Tentative Speakers Schedule

Thursday, August 5 – Saturday, August 7, 2010

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

Cost: Adults: $149 for 3-day conference; Single day rate: $50/day; Married couples discount: $199 for full conference; Youth: $99 (scholarships available to attendees ages 14-25)

Contact info/queries/RSVP: E-mail americansfortruth@gmail.com ; phone: 630-717-7631; more background information HERE.

Truth Academy Instructors:

• Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel ; Board Member, AFTAH
• Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media
• Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author, The Bible and Homosexual Practice
• Arthur Goldberg, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change
• Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute
• Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism, keynote presenter
• Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
• Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law
• Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network
• Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California

_______________________________________________________

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5 (Day One)

All presentations are 45 minutes followed by 15 minutes of Q & A.  There will be a panel discussion and Q & A on Thursday and Friday, and a special evening presentation each of those evenings.

8-9:30 – Light breakfast;  Registration

9:30 – 10:00 – Opening Prayer, Calvin Lindstrom, pastor, Church of Christian Liberty;

Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:

“From gay pride to gay tyranny”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”

11:20-12:20 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Board Member, AFTAH:

“Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality”

12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:

“The ‘born gay hoax”

2:30 – 3:30 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

“Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments”

3:40-4:40 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change:

“Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality”

4:50-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme:  “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?”

Panelists:  Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, and Greg Quinlan, Cliff Kincaid; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

Special Thursday evening presentation (Q & A will follow talk):

7:45 – 9:15 – Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network:

“An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality”

__________________________________________________________________________

FRIDAY, AUGUST 6 (Day Two)

8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast; Registration

9:00 – 10:00 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival, Accuracy in Media:

“The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms”

11:20-12:20 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

“Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda”

12 :20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality:

“The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”

2:30 – 3:30 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”

3:40-4:40 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty U. School of Law:

“The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”

5:00-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme:  “Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”

Panelists:  Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid, Robert Knight, Robert Gagnon, Gregg Quinlan; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

Special Friday evening keynote presentation (Q & A will follow talk):

7:45 – 9:15 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism:

“From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”

__________________________________________________________

SATURDAY, AUGUST 7 (Day Three)

8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast; Registration

9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“’But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: Answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”

10:10 – 11:10 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries:

“Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”

11:20-12:20 – Greg Quinlan, PFOX, Pro-Family Network:

“The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”

12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media:

“Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’”

2:30-3:40 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”

3:50-4:50 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:

“Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”

5:00-6:00 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH Board Member:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”

6:00-6:20 – Closing remarks, Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

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

___________________________________

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

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

__________________________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________

Statewide Offices of Sen. Dick Lugar

Southern Indiana

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

Northeast Indiana

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

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

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

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

Matt Barber's unapologetic approach toward the Culture War over homosexuality is the answer to wimpy evangelicals who seem to have forgotten that they are defending God's clearly-revealed Truth on this moral issue.

Here is Part Two of AFTAH’s June 12, 2010 interview with Matt Barber (CLICK HERE). (Listen to Part One HERE, or any other past interview HERE.) Barber is the Director of Cultural Affairs for the Liberty Counsel and an Associate Dean at Liberty University’s School of Law — where he will be teaching a course on “Sexual Behavior and the Law” this Fall. Barber and AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera discussed the upcoming Americans For Truth Academy and the hysterical opposition to it by homosexual radicals like Joe Jervis (who claims the Academy will “foster violence” against homosexuals). At the Truth Academy, to be held outside Chicago Aug 5-7, Barber will be lecturing on, among other things, a “Non-defensive approach to the issue of homosexuality.” Speaking of which, the two discuss the current malaise of evangelicals on the homosexuality issue — including Andy Marin’s preposterous call for a “moratorium” in churches on preaching against the sin of homosexuality.

Toward the end of the interview, Barber, author of the “The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War,” discusses the homosexual activist movement (failed) attempt to open up blood donations to homosexual men — despite the well-documented linkage between male-on-male sex and various sexually transmitted diseases including HIV. You will want to pass this interview on to your friends!

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

6-12-10, Matt Barber, All

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________________

WUSA9.com reports:

Transgendered Men Go Topless In Rehoboth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not all are so sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Barack Obama's promotion of a government-enforced homosexual and "transgender" agenda will lead to the loss of liberties for those who espouse and defend the natural, historic Judeo-Christian conception of marriage and family.

CORRECTION: Well folks, looks like we’re a year behind in covering President Obama’s declaration of “Pride” in that which is shameful. I accidentally published President Obama’s 2009 “Gay Pride Month” Proclamation instead of the current 2010 version. So below we have included both years’ proclamations so you can compare them. Note that in the 2010 version, Obama calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he is now circumventing piecemeal through “domestic partner” executive orders for federal workers. I apologize for the mistake. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________

Original AFTAH commentary:

America’s pro-homosexual Panderer-in-Chief is at it again….When President Obama proclaims [2009 "Gay Pride Month" statement], “As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit,” I wonder if he’s ever heard of Matt Barber — who was fired by Allstate Insurance Co., after Obama’s “gay” allies over at the Human Wrongs Rights Campaign complained that Matt had written an online article critical of homosexuality (on his own time).

(I don’t recall Matt being comforted at the idea that it was for the cause of “gay equality” that he was cruelly and suddenly thrown into unemployment by Allstate….)

Or how about Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer who was fined by the courts under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law because she would not take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony? (Pro-gay-agenda Libertarians: take note; Huguenin is appealing the decision.)

Wasn’t religious liberty and freedom of conscience one of those “principles upon which our Nation was founded”?

Clearly, a few Americans many win but only at the expense of many more who will lose their freedom if proud homosexuality is elevated to official “civil rights” status. As Obama’s own recess appointee at the EEOC, lesbian law professor and ENDA architect Chai Feldblum, has put it, it’s a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and homosexuality-based “rights.” So let’s do away with the pretense that celebrating legally-enshrined homosexuality (read: changeable homosexual behavior) is some universally-held value that will unite Americans. It won’t. And the Bible-dismissing Obama’s unprecedented promotion of not just the homosexualist agenda but federally-guaranteed “rights” based on gender confusion (the transgender “T” in “GLBT”) will only help solidify his standing as the most divisive president in modern memory and probably the most left-wing leader in our nation’s history. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________________________

Below is Obama’s (current) 2010 “Gay Pride Month” proclamation:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 28, 2010

Presidential Proclamation–Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

As Americans, it is our birthright that all people are created equal and deserve the same rights, privileges, and opportunities.  Since our earliest days of independence, our Nation has striven to fulfill that promise.  An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.  This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans, we renew our commitment to the struggle for equal rights for LGBT Americans and to ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists.

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.  From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline.  They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors.  Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.  Thanks to those who came before us    the brave men and women who marched, stood up to injustice, and brought change through acts of compassion or defiance    we have made enormous progress and continue to strive for a more perfect union.

My Administration has advanced our journey by signing into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which strengthens Federal protections against crimes based on gender identity or sexual orientation.  We renewed the Ryan White CARE Act, which provides life saving medical services and support to Americans living with HIV/AIDS, and finally eliminated the HIV entry ban.  I also signed a Presidential Memorandum directing hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to give LGBT patients the compassion and security they deserve in their time of need, including the ability to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions.

In other areas, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a series of proposals to ensure core housing programs are open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.  HUD also announced the first ever national study of discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the rental and sale of housing.  Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services has created a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders.

Much work remains to fulfill our Nation’s promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.  That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits.  We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.  I am also committed to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal.

As we honor the LGBT Americans who have given so much to our Nation, let us remember that if one of us is unable to realize full equality, we all fall short of our founding principles.  Our Nation draws its strength from our diversity, with each of us contributing to the greater whole.  By affirming these rights and values, each American benefits from the further advancement of liberty and justice for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

___________________________________________________________________________

And here is (last year’s) Obama’s 2009 homosexual “Pride Month” proclamation:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release, June 1, 2009

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- – - – - – -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Click here to download PDF

“And in DC, Kirk wasn’t all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay.”

*          *          *

“In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way [against the repeal of the ban on homosexuals-in-the-military], the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk.” – Homosexual “outing” activist Michael Rogers, “Truth or Consequences”

Homosexual blogger Mike Rogers "outed" Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois; pictured above) as a homosexual after Kirk voted against the repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military. Rogers says that Kirk once told him he was "gay."

By Peter LaBarbera

The following is a post by homosexual “outing” activist Michael Rogers, reprinted from his “Blogactive” website. (It was picked by the left-wing Huffington Post.) Note Rogers’ pro-”gay” standard for political “outing” (publicizing a person’s alleged homosexuality): as long as the presumably homosexual legislator helps the “gay” activist movement, he is left alone. But when he — like Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) — votes the “wrong” way on a high-profile piece of legislation important to the Homosexual Lobby,well, as Rogers puts it, “the gig is up.” (Note below that Kirk has very high pro-gay scorecard ratings for a Republican, as measured by the nation’s leading homosexual organization.)

In this case, Kirk voted AGAINST the repeal of the military’s ban on homosexuals, thus igniting a new round of online homosexual wrath that could affect his bid to win the U.S. Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. (In the GOP Illinois Senate primary, long-shot candidate Andy Martin ran radio ads statewide targeting Kirk for his alleged homosexuality.)

I have written before about Rogers, who has taken “outing” activism to a new level. Note how Rogers and his followers take credit for the pro-ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) vote switch by “conservative” Republican Rep. David Dreier (CA). (Dreier’s alleged homosexuality was reported by the liberal alternative press–i.e., beyond just the gay press; two Dreier staffers separately hung up on this writer inquiring about his sexual preference, as one reportedly did to this L.A. Weekly reporter coming at the issue from an opposite perspective.)

Folks, this is serious business: if secretly homosexual politicians are subject to pro-”gay”-agenda voting pressure by the likes of Rogers, their constituents (and the wider public) certainly have a right to know — just as they have the right to know if a “pro-family” legislator is mocking those values through the act of adultery. This is why Americans For Truth refuses to play the “outing game” by “gay”/liberal activist rules, which are mainly designed to embarrass hypocritical, conservative Republicans.

Here is the liberal rationale for outing as provided by L.A. Weekly writer Doug Ireland (emphasis his):

I have always taken the view that outing a gay person should be approached with caution, and that in doing so one should strictly adhere to the Barney Frank Rule. As articulated by the openly gay Massachusetts congressman during another anti-gay GOP witch-hunt over a decade ago, when Frank threatened to out a number of gay-baiting Republican fellow congressmen, the rule insists that outing is only acceptable when a person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.

This homosexuality-affirming rationale enjoys increasing though not yet widespread respect in the “mainstream” media, which often shills for the GLBT agenda. To the contrary, AFTAH supports exposing (“outing”) covert homosexuals who either:

1. are using their position of power to advance the pro-homosexuality agenda –  a mission more effectively accomplished by stealth because it masks the obvious conflict-of-interest that being open about their homosexuality would present (CNN reporter Anderson Cooper, who is reported to be homosexual by OUT magazine and other “gay” media, would fall into this category); or
2. threaten to undermine pro-family public policy goals through being targeted by the brand of “queer extortion” employed by Rogers (e.g., case of Rep. David Dreier); or
3. are “living a lie” by practicing behavior that flouts either the traditional values of their own constituents or the pro-family platform that the politician publicly espouses. (Note the similarity of this criterion to exposing heterosexual philandering pols who are publicly pro-family.)

When — as in years preceding the Mark Foley scandal — talk of the VIP’s reported homosexuality becomes so widespread that it demands clarification, AFTAH and this writer ask politicians, potential judges and VIP media members the “Homosexual Question.” Deeply-held private biases affect public policy, so the voting public has a right to know those biases, especially when they are the target of hard-ball pressure politics. Of course, Michael Rogers — who queried this writer on the same question — comes at it from the opposite perspective. The following is reprinted from Rogers’ “Blogactive” website:

Truth or Consequences

Blogactive, by Michael Rogers, June 1, 2010

If you’ve been around long enough, you’ll remember the original television game show Truth or Consequences. (For those around longer, it was preceded by a radio show of the same name and format.) It was rather simple, answer a question correctly or “suffer” the consequences. In this case, consequence meant the performance of “usually a zany and embarrassing stunt.” I use the term “suffer” lightly, as most contestants tried to give the wrong answer just so they could perform the assigned punishment activity.

The same game exists in politics. In DC, the format is a bit different. Instead of a handful of players each week, this version has 535 contestants: 435 in the House, the remainder in the Senate. And, sometimes, you have to wonder if these guys are purposefully getting the answer wrong just so they get to perform the stunt. In this case the punishment is unwanted and is usually an appearance before a camera, humiliation of his wife, and blaming the whole damned thing on the environment in DC while invoking god. Wouldn’t it have been simple enough To Tell the Truth? (Oh, wait, that’s a different game show.)

In many cases, players decide not to play the Capitol’s version of the game, and that’s just fine. If someone doesn’t get up and get the first part wrong, they never face part 2.

Sometimes it’s not so simple.

Why report on Mark Kirk (R-IL)? Why now?

Until now, Mark Kirk elected not to play the typical Washington game. Instead of supporting his party’s dismal record on gay rights, Kirk received Human Rights Campaign ratings of 67% in 2002, 88% in 2004, 76% in 2006 and 85% in 2008. That’s more impressive than a lot of Democrats. I even let Kirk slide by when he didn’t co-sponsor earlier legislation relating to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. My thoughts then were that he wasn’t THAT bad on gay stuff and that the bill was going nowhere anyway.

Times have changed. Now, for the first time in his congressional career, Mark Kirk really had the chance to stand up and do what is right with the power of a vote. When I heard that five GOPers voted to lift the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ban I instinctively thought Kirk would be one of them. What a disappointment when he wasn’t. The five were: Judy Biggert (R-IL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ron Paul (R-TX), Joseph Cao (R-LA), and Charles Djou, (R-HI).

“Where was Mark Kirk?” I wondered. I left a messages at both the campaign and DC offices of the Representative who wants to be Senator. No one responded. Shocker.

In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way, the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk. (Mr. and Mrs. Kirk were married from 2001 to 2009, the marriage produced no children.)

Within hours of the DADT repeal vote I was contacted by two people who knew Kirk from his college days.

“In law school in DC everyone knew Mark was gay,” the first source told me. I explained that the information was intriguing, it would not be enough to go on. He continued, “But I had sex with him a number of times.” Well, now we’re onto something I thought. “Could someone verify for me that you knew Kirk and went to school with him?” I asked. “Yes” was the swift reply. “Could you recall personal details about Kirk that others may not know?” “Yes,” he said.

And he did.

The next source claimed to have gone to undergraduate school with Kirk. I asked for proof that he and Kirk were in school together and once that was shared with me, I met with the source. The source introduced me to a man who had also been friends with Kirk in college. They both shared with me their interactions with Kirk, including one sexual in nature. The source who claimed to have sex with Kirk described personal details about the House, um, er, “member.” The description was the same as the first source.

And in DC, Kirk wasn’t all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay. Before I had BlogActive, I had a life in Washington. As a fundraiser I raised major gifts from $5,000 to over $1,000,000… You don’t do that kind of work at a keyboard, you do it at events attended by people with money. The movers and shakers and their friends.

It was early 2004 when I was at a social gathering on Capitol Hill. I’m guessing there were 35-40 people present, including the guy who brought me as his guest. While the party was no means a “gay” party, I’d guess that of the men at least 75% were overtly gay. The others present were either straight men or their women friends.

It was at that party that I met Mark Kirk. I was introduced to him by the person I came with and at the time did not realize he was a member of the House. As my friend walked away, Kirk asked me if the man who introduced us was “single or attached.” When I said that he had a partner, Kirk replied disappointingly, “oh, well.” At the end of that interaction I walked away and didn’t think much of it at the time.

Then Kirk became a hypocrite. Kirk voted against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, despite his being a closeted gay man in the military. As a Commander in the Navy Reserves Kirk has voted to keep a policy that if he were investigated under he would be tossed.

Recently we learned that it’s not just his being a closeted gay man that Kirk lies about; he has a habit of making up awards supposedly given to him by the Navy.

Nice try, Mark. The gig is up.

__________________________________

Related articles:

“NBC: The guy trying to out Mark Kirk also outed Mark Foley, Larry Craig” (Republican News Watch)

“Gay community pushes Mark Kirk out of the closet” (Republican News Watch)

“Mark Kirk outed by filmmaker Mike Rogers — just as we told you this would happen. Waiting for response from Fran Eaton and Illinois Review.” (HillBuzz blog)

“The liberal media might be expected to reject what God and common sense tell us about sexuality. But there is no excuse for the conservative brain trust to ignore this threat.” – Robert Knight

Talk show host Mike Gallagher has capitulated on most aspects of the homosexualist agenda, but still calls himself a "happy conservative." Gallagher supports repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military, and supports government benefits for same-sex "civil unions," but opposes homosexual "marriage."

Folks, our good friend Bob Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries is right. When “conservatives” like talker Mike Gallagher (right) stop being conservative on whatever issue is being debated, public policy disasters often result. In addition to contacting Congress on homosexuals-in-the-military, we need to be urging conservative media to get engaged in the fight to stop our Armed Forces from becoming the next “battlefield” for Sexual Correctness. More on AWOL “conservatives” later. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________________________

Conservative Media Fiddle While the Military Burns

By Robert Knight

Barney Frank and his friends are rolling their tanks through Congress while everyone is talking about something else.  As we reel from one crisis to the next, homosexual activists and their allies are muscling through their agenda, with nary a peep from the nation’s conservative talking heads.

This week, their target is the military. Soon, it will be passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would criminalize traditional morality in every workplace with 15 or more employees. After that, they will try to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, they aim to pass an “anti-bullying” law that will threaten schools with losing federal funds if they refuse to force kids to read Heather Has Two Mommies and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.  The agenda is breathtakingly ambitious, and would be unimaginable to previous generations.

These radical laws would be a watershed moment for socialists, who are at war with family and religion as impediments to a growing state. The pansexual Left senses triumph now for two reasons:

• First, the Obama-manufactured crisis-a-day has people terrified about where the economy is headed. The sheer magnitude of government takeovers and spending is dominating the Tea Party movement, and in fact, everybody.
• Second, homosexual activists and their media enablers have “jammed” the public debate. Hollywood, educators and the media continually deny the truth about homosexuality – that while all people are made in God’s image and are entitled to basic human rights – homosexuality is not in-born, is changeable, and is dangerous to the health and well being of individuals, families and communities. The militant advancement of gay activism poses the greatest threat to the freedoms of religion, assembly and speech within our borders.

Why aren’t more Americans properly concerned? You can have gay relatives, friends and colleagues and still understand that promoting sodomy as an affirmative action “right” is not a good thing. Americans used to get that. Perhaps the lack of resolve is because many conservative opinion leaders have run for the tall grass on this issue. By omitting it, they’re saying it really isn’t important.

When was the last time you heard a frank discussion about this on any of the top conservative talk shows, either on radio or television? Michael Savage is the only prominent talk show host to take it on, and he does it from Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco. How about Erick Erickson’s estimable Red State Morning Briefing? It’s vital, on-line reading, and I urge everyone to subscribe. And yet, while we’re on the verge of Congress’ raping the military to please a tiny, leftist lobby, the topic is nowhere to be found on Red State this week. Similarly, with a few exceptions, GOP leaders have been silent.

The gravity of allowing open homosexuality in the military cannot be overstated. It has the potential of destroying the all-volunteer force by discouraging recruitment, retention and shattering unit morale. Chaplains would find themselves muzzled on basic questions of morality and many would leave the services.  Recruits would undergo pro-homosexual “sensitivity” training. The already troubling problem of sexual misconduct would increase.

A 1993 report by the chief criminal investigator of the Army summarized 102 cases of homosexual misconduct in the army between 1989 and 1992. Twenty-nine of the incidents occurred in the barracks. Forty-nine incidents involved children. Five involved HIV-positive offenders. Nine occurred in either latrines or showers. Thirty-one cases involved soldiers with “a significant variance in pay grade,” such as sergeants preying on enlisted men. And this was during a time when the ban was in effect, including the question at induction, and before Clinton watered down the 1993 law with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” That law, by the way, which Congress passed overwhelmingly, explicitly bars people with the “propensity” to engage in homosexuality.

Reports like the above, and the astronomically higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases like HIV among homosexual men, are ignored in any discussions of whether to lift the ban. Instead, the rhetoric of the civil rights movement is employed, as if being black or Hispanic or white is on a par with acting out homosexual desires. Unlike skin color or ethnicity, sex is inextricably tied to behavior, character and morality. Thus, the “civil rights” arguments are absurdly inapplicable. How about the civil rights of service people who will be forced to co-habit with those who might view them as sex objects? They can’t just “go home” at night. And no one has made the case that adding homosexuality to the mix will improve military readiness. The best they can do is say that they’ll try to minimize the damage.

From misreporting junk science about non-existent “gay genes,” to bashing people who believe that some behavior is simply wrong and unhealthy, the media are a fully owned subsidiary of the gay activist movement. They march in lockstep according to the dictates of the 1989 gay strategy manual After the Ball, which describes in detail how to vilify anyone who disagrees.

The liberal media might be expected to reject what God and common sense tell us about sexuality. But there is no excuse for the conservative brain trust to ignore this threat. If the gay rights activists get everything they want, thus transforming morality itself into a form of bigotry actionable under the law, we will see the criminalization of Christianity.

It’s already happening in Great Britain, Scandinavia and in Canada, where the perversion of civil rights has led to Christians being hauled before human rights commissions for merely expressing a traditionalist view of sexual morality in public. And it’s begun in the U.S. as well, with the Boy Scouts being thrown out of schools, parks and United Way chapters, and a Christian couple fined by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a lesbian civil union ceremony. In New Jersey, the state removed the tax exemption for a Methodist seaside gazebo because the church did not want it used for  same-sex ceremonies contrary to Biblical morality. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Chai Feldblum has said in reference to gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

The military is a linchpin for all of society. It is a bastion of traditional values. Former communist David Horowitz recalls that during the ‘60s, radical leftists determined that if they could destroy the U.S. military, they could destabilize the rest of capitalist America. Two things could accomplish this, they said: Putting women into combat, and opening the armed forces to homosexuality.

Even for non-religious Americans, the strategy – and threat – ought to be clear. It’s time to get over fears of being called a “bigot,” and to stand up for what’s right for our military servicemen and women – and our country.

If conservative opinion leaders won’t talk about this, how will the rest of the country rally to defeat this leftist goal? We still can, but the hour is late.

____________________________

Robert Knight is Senior Writer and Correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the co-author of Ten Truths About Socialism (dangersofsocialism.com). His is also the author of Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), an ex-combat-Marine, opposes the effort to repeal the ban on open homosexuals in the military.

Folks, note the bias in this Politico article reprinted below reporting the legislative action Thursday on Capitol Hill to end the ban on open homosexuals serving in the military. Perhaps a large part of the reason that many Americans have changed their opinion on “gays in the military” is that they have been bombarded for the past 15 years with biased media treatment of the issue.  (And this Politico article is more “balanced” than most media stories dealing with homosexuality.) I sent Politico reporter Jen DiMascio this short note:

Letter to Politico.com, May 28, 2010

Re: your story on the House repeal of DADT

Dear Ms. DiMascio,

Why did you include no quotes from (non-governmental) pro-family or conservative lobby groups in your story today on the repeal of DADT [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] — seeing that you quote both SLDN [Servicemembers Legal Defense Network] and HRC [Human Rights Campaign] spokesmen?

Fair is fair.

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

As you can see below, DiMascio is not “fair and balanced” in quoting members of Congress, either, but at least she quotes two critics of the repeal (versus three supporters). I’ve bolded the quotation paragraphs as follows to help analyze the (un)fairness of this piece:

1. RED: pro-homosexuals-in-the-military quotes by private citizen activists (special interest groups);
2. BROWN: pro-homosexuals-in-the-military quotes by Members of Congress;
3. BLUE: anti-homosexuals-in-the-military (AGAINST REPEAL of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) quotes by Members of Congress.

Roll Call of vote: go HERE for a tally of the “repeal” vote in the House Thursday.  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
__________________________________________

House votes to repeal ‘don’t ask’

By: Jen DiMascio, Politico
May 27, 2010 07:53 PM EDT

The push to end the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military cleared two major hurdles Thursday, with the House backing repeal by a 234-194 vote, while the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 in favor of that body’s version of the change.

Both repeals, offered as amendments to a defense spending bill, would remove the policy only after the Pentagon completes a study due in December on the impact of the change on the military.

“I will not rest until the repeal of this discriminatory policy that hurts national security is signed into law,” Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the sponsor of the House amendment, said after the vote.

The White House and the Pentagon both approved the compromise in the amendments that allows Congress to act while granting the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ultimate authority to implement repeal when they are satisfied that the military’s readiness, recruiting, retention and morale would not be adversely impacted by it.

After the vote, Obama said he was pleased by the move toward repeal. “Our military is made up of the best and bravest men and women in our nation, and my greatest honor is leading them as commander in chief,” Obama said in a statement. “This legislation will help make our a rmed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity.”

The debate leading up to the House vote was heated at times, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), led the debate against repeal. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did her part on to the floor to defend it.

McKeon, who pressed for additional time to debate the measure in floor action, said he strongly opposed the amendment.

“We do have a sacred obligation to those who serve,” McKeon said in a statement after the vote, adding that proceeding before the Pentagon’s review of implementing repeal was through was “[t]he equivalent of turning to members of military and their families and saying that your views don’t count.”

“Passing this amendment today respects the timeline of the Pentagon’s Implementation Study Group. Repeal would take place only after the study group completes its work in December 2010 and after the president, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretary of defense all certify that repeal will not hurt military readiness or unit cohesion,” Pelosi said during the debate. “No one in this body would jeopardize our national security.”

The debate in the Senate committee was also “lively,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) the panel’s chairman.

“Today’s action by the Senate Armed Services Committee is an important step to end this discriminatory policy,” [Levin] said.

The amendment was the most-watched part of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s markup of its annual defense bill, which also passed Thursday evening.

Aside from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the bill was opposed by the Republicans on the committee and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who explained in a statement that he opposed repealing the ban while the Pentagon is in the midst of reviewing how it should implement the change.

“I see no reason to pre-empt the process that our senior Defense Department leaders put into motion, and I am concerned that many members of the military would view such a move as disrespectful to the importance of their roles in this process,” Webb said.

Thursday’s votes are just one step toward reversing the ban that has been in place since 1993.

The defense authorization bill typically passes with wide margins, but last year was an exception, as many Republicans voted against the bill because it included a hate-crimes provision.

The inclusion of don’t ask don’t tell could set up a similar dynamic this year.

And because the House defied President Obama’s veto threat to hang onto funding for two Joint Strike Fighter engines, the situation is even stickier. With the engine money and don’t ask don’t tell, Obama is caught between promises he has made to his most powerful Cabinet member and his liberal base of support on a landmark civil-rights issue.

The Pentagon is aggressively pushing for a veto.

“We don’t want nor need the extra engine, but this is just one step in a long journey and Secretary Gates is committed to staying engaged in this process the whole way, including if necessary ultimately recommending President Obama veto this legislation,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said after the vote.

So, too, is Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who supports don’t ask don’t tell repeal but opposes funding for the General Electric engine. Larson said he was encouraged by a strong vote on the amendment and the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee did not include funding for the engine in its bill.

“I fully expect the President to follow through with his threatened veto of the Defense Authorization Act if the F-35 Extra Engine Program is in the final legislation,” Larson said.

Gay-rights groups, which have been assured by the White House that repeal will work out in the end, immediately hailed the Senate panel’s vote as historic.

“Lawmakers today stood on the right side of history,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This is a historic step to strengthen our armed forces and to restore honor and integrity to those who serve our country so selflessly.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Congress is the correct branch of government to reverse the policy.

“Chairman Carl Levin, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Rep. Patrick Murphy showed remarkable courage and steadfastness in the face of unprecedented and inappropriate last minute lobbying by the Pentagon service chiefs. who seemed to have forgotten that they are not the policymakers here,” Sarvis said.

May 27, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_____________________________

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

FRC analyst Peter Sprigg found that the "most common type of homosexual assault in the military "is one in which the offender fondles or performs oral sex upon a sleeping victim." Encouraging open homosexuals to serve in the military will only exacerbate this problem.

The following is an Executive Summary of a new report produced by Family Research Council analyst Peter Sprigg on “Homosexual Assaults in the Military”:

WARNING: Offensive subject matter

___________________________________________________

Executive Summary [click here to link to entire report on PDF: "Homosexual Assaults in the Military"]

A Family Research Council analysis of publicly available documents–the Pentagon’s own report on sexual assault in the military for Fiscal Year 2009, and published decisions from military courts of appeals over the last decade and a half–have shown that there is already a significant problem of homosexual misconduct in the military. This problem can only become worse if the current law is repealed and homosexuals are openly welcomed (and even granted special protections) within the military, as homosexual activists are demanding.

Rates of Homosexual Assault in the Military Are Disproportionately High

Homosexual activist groups themselves have admitted that less than three percent of Americans are homosexual or bisexual.

FRC has reviewed the “case synopses” of all 1,643 reports of sexual assault reported by the four branches of the military for Fiscal Year 2009 (October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009). Our startling finding was that over eight percent (8.2%) of all military sexual assault cases were homosexual in nature. This suggests that homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are, relative to their numbers.

Lack of Privacy Leads to Sexual Assaults

FRC and other supporters of the current law have pointed out the risks involved in having servicemembers share living quarters, showers, and bathrooms with persons of the same sex who may be sexually attracted to them. This concern is borne out by many of the case synopses reported by the Pentagon. The most common type of homosexual assault is one in which the offender fondles or performs oral sex upon a sleeping victim. Assaults upon victims who are intoxicated are also common.

Many Discharges of Homosexuals Are for Sexual Assault

Advocates of open homosexuality in the military often lament the fact that several thousand members of the military have been discharged under the 1993 law since its enactment. However, what they fail to note is that many of those discharges are actually for sexual assaults.

Court Records Reveal Shocking Cases of Homosexual Assault

Published decisions of military courts (available on the legal search engine Lexis) give even more detail about homosexual assaults in the military. For example:

• 36-year-old Marine Sgt. Sean D. Habian used both alcohol and homosexual pornography in the course of assaulting a 21-year-old Lance Corporal.
• Marine Sgt. Steven G. Carlson, a military police instructor, took advantage of his position to exploit his students, inviting them to social events, plying them with alcohol, and playing games like “truth or dare” to identify who might be receptive to homosexual activity. One of his victims “testified that the appellant’s acts shocked him, he froze, and was scared.”
• Homosexual activists are fond of saying that the military cannot afford to lose the specialized skills that some homosexual service members have-such as translators and linguists. Air Force Sgt. Eric P. Marcum was a Persian-Farsi linguist-but also was charged with forcible sodomy against a male Senior Airman who “testified that Appellant’s actions made him scared, angry, and uncomfortable.”
• Air Force Major Rickie J. Bellanger was charged with sexually abusing two minor boys-one of whom had begun corresponding with Maj. Bellanger when he was in the fifth grade.

Conclusion

The military already has a serious problem with sexual assault by homosexuals. If the current law against homosexuality in the military is overturned, the problem of same-sex sexual assault in the military is sure to increase.

• If the law is overturned and open homosexuals are welcomed into the military, the number of homosexuals in the armed forces can only increase–leading to a corresponding increase in same-sex sexual assaults.
• Removal of the threat of discharge from the military for homosexual conduct will reduce deterrence, likely leading to more cases of sexual assault.
• If homosexuals become a protected class within the military, victims will be afraid to report incidents of homosexual assault and commanders will be afraid to punish them, lest they be accused of “discrimination” or “homophobia.”

Allowing open homosexuality in the military would do nothing to enhance the readiness or effectiveness of our armed forces. On the contrary, it would clearly damage them-in part because it would increase the already serious problem of homosexual assault in the military.

Download the full PDF report by Family Research Council: “Homosexual Assaults in the Military”

Aubrey Sarvis of the homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) said it was "not a big deal" serving in the Army as a homosexual way back in the 1960s. The gays-in-the-military debate is NOT about discreet homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, but the desire of homosexuals to be "out and proud" even in the conservative military culture.

Folks, note how homosexual activist and former Army infantry sharpshooter Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN) — the “gay” organization lobbying for homosexuals in the military — answers this question by MSNBC host Chris Matthews on his show Feb. 2, 2010:

MSNBC’s Matthews: “As a gay man, what was it like [serving in the Army]? You were not out in the open, obviously. What was your experience in that regard? What did you learn in terms of this issue of whether gay people should be allowed to serve openly?

Sarvis replies: “Well, by and large, even in the ’60s, Chris, I found that gays and lesbians serving — and most were serving in silence then — it was not a big deal. But all gays and lesbians want to serve openly. They want to be honest about their service to their country. And as Adm. Mullen said today, it comes down to integrity, and every servicemember counts — gay or straight.” [more analysis follows video....]

Sarvis’ comment is most reasonably interpreted to mean that  it was “not a big deal” for homosexuals like himself to serve — i.e., they were not harassed or persecuted, presumably as long as they kept silent about their homosexuality. By extension, he may also be asserting that it was “no big deal” to the majority of straight soldiers that there were (discreet, non-public) homosexuals in the Army.

Like Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council, I believe that “homosexuals” [for purposes here: people who practice homosexuality or claim a (deviant) sexual attraction to members of the same sex] should not serve in the military. That is the law. But think back to the days of Arvis’ youth 40 years ago — when homosexuality was much more condemned by society than it is today. If men or women were capable of serving (as secret homosexuals) then — without major difficulties — what is behind the current, politically manufactured “gays-in-the-military “crisis” that supposedly necessitates a revolution in our military conduct policy during wartime?

The answer is “gay pride” — which is a military and national priority only in the minds of homosexual advocates and their liberal allies like our current Commander-in-Chief. Discreet and celibate homosexuals have long served and continue to serve in the military — often after lying about their homosexuality to get in (which calls into question all that “gay” blather about “honesty” and “integrity”). But the fact that the nation’s leading homosexuals-in-the-military activist acknowledges that it was “not a big deal” for him to serve in the Army decades ago (Sarvis was in for more than three years) shows that — on a practical level — the issue is not really about homosexuals serving in the military.

No, Sarvis and fellow homosexual crusaders want servicemen and servicewomen who identify as homosexuals to serve as “out and proud gays and lesbians” –and to be affirmed as such by other servicemen, and by the Armed Forces’ bureaucracy. They already “serve in silence,” but they demand the “right” to do so loudly and proudly — traditional military values be damned. H.R. 1283, the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), would accomplish this goal by imposing “sexual orientation” egalitarianism on the Armed Forces in the guise of fighting “discrimination”; as with all “gay rights” legislation, such a law would invariably lead to politically correct assaults on the rights and beliefs of fighting men and women of faith who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.

In other words, GLBT activists — driven by the need to justify their immoral and unnatural lifestyle — seek to transform the conservative culture of the U.S. military to approve of “proud” homosexuality and bisexuality, even if that means spending millions of taxpayer dollars on “attitudinal adjustment” for all the soldiers, sailors and airmen who either oppose homosexuality or don’t wish to see it celebrated. If Congress caves in to this “gay” agenda, it would help drive out tens of thousands of high caliber, tradition-minded servicemen from the military.

Isn’t that a rather high price to pay to validate those in the military who aren’t even supposed to be serving in the first place? – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

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

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

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

Here is AFA’s E=Alert:

_______________________________________

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

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

May 25, 2010

Dear Concerned American,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email your members of Congress now!

Homosexual "outing" activist Mike Rogers takes credit for Rep. David Dreier's and Rep. Jim McCrery's pro-homosexual voting switch on ENDA in 2007.

“Gay” “outing” activist Mike Rogers (right) attempts to expose the secret homosexuality of politicians who vote against the homosexual activist agenda. Below he responds to my call for potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to answer the question of whether they practice (or have practiced) homosexual behavior.

Rogers’ questions, though perverse, are fair, I suppose, since AFTAH is demanding transparency and honesty from others in the public arena who will influence public policy on the homosexual issue. But once again I disappoint our many homosexual critics because I do not have — and never had — a homosexual problem.

Shocking claim: As you can read HERE on my political site, Rogers takes credit for Rep. Dreier  (and Rep. Jim  McCrery, R-La.) switching in 2007 to support ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would federalize employment “rights” based on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. If his report is even close to the truth, then it constitutes further evidence of the dangers of hidden homosexuality in the Republican Party.

We’ll see if the GOP leadership — which still can’t say no to homosexual activist “Republicans” — has learned anything from the Mark Foley scandal. (Dreier’s staff hung up on two calls by this writer inquiring about the Congressman’s sexual preference.)

My response follows Rogers’ very “queer” query after the jump. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

________________________________

From: Mike Rogers <[--------]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:01:29 -0500
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Peter

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:

——————————————————————————–
Quoting my work in a press release [RFFV release HERE]…how exciting! I guess one could ask the same of you, right? Have you ever had a sexual and/or physical interaction with another man at any time? (By \’sexual and/or physical interaction\’ I mean kissing, sharing a bed with physical contact, oral/anal sex, mutual masturbation and/or masturbation in another man\’s presence.)
–
Michael Rogers
Page One News Media

—————————————–

LaBarbera responds:

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:24 PM, <americansfortruth@comcast.net> wrote:

Nope to all the above. Sorry to disappoint you, Mike. — pl
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

—————————————-

New EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldlum

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute, March 30, 2010

Click HERE to watch some video clips of Chai Feldblum at a 2008 panel discussion at the Family Research Council.

______________________________

Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She is also one of the authors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would provide special protections for those who choose to base their identity on their same-sex attraction or their disordered desire to do the impossible: change their sex.

And this is the same Chai Feldblum whom President Barack Obama has appointed to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He used the legal but divisive mechanism of recess appointments, which allow him to appoint people to serve in important government roles without being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. According to the homosexual newspaper, Windy City Times, “Feldblum, as part of the commission, will have considerable influence in the writing of federal regulations to enforce” the deeply troubling ENDA if it’s passed.

Feldblum, speaking at a Becket Fund Symposium in December 2005 stated the following:

[L]et us postulate, for the moment, that in some number of years an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in this country will have changed their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in society, including access to civil marriage. Or, indeed, let us postulate that the entire country is governed – as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law – on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and that provide same-sex couples the same societal supports currently available to opposite-sex couples, including access to civil marriage. . . . [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on those religious people who believe acting on one’s same-sex sexual orientation is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin if they rent an apartment to a gay couple, allow a gay couple to eat at their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a same-sex spouse….

Let me be very clear…in almost all the situations…I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified….

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….

Not surprisingly, following her nomination to the EEOC, Feldblum requested that her name be removed from the subversive document she signed in 2006 entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” which begins with this troubling statement (emphasis in original document):

We, the undersigned – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers — seek to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families. In so doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today.

We seek access to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

The “Beyond Marriage” authors seek to have “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” as well as “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households” be recognized as families and accorded all the benefits of traditional marriages.

Click HERE to watch a short and important video that exposes the radical nature of Feldblum’s vision for America, American jurisprudence, and religious liberty.

And here are the titles of just three of Feldblum’s scholarly articles:

• “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion”
• “The Right to Define One’s Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People”
• “Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More” — in which she asserts that “even if gay couples succeed in ‘getting marriage,’ the gay rights movement may have missed a critical opportunity – a chance to make a positive moral case for gay sex and gay couples. In other words, it will have missed the opportunity to argue that ‘gay is good,’” and that “changing the public’s perception of the morality of gay sex and of changing one’s gender may ultimately be necessary to achieve true equality for LGBT people.”

If conservatives continue to self-censor, if we refuse to courageously and publicly counter the relentless, pervasive, deafening cultural messages that affirm homosexual acts as moral, we will lose speech rights, religious liberty, and we will see the destruction of marriage and the natural family.

There’s no point now in expressing your opposition to Feldblum’s appointment: Obama doesn’t care, and the Senate won’t be consulted.

Defense Sec. Robert Gates seems more concerned with satisfying President Obama's pro-homosexual views than following the existing 1993 law banning homosexuals in the military, says leading expert Elaine Donnelly. Congress has the final say, she says.

The following news release was put our Thursday by the Center For Military Readiness, based in Livonia, Michigan [to support the Center's unique mission and CMR President Elaine Donnelly's excellent work, go HERE]:

___________________________________

CMR Press Release: Continued Confusion About 1993 Gays-in-Military Law
Thursday, March 25, 2010

In response to an announcement by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the results of a 45-day review of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

“Secretary Gates has sent a confusing message to the troops. By applying new regulations applying only to the small number of discharges that occur for homosexuality, he has invited noncompliance with the extant 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, in future cases and those that are still pending.”

“Instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the meaning and intent of the law, Secretary Gates seems to be condoning unwarranted delays. Local commanders who are trying to do their duty by enforcing the law deserve support, not second-guessing by higher-level officials who seem more concerned about President Obama’s views than they are about the terms and intent of the law.”

Donnelly continued, “Whether intended or not, regulation changes announced today could create an incentive for ‘third parties’ to ‘out’ someone who is not eligible for military service. This will undermine respect for the law and perpetuate the institutional dishonesty that Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen complained of in February.”

She added, “It is unfortunate that Adm. Mullen has mischaracterized the views of active-duty subordinates who are not truly free to express their own opinions, due to the Chairman’s inappropriate personal statement prematurely calling for repeal of the law. Admiral Mullen has disingenuously claimed little disagreement with his personal view among active-duty troops. But junior personnel will not disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during focus group meetings, and those who do agree with Mullen should not be used as props in the presence of the media.”

She added, “It is also ironic that Adm. Mullen has criticized a three-star general for expressing a personal view in support of the 1993 law, even after Mullen himself expressed a personal opinion favoring repeal of the same law before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2. This appears to be a double standard that is not helpful.

“Furthermore, Secretary Gates has once again insisted that the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) that he has established should limit its report only to ‘how’ and ‘when’ to repeal the law—not ‘if’ the law should be repealed. This posture effectively cuts out Congress and the American people, who will oppose any attempt to impose a European-style LGBT Law and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered policies on our military by what Sen. John McCain described as a ‘fiat’.”

She continued, “If Secretary Gates really wants to make enforcement of the law ‘more humane,’ he should follow the legal mandate to explain the purpose and meaning of the law more accurately, and exercise his legally-authorized option to reinstate ‘the question’ about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms. All of the personal stories about servicemembers discharged for homosexuality could have been avoided if the Bush and Obama Administrations had taken steps to more fully explain and enforce the actual law.

“Despite the unnecessary and unfortunate confusion caused by Secretary Gates today, I remain confident that members of Congress ultimately will retain current law, which is important to protect recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force.”

Background: Why Exceptions in Enforcement Are Not Justified

With regard to the matter of “third party outings” generally, Finding #15 in the statute clearly states that “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” Because there is no constitutional right to serve, the creation of an unjustified exemption for persons revealed to be gay by others would contradict the plain meaning and intent of the law.

In a prominent case that sparked the discussion of “third parties” last year, Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a former weapons systems officer, continues to claim that he should be spared discharge. An investigation by Fehrenbach’s local newspaper, the Boise Statesman, found that he was accused of sexual assault by a “third party” he solicited for consensual sex on a gay website. A police report ensued, but Fehrenbach was cleared when he proved the incident was consensual.

Defining Discipline Down

It is unclear whether new regulations will allow Fehrenbach to remain in the Air Force. Nothing in cases involving “third parties” justifies a suspension of enforcement, since the law clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve.

Enough already. Lt. Dan Choi (activist website HERE) is more than a distraction to the military: he’s a misguided “gay” militant who needs to follow his true calling — crusading for the acceptance of immoral sexual behavior. We’re quite sure there’s a job waiting for him at the leftist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force or perhaps the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The liberal media may love Choi (note CNN’s Rick Sanchez’s somber and deferential tone) but I’d hate to count on the media to defend America. See additional comments after the break and following the video:

The spectacle of Choi protesting his own Commander-in-Chief and Choi’s self-aggrandizing crusade against the Armed Forces — which by law cannot allow open homosexuals — helps explain to the public why celebrated homosexuality has no place in our military culture. Imagine all the pro-”gay” activism that would follow an official governmental shift toward mandating that the military affirm homosexuals. This must never happen. Homosexual behavior is incompatible with good morale and military discipline — and “gay”-affirming “diversity” policies would offend religious and moral-minded servicemen and drive good men and women out of the military. Somehow we think the United States Armed Forces can thrive in their true mission — fighting wars and protecting our shores — without being diverted into the dubious business of homosexual “pride.” – — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

AFTAH Board Member and Liberty Counsel Cultural Affairs Director Matt Barber adds this:

“Through Choi’s juvenile fit of civil disobedience, he obtusely undermines his own cause. As a former veteran with twelve years of service, I can say with authority that the military is only as strong as each link within its chain of command. Radical homosexual activists like Choi are weak links within that chain.

“Civil disobedience such as Choi’s must not and cannot be ‘tolerated’ within our Armed Services.  Choi has proven himself an insubordinate. I have no sympathy for this reckless, self-serving ideologue. His demonstrated disobedience and disregard for orders (Article 10, Section 654 USC) bolsters the case against both homosexual conduct and sexual militancy in the Armed Forces.”

Note: here is the CNN Youtube URL in case the version on our website does not work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbYQ8oxqFg4

“Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross).” –FDA (U.S. Food & Drug Administration), “Blood Donations from Men Who Have Sex with Other Men - Questions and Answers”

War is bloody, yet men who have practiced homosexuality cannot give blood. Writes Barber: "If 'gays' are allowed to serve openly ... how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?"

Another informative piece by Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Director of Cultural Studies at the Liberty Counsel. To read about the current FDA policy banning blood donations from MSM (“men who have had sex with men”) — and women who have had sex with MSM — go HERE. Homosexuality is not about “human rights,” but rather (changeable) human wrongs — and human wrongs often have public health consequences. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org; write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

TAKE ACTION: Call and write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose ALL efforts to force open homosexuality on the military. Oppose S. 3065 in the Senate and HR 1283 in the House — bills that would homosexualize our Armed Services and force our nation’s conservative military culture to become one that celebrates homosexual “pride.” 

______________________________

Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed

By J. Matt Barber

The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one’s hope of donning the uniform.

This is discrimination only insofar as “discriminating minds” with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.

In formal recognition of the long-established finding that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:

• The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
• Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
• The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;
• The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
• There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.

So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about “out and proud” homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?

The answer to both is no.

The fact that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline” has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the “settled” anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we’ll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: “['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

The FDA further warns: “['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population.”

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If “gays” are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for “tolerance” and “diversity” – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

All things considered (and we’ve only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should “gays” be allowed to serve openly: “I would not re-enlist or extend my service.” Furthermore, 14 percent warn: “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.

When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the “gays in the military” debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.

Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.

In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful “gay rights” rhetoric. However, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who’ve already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.

For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be “tolerated.”

Mr. President, it’s your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It’s high time you begin to take your job seriously.

_______________________________

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. Barber is a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

CBN story on Perkins being disinvited: no, it's not homosexuality that's "incompatible" with military service under Obama; now it's the expression of Christian faith -- opposing homosexuality -- in the public square.

Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Director of Cultural Affairs at the Liberty Counsel, writes: “I believe those few of us remaining who are willing to take a stand on God’s natural design for human sexuality and morality will eventually be completely marginalized and persecuted by both the government and private industry. This is a chilling example of things to come.”

We agree. Christians and all those who oppose the normalization of sexual immorality through the force of law: are you going to stand by and just take it or will you defend your liberty to live out your religious and moral beliefs? This is only the latest proof that homosexual “rights” (so-called) are incompatible with America’s historic protection of religious freedom and First Amendment liberties.

I suppose there are many more craven acts to follow as our men in uniform scramble to appease their left-wing, pro-”gay” Panderer-in-Chief. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Here’s Breitbart linking to Pat Robertson’s CBN interview with Perkins:

http://www.breitbart.tv/prominent-minister-is-disinvited-from-military-prayer-luncheon-over-gays-in-service-issue/

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

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

Dear Admiral Mullen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With due respect,

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

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

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

WATCH THE LIVE WEBCAST: Friday 2-6:35 p.m. and Saturday 9 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 -5:00 p.m. See the Liberty Counsel press release on the conference HERE.

Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”

Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict, so it is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attraction and the broader homosexual agenda.

If you cannot attend the conference and symposium on Friday afternoon and Saturday, you can watch the live webcast HERE.

See the schedule for Friday and Saturday for the extraordinary list of speakers.

Event times and locations are as follows:

Friday, Feb. 12, 10:00 a.m., convocation, Liberty University – Vines Center;
Friday, Feb. 12, 2:00 – 6:45 p.m., conference, Liberty University School of Law – Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 9:00 a.m. – 5 p.m., symposium, Liberty University School of Law Supreme Courtroom;
Saturday, Feb. 13, 5:00 p.m. banquet, Liberty University – Grand Lobby of DeMoss Hall.

The conference and the symposium are free, but tickets are required for the Saturday evening banquet. For more information, please go to www.LC.org, contact Liberty University School of Law at 434-592-5300 or visit http://law.liberty.edu.