, I want to say a word about “don’t ask, don’t tell.” As I said before — I’ll say it again — I believe “don’t ask, don’t tell” doesn’t contribute to our national security. (Applause.) In fact, I believe preventing patriotic Americans from serving their country weakens our national security. (Applause.)

Now, my administration is already working with the Pentagon and members of the House and the Senate on how we’ll go about ending this policy, which will require an act of Congress.

Someday, I’m confident, we’ll look back at this transition and ask why it generated such angst, but as Commander-in-Chief, in a time of war, I do have a responsibility to see that this change is administered in a practical way and a way that takes over the long term. That’s why I’ve asked the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a plan for how to thoroughly implement a repeal.

I know that every day that passes without a resolution is a deep disappointment to those men and women who continue to be discharged under this policy — patriots who often possess critical language skills and years of training and who’ve served this country well. But what I hope is that these cases underscore the urgency of reversing this policy not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it is essential for our national security.

Now, even as we take these steps, we must recognize that real progress depends not only on the laws we change but, as I said before, on the hearts we open. For if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that there are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters — not yet.

That’s why I’ve spoken about these issues not just in front of you, but in front of unlikely audiences — in front of African American church members, in front of other audiences that have traditionally resisted these changes. And that’s what I’ll continue to do so. That’s how we’ll shift attitudes. That’s how we’ll honor the legacy of leaders like Frank and many others who have refused to accept anything less than full and equal citizenship.

Now, 40 years ago, in the heart of New York City at a place called the Stonewall Inn, a group of citizens, including a few who are here today, as I said, defied an unjust policy and awakened a nascent movement.

It was the middle of the night. The police stormed the bar, which was known for being one of the few spots where it was safe to be gay in New York. Now, raids like this were entirely ordinary. Because it was considered obscene and illegal to be gay, no establishments for gays and lesbians could get licenses to operate. The nature of these businesses, combined with the vulnerability of the gay community itself, meant places like Stonewall, and the patrons inside, were often the victims of corruption and blackmail.

Now, ordinarily, the raid would come and the customers would disperse. But on this night, something was different. There are many accounts of what happened, and much has been lost to history, but what we do know is this: People didn’t leave. They stood their ground. And over the course of several nights they declared that they had seen enough injustice in their time. This was an outpouring against not just what they experienced that night, but what they had experienced their whole lives. And as with so many movements, it was also something more: It was at this defining moment that these folks who had been marginalized rose up to challenge not just how the world saw them, but also how they saw themselves.

As we’ve seen so many times in history, once that spirit takes hold there is little that can stand in its way. (Applause.) And the riots at Stonewall gave way to protests, and protests gave way to a movement, and the movement gave way to a transformation that continues to this day. It continues when a partner fights for her right to sit at the hospital bedside of a woman she loves. It continues when a teenager is called a name for being different and says, “So what if I am?” It continues in your work and in your activism, in your fight to freely live your lives to the fullest.

In one year after the protests, a few hundred gays and lesbians and their supporters gathered at the Stonewall Inn to lead a historic march for equality. But when they reached Central Park, the few hundred that began the march had swelled to 5,000. Something had changed, and it would never change back.

The truth is when these folks protested at Stonewall 40 years ago no one could have imagined that you — or, for that matter, I — (laughter) — would be standing here today. (Applause.) So we are all witnesses to monumental changes in this country. That should give us hope, but we cannot rest. We must continue to do our part to make progress — step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion and a President who fights with you and for you.

Thanks very much, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.) Thank you. It’s a little stuffed in here. We’re going to open — we opened up that door. We’re going to walk this way, and then we’re going to come around and we’ll see some of you over there, all right? (Laughter.) But out there. (Laughter.)

But thank you very much, all, for being here. Enjoy the White House. Thank you. (Applause.)

END 4:53 P.M. EDT

Open Homosexuals in the Military: Bad Idea Then, Bad Idea Now

Peterlab — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 22:29:37 +0000

Obama’s vow to “outlaw discrimination” would criminalize traditional morality in the Armed Forces

The column by Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs at the Liberty Counsel and a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, first appeared in WorldNetDaily. Barber will be the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet on Saturday, October 24:

________________________________

WorldNetDaily, Friday, June 26, 2009

By Matt Barber

Most are unaware that during the Revolutionary War George Washington was a staunch advocate for allowing “gays” in the military. In fact, he boldly commissioned the little-known “Fabulous Pink Brigade,” which once infiltrated a British camp and –– while the redcoats slept –– covertly redecorated in eye-popping pastels.

No, although Washington was a revolutionary, he wasn’t a radical. The idea of open homosexuality within our armed services has long been considered preposterous.

Washington wisely understood that to allow men among the ranks who sodomized other men would necessarily distract from the mission at hand, disrupt unit cohesion and damage the morale of non-sodomy-disposed soldiers forced to sleep and bathe alongside those so inclined. It’s understandably disquieting to wonder whether your foxhole buddy “has your back” or wants to rub it.

In general court-martial orders dated March 14, 1778, Washington, through his designs, addressed the disposition of a homosexual soldier “tried for attempting to commit sodomy”: “[We] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

Barack Obama is no George Washington. He and a like-minded gaggle of congressional liberals have pledged to repeal the federal law, Section 654, Title 10, which stipulates that homosexual practice is incompatible with military service. Furthermore, they intend to do away with Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” administrative compromise.

The president has asked Congress to pass and send to his desk H.R. 1283, which, for the first time in American history, would homosexualize the military. To wit, he seeks to supplant military vitality with San Francisco vice. Whereas George Washington put a premium on combat readiness and national security, these indispensable safeguards play last fiddle to liberals’ obtuse fixation with political correctness.

In the deadly game of war it’s dangerously irresponsible to place extreme social ideology above national security. In combat, even the slightest disruption or distraction can spell the difference between victory and defeat –– life and death. The left fails to understand this grave reality.

The boots on the ground do not. In a March 31, 2009, letter addressed to President Obama and members of Congress, over 1,l00 of the military’s highest ranking and most distinguished commanders warned that they were “greatly concerned” by movement toward military homosexualization. They expressed fear that a DADT repeal would “eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

It seems their fears are justified. A 2009 Military Times poll determined that nearly one in 10 of those currently serving would not re-enlist if the policy were repealed. In today’s highly perilous global political climate, such a plummet in service could be devastating to national security.

I’m speaking from personal experience. I served 12 years in the Army National Guard. During basic training a young man who later turned out to be homosexual was discharged after making unwanted advances toward other soldiers and for inappropriately touching several while they slept in the barracks.

A lengthy investigation ensued. Troops were pulled away from their regular training to answer questions. It was a tremendous distraction for our entire platoon. This incident most definitely disrupted unit cohesion and harmed troop morale.

But none of this matters to liberals. Obama is the un-Washington. The left –– of which Obama sits on the fringe –– loathe the armed services. Rather than viewing the military as a noble and necessary institution designed as our last line of defense, they consider it a giant petri dish ripe for radical social experimentation. Move over Army National Guard; make way for the smarmy avant-garde.

But it’s not just the military that Obama seeks to “remake”; it’s the entire social construct. On June 1, 2009, he unilaterally and arbitrarily issued an official Presidential Proclamation smugly declaring that all Americans should celebrate sexual deviancy. He dubbed June “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.”

Rather than regarding homosexual practice with “abhorrence” and “detestation” –– as did George Washington and most everyone until recent years –– Obama has euphemistically vowed to “outlaw discrimination” (read: criminalize traditional morality). Included within his proclamation –– and among a host of equally radical social pledges –– was yet another promise to “[end] the existing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. …”

Well, in recent weeks the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the notion that DADT constitutes “discrimination.” It affirmed a lower court ruling which held that the policy is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

In an age of rampant judicial activism, it’s refreshing to witness some common-sense judicial restraint. This decision by the Supreme Court should once again remind everyone that, contrary to the propaganda fomented by the organized homosexual lobby, Barack Obama and liberals in Congress, homosexual temptation and the destructive but changeable homosexual lifestyle must not be confused with neutral and immutable characteristics such as race or gender for purposes of assigning special government minority status.

That is to say, it’s properly illegal, for instance, to ban African-Americans from serving in the armed forces. It is neither illegal nor discriminatory, however, to disallow an African-American who “loudly and proudly” opts to practice what George Washington would have called “the sin that dare not speak its name.”

Hands off the military, Mr. Obama; we can’t afford the “progress.”

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Sen. Chris Dodd Becomes Latest Democrat to Sell Out on ‘Gay Marriage’

Peterlab — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:23:06 +0000

Full Convert to Immorality: Chris Dodd (D-CT) joins Al Gore and other Democrats who have embraced “same-sex marriage” despite the judgment of their own religion that homosexual acts are immoral and disordered. Dodd, a Catholic, is also strongly in favor of abortion-on-demand and received a 100 percent ranking from NARAL.

By Peter LaBarbera

I just saw this on homosexual activist Joe Jervis’ blog: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) becomes the latest liberal Democrat to sell out his purported religious faith (Dodd is Catholic) to embrace the revolutionary, oxymoronic concept of homosexual “marriage.” More proof that the jump between “civil unions” and “gay marriage” is far shorter than the chasm between government recognition and non-recognition of immoral homosexual relationships. What motivates Dodd? It appears that it mostly comes down to the “principle of fairness” — a principle that seems to elude pro-homosexual advocates when faced with the quest of multiple-partner “truples” or “quadruples” (or whatever) to “marry.” (If marriage is gender-neutral and just about “love,” then why not allow “committed” polygamous “marriages”?)

All practical objections to “same-sex marriage” aside, Dodd’s announcement — coincidentally timed with his plummeting political fortunes in Connecticut, now a “gay marriage” state” — is a troubling omen for America’s post-Christian future (assuming we continue to abandon our Creator). The erosion of religious faith is probably the biggest contributor to our nation’s steep moral decline — and politicians and celebrities who cavalierly discard the guidance of their faith on pivotal moral issues like the sanctity of marriage and the protection of unborn life play a leading role in breeding cynicism toward Christianity, doctrinal truth and morality in general.

The Democrats have made their deal with the devil on two of the most important moral issues of our time: homosexuality/defense-of-marriage and abortion-on-demand (”Catholic” Dodd scores a 100% with NARAL on abortion). Is America too far gone to punish them electorally for it, or do the Democrats in some tragic way represent the future of this once-great nation — a future guided not by transcendent, absolute truth but by subjective, politically correct shibboleths covered by a religious veneer? And how will the Republicans respond to the Democrats’ “gay” gambit — by moving toward neutrality or even the embrace of homosexual “civil unions,” or by returning to an unapologetic defense of Biblical (Judeo-Christian) morality?

Who knows, but I’d have more respect for Dodd if he had paired his announcement on “gay marriage” with one acknowledging that he has completely abandoned the moral guidance of his lifelong religion, Roman Catholicism, on life and marriage.

_________________________________

Here’s Sen. Dodd’s explanation from his official website:

On Sunday, The Meriden Record-Journal published the following op-ed by Senator Chris Dodd:L

June 21, 2009

Public officials aren’t supposed to change their minds. But I firmly believe that it’s important to keep learning. Last week, while I was in Connecticut meeting with members of the gay and lesbian community from across the state, I had the opportunity to tell them what I’ve learned about marriage, and about equality.

While I’ve long been for extending every benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, I have in the past drawn a distinction between a marriage-like status (“civil unions”) and full marriage rights.

The reason was simple: I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And as many other Americans have realized as they’ve struggled to reconcile the principle of fairness with the lessons they learned early in life, that’s not an easy thing to overcome.

But the fact that I was raised a certain way just isn’t a good enough reason to stand in the way of fairness anymore.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, of course, has ruled that such a distinction holds no merit under the law. And the Court is right.

I believe that effective leaders must be able and willing to grow and change over their service. I certainly have during mine – and so has the world. Thirty-five years ago, who could have imagined that we’d have an African-American President of the United States?

My young daughters are growing up in a different reality than I did. Our family knows many same-sex couples – our neighbors in Connecticut, members of my staff, parents of their schoolmates. Some are now married because the Connecticut Supreme Court and our state legislature have made same-sex marriage legal in our state.

But to my daughters, these couples are married simply because they love each other and want to build a life together. That’s what we’ve taught them. The things that make those families different from their own pale in comparison to the commitments that bind those couples together.

And, really, that’s what marriage should be. It’s about rights and responsibilities and, most of all, love.

I believe that, when my daughters grow up, barriers to marriage equality for same-sex couples will seem as archaic, and as unfair, as the laws we once had against inter-racial marriage.

And I want them to know that, even if he was a little late, their dad came down on the right side of history.

I have always been proud of my long record fighting for the civil rights of the LGBT community. I’ve co-sponsored legislation to strengthen hate crime laws and end discrimination in the workplace. I’ve spoken out against “don’t ask, don’t tell” and always supported equal rights for domestic partnerships.

But I am also proud to now count myself among the many elected officials, advocates, and ordinary citizens who support full marriage equality for same-sex couples.

I understand that even those who oppose discrimination might continue to find it hard to re-think the definition of marriage they grew up with. I know it was for me.

But many of the things we must do to make our union more perfect – whether it’s fighting for decades to reform our health care system or struggling with a difficult moral question – are hard. They take time. And they require that, when you come to realize that something is right, you be unafraid to stand up and say it.

That’s the only way our history will progress along that long arc towards justice.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Senate Hate-Crimes Bill Will Do ‘a Great Deal of Harm’

Peterlab — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:26:43 +0000

Reprinted from National Review Online’s “The Corner” [Peter Kirsanow, Wednesday, June 17, 2009]

The following letter regarding the proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act was sent by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Senate leaders:

June 16, 2009

Re: S. 909

Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators:

We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) (“MSHCPA”)

We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries—as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago Due to the exception for prosecutions by “dual sovereigns,” such double prosecutions are technically not violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution But they are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses. We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties. There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights.

While the title of MSHCPA suggests that it will apply only to “hate crimes,” the actual criminal prohibitions contained in it do not require that the defendant be inspired by hatred or ill will in order to convict. It is sufficient if he acts “because of” someone’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Consider:

*Rapists are seldom indifferent to the gender of their victims. They are virtually always chosen “because of” their gender.

*A robber might well steal only from women or the disabled because, in general, they are less able to defend themselves. Literally, they are chosen “because of” their gender or disability.

While Senator Edward Kennedy has written that it was not his intention to cover all rape with MSHCPA, some DOJ officials have declined to disclaim such coverage. Moreover, both the objective meaning of the language and considerable legal scholarship would certainly include such coverage. If all rape and many other crimes that do not rise to the level of a “hate crime” in the minds of ordinary Americans are covered by MSHCPA, then prosecutors will have “two bites at the apple” for a very large number of crimes.

DOJ officials have argued that MSHCPA is needed because state procedures sometimes make it difficult to obtain convictions. They have cited a Texas case from over a decade ago involving an attack on a black man by three white hoodlums. Texas law required the three defendants to be tried separately. By prosecuting them under federal law, however, they could have been tried together. As a result, admissions made by one could be introduced into evidence at the trial of all three without falling foul of the hearsay rule.

Such an argument should send up red flags. It is just an end-run around state procedures designed to ensure a fair trial. The citizens of Texas evidently thought that separate trials were necessary to ensure that innocent men and women are not punished. No one was claiming that Texas applies this rule only when the victim is black or female or gay. And surely no one is arguing that Texans are soft on crime. Why interfere with their judgment?

We are unimpressed with the arguments in favor of MSHCPA and would be happy to discuss the matter further with you if you so desire. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us with your questions or comments.

[Addressed to:]

The Honorable Joseph Biden, Jr., President, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Robert C. Byrd, President Pro Tempore, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Richard Durbin, Majority Whip, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Jon Kyl, Minority Whip, U.S. Senate
The Honorable Patrick Leahy, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Russell Feingold, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
The Honorable Tom Coburn, Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution

Senate “Hate Crimes” Bill Proponents Settle on Amendment Strategy to Avoid Filibuster

Peterlab — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:38:44 +0000

Folks, this article from the homosexual Washington Blade newspaper is a must-read. Note that pro-homosexual strategists in Washington fear a filibuster of a “stand alone” version of the bill. We’ve included the key portions below. TAKE ACTION: the anti-Christian homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign is pushing hard to get “Hate Crimes” passed. Call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to oppose S. 909 or any “Hate Crimes” legislation — as an amendment or a stand-alone bill. For more on the dangers of Orwellian “Thought Crimes” laws, go HERE, HERE and a legal analysis of the House version of S. 909 HERE.
____________________________

Excerpted from the Washington Blade:

Senate to pass hate crimes bill as amendment
HRC calls for vote before summer’s end

By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Jun 8 2009

Senate leadership has decided to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to another bill instead of a standalone piece of legislation, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Trevor Thomas, an HRC spokesperson, told the Blade in a statement Monday that the Senate settled on this method of passage.

“We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle,” he said.

The bill passed the House on April 29, 249-175, as a standalone measure. The legislation would allow the U.S. Justice Department to assist in the prosecution of hate crimes committed against LGBT people that result in death or serious injury.

The Blade reported last month that the Senate was debating whether to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment or as a standalone bill.

Thomas said the Senate determined it would pass the legislation as an amendment because the chamber’s leaders believes that’s “the most efficient way” to send the measure to the president’s desk.

Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said he couldn’t confirm whether the Senate had decided to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment, but he noted that’s how the Senate passed the legislation in previous sessions….

A Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Senate has planned to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment for some time. He noted that a standalone bill would be open to amendments and the Senate amendment process is much more open than the House’s.

The aide said it was not yet clear what bill the hate crimes legislation would join and that a viable option might not be available before late summer or early fall.

Thomas said HRC was calling on the Senate to pass the legislation before the end of the summer….

HRC is pushing every day for the amendment to come to the floor and believes there’s enough support in Congress to pass the measure as an amendment, Thomas said….

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the longest-serving openly gay member of Congress, said in an interview with the Blade in May that supporters of hate crimes legislation in the Senate were considering attaching the measure as an amendment to the 2010 defense authorization bill, but House lawmakers were trying to convince the Senate to pass the legislation in another way.

Frank told the Blade on Monday that said he understands the danger of a filibuster in the Senate with a standalone bill and said he’s fine with passing the legislation as an amendment — so long as the amended bill doesn’t deal with defense.

“You get kind of cognitive dissonance where you put [a] liberal amendment on a conservative bill or vice-versa, and you have problems,” he said. “It’s basically a liberal amendment. It shouldn’t go on a conservative bill.”

VIDEO: Rachel Maddow and Liberty University’s Democratic Club — Does Rachel Understand Freedom?

Peterlab — Sat, 23 May 2009 15:15:27 +0000

Would Smarty Pants Lesbian U. be required to endorse an ex-gay evangelical campus club?

If Rachel Maddow were to form Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU), would it be forced to recognize a Christian ex-”gay” student club? At left, the openly lesbian MSNBC talker interviews Brian Diaz, head of a student Democratic club that was denied recognition by Liberty University. See YouTube video at bottom of this story.

By Peter LaBarbera

Nobody has mastered the art of snide inflections and biased liberal hit “journalism” as quickly and masterfully as MSNBC’s resident smarty-pants lesbian talker, Rachel Maddow (see this lesbian site’s story). Check out Maddow’s exaggerated pronunciation of “LGBT” in the YouTube video below as she attempts to skewer Liberty University for banning a campus Democratic Club. (Read the Democratic Party Platform HERE.) Now, at the risk of not knowing my place at the back of the bus as an Idiot Evangelical in Maddow’s World, I’d like to help her understand the principle of American liberty at stake in this case:

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the mannish Maddow and her female partner established the Smarty Pants Lesbian Liberal Party (SPLLP) for the purpose of mobilizing snarky lesbians and liberal fellow travelers to influence government and culture. Furthermore, the determined duo also create (with a Tim Gill financial assist) Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU) to train up annual cadres of mini-Maddows to permeate the media and other culture-influencing institutions. (We’re not sure if non-lesbian feminists or males would be admitted to SPLU.)

Now, here’s our questions for Ms. Maddow: let’s say a covert SPLLP member were to trick her way past Liberty U.’s faith-based admission process, become a Liberty student and then suddenly apply for recognition of her SPLLP club on campus. (I envision a special appearance on MSNBC and sympathetic interviews in all the liberal media.) Would Liberty U. be obligated to recognize the Smarty Pants Lesbian Party? Of course not — it would impinge upon and undermine Liberty’s right to propagate its own belief system to students. In fact, Liberty would be within its rights to expel the troublemaking student, at the risk of making her even a bigger star in Maddow’s World.

In the same vein, take a lesbian student who finds Christ at Maddow’s Smarty Pants Lesbian U. (someone smuggled a Bible to her inside a lesbian magazine). The reborn, ex-”gay” woman now desires to form an Ex-Lesbians for Christ Club (ELCC) on campus. Would Maddow and Smarty Pants Lesbian U. be required to recognize the evangelical, homosexuality-opposing Christian club? Certainly not. That would violate their right to propagate their bitter, snide, left-wing, pro-homosexual, Christian- and Republican-hating ideology — thus jeopardizing their master-plan to spawn Rachel Maddow clones across America! And yes, Smarty Pants U. would be within its rights to expel the righteous former lesbian.

Young Democrat Club president Brian Diaz does not understand the difference between liberty and (state-enforced) egalitarianism (”I think that you should definitely be equal and show both sides of the issue equally,” he tells Maddow). Apparently Liberty University accepts federal student aid and loan dollars (as Maddow mentions on air) but if that ultimately translates into being forced to accept groups like the Democratic Club that defy its foundational Christian beliefs, then we believe it would be time to refuse federal monies — like Hillsdale College does — for the sake of freedom. Now watch the Rachel Maddow video (conservatives: brace yourselves):

White House Pulls Obama’s Anti-DOMA Pledge from Presidential Website

Peterlab — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:00:46 +0000

Does President Obama recognize that he has no mandate to repeal “Defense of Marriage Act,” which protects states from outside homosexual “marriages”

Obama: No “Gay” Agenda Mandate: President Obama’s website has removed his radical campaign promise to work for the repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama’s liberal homosexual/transsexual agenda was barely discussed in the election campaign, so he has no mandate to accomplish these goals: pro-homosexual/transgender federal “Hate Crimes” legislation; repeal DOMA; homosexualize the U.S. military (repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”); enact federal “civil unions” legislation; pass “ENDA Our Freedom” law (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), which would force businesses to conform to federal “superior rights” based on same-sex- and gender-confused “identities”; and homosexualizing the U.S. immigration process (treating homosexual couples like married couples). TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121, www.congress.org) and urge them to reject Obama’s homosexual agenda — including Hate Crimes. Tell them you oppose any bill that would establish the U.S. Government as endorsing immoral homosexual behavior or relationships, and that would invariably result in a loss of freedom for moral-minded Americans.

By Peter LaBarbera

Is President Obama indicating that repealing a law that protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages” — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by President Clinton and passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996 – is now a low priority for his administration? We hope so, given that support for traditional marriage, between a man and a woman, remains strong throughout the country.

The White House has stripped Obama’s anti-DOMA pledge (“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act …”) from its website, as part of new, tighter language under the “Civil Rights” section dealing with homosexuality. Already homosexual activists are chafing at the slow pace of “change” offered by Obama in support of their agenda; many will not appreciate the public scrubbing of his DOMA promise – even though most Americans probably are unaware of it in the first place, as it barely surfaced in the presidential campaign. (Obama hardly has a mandate on DOMA; in fact, in informally questioning voters, I have yet to find an Obama supporter who was aware that Mr. Obama even made the anti-DOMA promise.)

We hope that President Obama recognizes that his anti-DOMA pledge – like his radical campaign embrace of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eviscerate pro-life laws restricting abortion across America – is not popular with mainstream voters, even if it was useful in rallying liberal Democratic activists during the campaign. (At his last press conference, Obama disappointed ardent feminist backers by indicating that FOCA – which has engendered huge concern among pro-lifers and mobilized pro-life advocates against the president’s abortion agenda – is not a major priority for his Administration at this point.)

The following is the original language related to President Obama’s pro-homosexuality agenda posted shortly after his inauguration as president of the United States (courtesy of the pro-family group Culture Campaign; emphasis added in red):

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

The following is the new White House web language on homosexuality, with the anti-DOMA text removed:

President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

It is interesting that the White House through its official website retained Obama’s promise to repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” (thus allowing open homosexuality in the armed forces) even as it removed his pledge to repeal DOMA–one of the top goals of his homosexual activist allies.

Send To Phone