Welcome to Americans for Truth, a newly reorganized national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda.
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.)
Augusta, ME – Today, Democratic Governor John Baldacci (right) signed into law LD 1020, which legalizes same-sex “marriage” in Maine. His decision follows yesterday’s vote of 89-57 in the House and a 21-14 vote in the Senate, both of which are controlled by Democrats. Now the people of Maine must act to amend the state constitution to affirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Gov. Baldacci had the opportunity to veto the bill, but instead signed it into law as quickly as possible, not giving the people of Maine any time to make their voice heard on the matter.
This is a very useful piece from my good friend, John Biver, who is doing outstanding work along with Jack Roeser and the guys at Champion News in holding Illinois’ consistently dysfunctional Illinois Republican Party leaders accountable. Of course, a similar principle might apply to pro-life and pro-family Democrats who are fed up with their party’s lock-step support of the homosexualist and abortion-on-demand agendas, with one key difference: the Democrat Party platform promotes government support for abortion and homosexuality, whereas the GOP’s, as John writes, does not. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
______________________________________
Does a Republican Precinct Committeeman have to support all GOP candidates?
Last week a good friend who is newly involved in his township GOP organization asked me if I thought he was obligated to work for Republican candidates he felt he couldn’t support. As an example, he said he can’t support Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert because of her co-sponsoring of Republican Mark Kirk’s dangerous and wrong-headed H.R. 1913 [the "Thought Crimes" bill].
It’s a good question, since there seems to be some misunderstanding about the role of precinct committeemen, the party itself, and the people it elects.
Rep. Barney Frank, proud homosexual activist and Massachusetts Democrat, is the personification of modern American liberalism — corrupt, perverted, intolerant, smug and condescending. We’re surprised that Frank neglected to work an accusation of “homophobia” into his evasive response to a question from Joel Pollak, a well-spoken Harvard Law student who dared to publicly challenge Frank about his role in the current financial crisis. Watch this entire 6-minute segment from Greta van Susteren’s show on FOX yesterday — particularly the part where Pollak explains his exodus from liberalism. This guy is going places.–Peter LaBarbera
During the 1964 presidential campaign, LBJ’s top assistant Walter Jenkins was found misbehaving with a male consort in the Men’s Room of the Mayflower. In those days, homosexuality for a political person was regarded as deviant… unlike today when it is publicly announced to great fanfare ala House Financial Institutions chairman Barney Frank whose current boyfriend is ensconced–conflict of interest and all–with a big job in… no homophobic allusions, please… Fanny Mae.
I well remember the furor that ensued. Johnson, pathologically worried that he would lose to Barry Goldwater, ordered that all top staffers be examined by J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover even sent his inspectors… believe it or not… to key congressional offices including two contestants for the Democratic vice presidential nomination, Hubert Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy. Humphrey passed muster as a certifiable heterosexual as did his staff. McCarthy was also judged okay-but when the FBI guy approached one of McCarthy’s legislative aides … a guy I went to Saint John’s with, incidentally… he no sooner sat down, pulled out his yellow legal pad and uncapped his fountain pen… when the guy yelled excitedly: “You got me! I’m one!”
Barack Obama, who campaigned on “Change We Can Believe In,” was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States yesterday, Jan. 20, in the most expensive inauguration in the history of our country. Despite a bleak economy and a rising unemployment rate, Obama and we the taxpayers are estimated to have spent over $150 million. That is a lot of “change,” to be sure.
While many in the country were welcoming the Obamas, the incoming president was busy putting out the welcome mat for the homosexual agenda. At the “We are One” gathering at the Lincoln Memorial on the Sunday before the Inauguration, Obama invited Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly “gay” bishop ordained in the Episcopal Church, to give the opening prayer. It seems rather strange that an event to celebrate “unity” would begin with prayer by an individual whose homosexual conduct is responsible for one of the deepest divisions in the Episcopal Church in its history, as various dioceses have severed ties with the Episcopal Church to join the more conservative international Anglican community.
But even more shocking is the fact that Bishop Robinson was asked to pray at all. When questioned about the upcoming event by the Associated Press, Robinson assured them that he would “be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer,” and – not surprisingly – that he would not use a Bible. If that is the accepted view of our new president and those attending the event, then we are indeed in for a “change,” but one actually contrary to our beliefs and very destructive of our national morality. Historically, there has never been a time when Christianity has been so openly shunned and homosexuality so expressly promoted.
federal recognition of homosexual “civil unions”; and
using the president’s bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption and other homosexual activist policy goals.
I’m sure we’ve missed some homosexual agenda items. But if you are a Christian and/or consider yourself pro-natural-family — and you voted for Mr. Obama — perhaps it’s time to start contacting him to urge him NOT to pursue these misguided policies. (We assume that many strongly religious Obama voters were at least partly — and perhaps willfully — ignorant of his liberal-left plank on the moral issues of homosexuality and abortion.) We don’t know if the messages will get to him, but here’s a contact page for the Obama transition team: http://www.change.gov/page/s/contact. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
The Citizenlink story is below:
________________________
Will big-boned men in dresses and high heels like this fellow be allowed to use women’s restrooms in federal buildings under the Obama Administration? That’s what Obama’s plan to create “rights” based on gender confusion might bring. Obama’s pro-transsexual agenda — he favors federal rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” — was never discussed or debated seriously in the election campaign.
“The Obama-Biden Transition Project does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or any other basis of discrimination prohibited by law.” –– Application for non-career federal jobs in an Obama Administration, http://change.gov/page/s/application
CHICAGO, Ill. – Americans For Truth reacted to the news that an Obama Administration will likely enact “gender identity” as a nondiscrimination category by questioning whether federal female employees will be protected from transsexual men wearing dresses who demand to use ladies’ restrooms on the basis of their self-perceived “female identity.”
“Men who believe they are women, and vice versa, will be officially protected based under Obama on the basis of their ‘gender identity’ (read: gender confusion),” said Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality. “Cross-dressing, ‘male-to-female’ activists already demand the right to use female restrooms on the basis of this same notion of ‘gender identity’-based rights. So will an Obama Administration allow these big-boned men in female clothing to use ladies’ restrooms in federal buildings?
“What will a President Obama do to protect the right to privacy of female federal workers who don’t want men wearing dresses – with male genitalia – sharing their women’s restroom?” LaBarbera said. “Will a President Obama request funds from Congress to embark on an ambitious ‘Transgender Restroom Construction Project’ to build special “trans” bathrooms in government buildings – so as not to subject female employees to sexual harassment and violations of their privacy?”
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
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. 
