Tuesday, July 22nd, 2014
President Obama signing two Executive Orders advancing homosexual and transgender “rights.” One adds “gender identity” to the existing federal nondiscrimination policy (joining “sexual orientation”). The other–addressed by Dr. Michael Brown below–compels federal contractors to abide by federal pro-LGBT nondiscrimination mandates. Obama declined to include a strong religious exemption in the latter Order. Photo: White House; click to enlarge.
The following is excerpted from an online appeal by pro-family author and advocate, Dr. Michael Brown to President Obama, in response to Obama signing an Executive Order designed to advance “gay rights”–and which is bereft of a strong religious exemptions as requested by a coalition of religious leaders. Dr. Brown–whose book A Queer Thing Happened to America is essential reading for those hoping to understand the far-reaching LGBT agenda–will be the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s banquet October 25th at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois. This article first appeared in Charisma magazine.
President Obama, You Have Crossed a Dangerous, Unprecedented Line
9:00AM EDT, 7/22/2014 Michael Brown, Charisma, In the Line of Fire
President Barack Obama on Monday signed an executive order banning “discrimination” by federal contractors against LGBT people, allowing for no religious exemptions of any kind.
Dear Mr. President,
I write to you today as a concerned citizen of our great nation, standing as a witness against your historic actions on the morning of July 21, 2014, actions which I hope you will one day repudiate with deep remorse and regret.
I am referring, of course, to your signing an executive order Monday banning “discrimination” by federal contractors against LGBT people, allowing for no religious exemptions of any kind.
This was an outrageous act of discrimination against religion in the name of anti-discrimination—an act of bullying people of faith in the name of the prevention of bullying.
How can you, as a man who professes to be a person of faith and a follower of Jesus, throw religious Americans—in particular Christians—under the bus?
How can you attempt to force Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to violate fundamental aspects of their moral codes in order to appease a small but powerful special interest group, one that is not, in fact, suffering daily economic hardship by being fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or expression?
Have you forgotten entirely that our nation was founded on the concept of religious freedom?
Read the rest of this article »
Tuesday, July 22nd, 2014
I have two observations about this excellent piece by my friend, Barbwire.com founder, and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber: 1) I wish all Christians could possess Matt’s resolve in defending Truth; and 2) only a tiny minority of believers understand what is coming down the pike, persecution-wise, from the combination of treating homosexuality as a “civil right” and the court-imposed legalization of “gay marriage.” This is Big Government imposing immorality on us all, and we must fight it with great vigilance. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
The Coming Christian Revolt
By Matt Barber, July 21, 2014
From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular “progressive.” He surveys his many victims, strewn across the American landscape below and mockingly sneers, “War on Christianity? What war on Christianity?”
He then resumes shooting, all the while insisting that those uncooperative Christians who scatter for cover behind the Word of God and the U.S. Constitution somehow suffer from a “persecution complex” (the baker, the photographer, the florist, the innkeeper, the Christian school administrator, etc.).
Though there are many, it is plain for all to see that abortion and “sexual liberation” remain the two principal theaters in the ongoing culture war battlefront.
To fully advance the causes of radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, unfettered sexual license, gay marriage and the like, the pagan left must do away with religious free exercise altogether. Under the guise of “anti-discrimination,” Christians today face discrimination at unprecedented levels.
Let’s see if we can make this abundantly clear. Christians, true Christians—regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands—will not—indeed cannot—participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.
Read the rest of this article »
Wednesday, July 16th, 2014
We at Americans For Truth certainly concur with Tony Perkins: the Democrats are playing a dangerous game by pandering to special interest groups (in this case radical feminists and homosexual activists) who seek to trample over Americans’ religious liberty and freedom of conscience. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 16, 2014
CONTACT: FRC Press Office, through Family Research Council
Conscience Crushing Bill Demonstrates Senate Democrats’ Wrong Priorities
July 16, 2014
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Family Research Council (FRC) urged the U.S. Senate to reject legislation proposed by Senate Democrats that would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby/Conestoga Wood ruling. The decision upheld religious liberty and protected the conscience rights of those family businesses that object to being forced to pay for drugs that have the potential to kill an unborn child.
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments:
“The world is falling apart, along with the U.S. economy, and yet Senate Democratic leaders think the future of the free world hinges on employers being forced — under the threat of crippling fines — to provide drugs that have the potential to kill an unborn child.
“Rather than address the problems in the Middle East, grow the GDP, or create jobs, Senate liberals are plowing ahead with their ridiculously unfair mandate that puts the jobs, livelihoods and healthcare of millions of Americans in jeopardy.
“Senate Democrats are insisting that family businesses be given two non-choices: either violate your deeply held moral beliefs and comply by paying for drugs and services to which you object, or pay crippling fines of up to $100 per day, per employee, for non-compliance.
“The Supreme Court Court reaffirmed that freedom of conscience is a long-held American tradition, and said that government cannot impose a law on American citizens that forces them to violate their beliefs in order to hold a job, own a business, or purchase health insurance. Apparently, Senate Democrats have forgotten that in America you have a right to exercise your own conscientious beliefs, and the government doesn’t have the right to trample them,” concluded Perkins.
Thursday, July 3rd, 2014
Court’s defense of religious liberty for profit-making companies could help Christian small businessmen oppressed by “gay rights” laws
Current U.S. Supreme Court: left to right in back: Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan. Front, left to right: Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg. Alito wrote the Hobby Lobby decision, and Kennedy is lionized by “gay” activists for writing last year’s decision striking down DOMA. Click to enlarge.
By Peter LaBarbera
It’s easy to understand why hard-core feminists with their frenzied, overblown “War on Women” rhetoric would be outraged by the Supreme Court upholding Hobby Lobby’s right as a Christian-run corporation not to be forced to provide abortifacients to its employees through an Obama-care mandate. (See Hillary’s misinformation on the decision HERE.) But why are liberal “gay” activists freaking out over the Hobby Lobby ruling?
The case was never about denying women birth control, but you wouldn’t know that from the “reporting” by liberal media and hyperventilating “progressive” bloggers. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of birth control as a health benefit to its employees, but its founders—along with another Christian-owned corporation, Conestoga Wood Specialists—sued HHS over being forced to provide four contraceptive methods that could terminate a fertilized egg.
Hobby Lobby’s founders, David and Barbara Green, are committed Christians who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected. To quote the Court decision, “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’” So strong is the Greens’ commitment to Jesus Christ that they have lost countless millions of dollars in profits over the years by closing their 500 craft stores nationwide on Sunday.
Now, one would think that obtaining cheap, subsidized contraception would be low on the priority list for homosexuals, seeing that two men or two women by themselves cannot produce a child. Nevertheless, Big Gay Inc is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court decision—because Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby isn’t really about contraceptives but rather whether Americans like the Greens will be free to live out their religious convictions.
Immediately after the decision, feminists flew into a rage, circulating crude versions of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and distortions about women being denied birth control by their “male bosses.” Too bad most Americans will never read the actual Hobby Lobby decision—which lays out two diametrically opposed, competing visions about freedom of conscience and the role of government in these United States.
Freedom of conscience vs. Big Government
Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green, seek to use their business to glorify Jesus Christ. Their 500 stores across the country are closed on Sundays, costing the Greens many millions of dollars in profits.
On the side of preserving and even expanding Americans’ religious liberty were five judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In his concurring opinion Kennedy writes:
“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief….It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”
On the other side—of Big Government overriding citizens’ religious beliefs, restricting conscience exemptions to federal mandates, and putting federal power behind expanded access to entitlements–were Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. In fact, Ginsburg spends nearly two pages in her dissent [see pp. 24-25] defending the idea that Obama-care’s provision of subsidies for IUD’s (intrauterine devices) –one of the four contraceptives resisted by Hobby Lobby as a potential abortifacient—is a “compelling government interest.”
As much as Ginsburg believes the majority’s “immoderate” reading of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is too broad, hers is too narrow: she ends by arguing that exemptions under the RFRA should be limited to explicitly religious organizations—leaving for-profit Christian businessmen like the Greens unprotected.
The bigger government gets–in both its “social justice” mission and the amount of goodies it gives out as “entitlements”—the greater the threat to Americans’ right to freely exercise their faith. This is precisely why homosexual activists are nervous about Hobby Lobby’s victory. If the nation’s highest court grants that even very large “closely held” family businesses like Hobby Lobby (which has more than 13,000 employees) possess a religious liberty claim under RFRA, then surely small family businesses like Elane Photography in New Mexico—owned by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin—should have the right not to use their creative talents to serve homosexual “weddings,” which violate their Christian faith.
Read the rest of this article »
Tuesday, July 1st, 2014
Suddenly Shy? Why didn’t Gov. Chris Christie praise the Supreme Court decision on Hobby Lobby protecting religious freedom?
The following is taken from Gary Bauer’s daily “End of Day” e-mail sent out today (July 1) through his organization, Campaign for Working Families. Gary has long been one of the best thinkers and most informative writers in the pro-life and pro-family movement. Few conservatives leaders can write like Gary (or hire someone to ghost-write like him!), so if you are conservative or pro-family, I guarantee you will not regret signing up for his daily e-newsletter HERE.
Regarding Chris Christie and the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision, isn’t it odd that the outspoken (Republican) New Jersey governor has the audacity to play God by proclaiming that homosexuality not a sin as he signed a freedom-crushing ex-”gay” change therapy ban last year–yet he couldn’t muster up the courage to praise a critical victory for religious freedom at the Supreme Court? I’m no fan of the liberal Huffington Post, and their women-as-victims spin on Hobby Lobby is obnoxious, but they got it at least half right in this piece on Christie’s sudden shyness and craven bully pulpit politics. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
The Day After
By Gary Bauer
The left is in full spin mode after the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare’s abortion mandate. Please tell the women in your life that nothing happened yesterday that will deny them access to contraception.
The issue in this case was not contraception. Let me remind folks once again that Hobby Lobby’s insurance policy covered 16 out of 20 forms of contraception. But the owners of Hobby Lobby drew the line at the last four methods, which they believed could cause abortions. And during oral arguments, the Obama Administration actually claimed that it could force companies to pay for abortions.
The issue in this case was individual religious liberty. Consider this statement from Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion:
“A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby … protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”
Yesterday’s ruling was a major victory won by a disturbingly slim margin of one vote. Now comes the hard part of winning the debate, which will be difficult in no small measure because of the cowardice of establishment Republicans.
Read the rest of this article »
Tuesday, July 1st, 2014
Law banning pro-heterosexual Reparative Therapy for minors now likely to go into effect
June 30, 2014
The following is reprinted from LC.org (web links added by AFTAH); to donate to Liberty Counsel, go HERE:
Washington, DC—The Supreme Court passed on Liberty Counsel’s petition regarding California’s ban on change therapy in the case of Pickup v. Brown. Two lower court judges and two separate appellate panels have issued conflicting opinions upholding and blocking the ban on change therapy. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal, followed by a three-judge panel that upheld the law. That panel then agreed to continue the injunction blocking the law until he Supreme Court had a chance to weigh in on the case. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court to pass on the case means the proceeding will go back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which could lift the injunction and allow the law to go into effect.
Former homosexual David Pickup says, “Reparative Therapy helped save my life.” Read his testimony HERE; read other ex-”gay” and ex-lesbian testimonies on the PFOX website.
The California law was the first to restrict licensed counselors from offering, and minor clients and their parents from receiving, any counsel to change unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity.
“I am deeply saddened for the families we represent and for the thousands of children that our professional clients counsel, many of whom developed these unwanted attractions because of abuse of a pedophile. The minors we represent do not want to act on same-sex attractions, nor do they want to engage in such behavior. They are greatly benefiting from this counseling. Their grades have gone up, their self-esteem has improved, and their relationships at home are much improved,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “These children have been victimized twice – first by the likes of Jerry Sandusky, and second by legislators and judges who have essentially barged into their private therapy rooms and told them that they must pursue their unwanted and dangerous same-sex sexual attractions and behavior,” said Staver.
Read the rest of this article »
Tuesday, June 24th, 2014
My friend Bill Whatcott–the leading pro-family activist in Canada fighting the aggressive LGBT Lobby–just sent out this notice:
By Bill Whatcott » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:10 pm
I just talked with our lawyer Michael Weber (part of Tom Schuck’s NSWB lawfirm). The trial date for Peter LaBarbera and I for witnessing at the University of Regina will be October 29, 2014. We were charged with Mischief after we set up abortion signs and one sign saying “Sodomy is a sin,” on the public walkway at the University of Regina back on April 14th. Approximately 20 or so pro-abortion and pro-homosexual protesters set up a counter protest across from us. Notwithstanding that I have two Court of Queen’s Bench decisions affirming my right to protest on public university campuses, Peter and I were arrested and charged and the pro-abortion/pro-homosexual protesters were allowed to continue with their demonstration unmolested.
Saturday, May 10th, 2014
Video of talk confirms LaBarbera did not say what Geiselman and Salon.com allege
Dear AFTAH Readers,
THE LIES OF THE LEFT: Above is the headline for the Salon.com hit-piece by Sinclair Community College writing professor Kate Geiselman, who fabricated a quotation and attributed it to AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera. Dozens of students, apparently led by liberal SCC professors, walked out on LaBarbera as he began his April 9 talk at the college–but he never reacted by saying, “You’re leaving? Are you effing [read: a substitute for the F-word] kidding?” A videotape of the walkout, and testimony by firsthand witnesses, confirm that Geiselman’s account is bogus. Click on graphic to enlarge.
Below is the demand letter sent yesterday by pro-family attorney Chuck Limandri to Kate Geiselman, the Sinclair Community College (Dayton, OH) writing prof who fabricated an outright lie about my SCC talk in an article in the liberal online magazine Salon.com. I was invited to speak on April 9 by the school’s Traditional Values Club–which (I later learned) is despised by a cabal of leftist profs at SCC. Note that Limandri’s letter was also sent to Salon editor Cindy Jeffers. We cannot allow the Left to libel and slander us at will with zero consequences. More coming on this. Thanks.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Kate Geiselman’s libelous SALON article: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/16/%E2%80%9Cyou%E2%80%99re_leaving_are_you_effing_kidding%E2%80%9D_an_anti_gay_bigot_gets_humiliated/
YouTube video of staged walkout of LaBarbera’s talk at Sinclair CC: http://youtu.be/hxxMiyhxXzo
Letter by Charles Limandri to Kate Geiselman and Salon.com editor Cindy Jeffers:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: [Charles Limandri] [e-mail addresses redacted]
Date: Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:40 PM
Subject: LaBarbera v. Geiselman
To: [Kathryn Geiselman]
Cc: [Cindy Jeffers, Salon.com]
Dear Ms. Geiselman:
Please be advised that the undersigned has been retained by Peter LaBarbera with respect to a potential claim for defamation against you. As you know, you falsely accused Mr. LaBarbera of using profanity at a talk that he gave at Sinclair Community College on April 9, 2014. The article in which you made that false and defamatory statement is here: http://www.salon.com/2014/04/16/%E2%80%9Cyou%E2%80%99re_leaving_are_you_effing_kidding%E2%80%9D_an_anti_gay_bigot_gets_humiliated/. A Youtube video of the staged walk-out that you organized of Mr. LaBarbera’s presentation is here: http://youtu.be/hxxMiyhxXzo. The audio on the two minute video makes it perfectly clear that Mr. LaBarbera did not utter the unprofessional and defamatory words that you attribute to him. This has been confirmed by multiple witnesses who were in immediate proximity to Mr. LaBarbera during his entire presentation. You further falsely accused Mr. LaBarbera of being “a person who makes his living telling lies” in the internet posting attached above. You did so even though you did not even have the decency to listen to his remarks before publicly excoriating him.
In Ohio, libel is defined as a false and malicious publication made with the intent to injure a person’s reputation or expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace, or to affect him adversely in his trade or profession. Becker v. Toulmin (1956), 165 Ohio St. 549; Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Nethersole (1911), 84 Ohio St. 118. Pursuant to Ohio law, a publication which of itself reflects upon the character of a person by bringing him into public ridicule, or which affects him injuriously in his trade or profession is libelous per se. Westropp v. E. W. Scripps Co. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 365; The Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Nethersole (1911), 84 Ohio St. 118. Therefore, the publication of a false statement ascribing to another conduct, characteristics or a condition incompatible with the proper conduct of his lawful business, trade or profession is libelous per se and damages are presumed. Landrum v. Dombey (1971), 30 Ohio App. 2d 200, 202. “A statement that someone is a liar is clearly one which would tend to injure a person’s reputation, and courts have considered such statements to be defamatory on their face”. Dillon v. Waller, 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 5860, 12, 1995 WL 765224 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County Dec. 26, 1995); See also, Dale v. Ohio Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n, 57 Ohio St. 3d 112, 117, 567 N.E.2d 253, 258, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 178, 16, 136 L.R.R.M. 2898 (Ohio 1991).
By your false and defamatory statements you have maliciously sought to injure Mr. LaBarbera in his reputation and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace. You have also sought to injure him in his trade or profession. We hereby demand that you issue a public retraction of, and a public apology for, your false and defamatory statements made against Mr. LaBarbera. If you and Salon.com do not do so within ten (10) days from the date of this e-mail, then we will take all necessary steps to protect Mr. LaBarbera’s rights including bringing a lawsuit against you and Salon.com for compensatory and punitive damages. Please place any homeowner’s insurance carrier and professional liability carrier that you may have on notice of this claim. Such liability insurance may be available to satisfy this claim if you are a member of a teacher’s union. We look forward to your response or the response of your legal representative within the next ten days.
Charles S. LiMandri
Board Certified Civil Trial Advocate
National Board of Trial Advocacy
Charles S. LiMandri, Esq.
President and Chief Counsel
Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund
P.O. Box 9520
Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
Americans for Truth
P.O. Box 5522
Naperville, IL 60567-5522
Want to See Every New AFTAH Article?
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.