This is Part Two of my interview with Oklahoma City pastor Paul Blair and Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Chairman and Director of Cultural Affairs at Liberty Counsel. This pre-recorded interview aired Dec. 17, 2011. Blair, a former NFL lineman, and his church, Fairview Baptist Church, were on the receiving end of some phoned-in death threats after he testified against an Oklahoma City “sexual orientation” ordinance. You can hear of a few of the death threats in this interview. (To listen to Part One of the interview, go  HERE.)

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Real Player is not supported and there may be difficulty when attempting to listen with it.  Left click once on the link below to play. (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

12-17-11, Paul Blair & Matt Barber, Part Two

Texas Gov. Rick Perry

Gary Glenn, Executive Director or American Family Association of Michigan, wrote yesterday:

Friends,
 
I was disappointed to learn today that Gov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, in 2001 signed homosexual activists’ so-called “hate crimes” legislation into law in that state.
 
As with the federal law signed by President Obama, the Texas statute signed by Perry establishes special “protected class” status under law, including enhanced sentencing for crimes allegedly motivated by bias against it, expressly on the basis of so-called “sexual preference” (homosexual behavior).
 
As lead plaintiff in a federal civil rights lawsuit (http://bit.ly/ilz0mP) asking the courts to declare the Obama-signed law an unconstitutional and chilling violation of religious free speech rights, honesty requires that I be equally critical of Gov. Perry for signing into law the exact same type of legislation, which — it’s clear from the enforcement record of such laws in Europe and Canada — poses the greatest single threat to religious free speech rights in America today.
 
Thus, if Perry were to become the Republican nominee for president, both major presidential candidates would be on record as having signed into law what is arguably the most dangerous element of homosexual activists’ political agenda, which we routinely characterize — when criticizing Obama and other Democrats who advocate it — as threatening to result in the criminalization of Christianity.  It poses no less a threat to religious freedom if signed into law by a Republican.
 
Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan
989-835-7978
 
———————————————————-
 
Office of the Governor
 
“As the Governor of our diverse state, in all matters it is my desire to seek common ground for the common good.  In the end, we are all Texans and we must be united as we walk together into the future. That’s why today I have signed House Bill 587 into law. Texas has always been a tough-on-crime state.  With my signature today, Texas now has stronger criminal penalties against crime motivated by hate.”
 
– Gov. Rick Perry, bill-signing ceremony, May 11, 2001
 
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10595/

 
—————————————————————————-

Analysis by Equality Texas
(homosexual activist group)

2001 – 77th Session

House Bill 587 – (James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act)

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=77R&Bill=HB587

Equality Texas position — Yes

* After a 10-year struggle to pass a hate crimes bill in Texas, success was finally achieved with the James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Act. A bill might have been passed more quickly, but various allied communities, in particular communities of color, insisted that any hate crimes bill must include sexual orientation. Such solidarity was clearly rewarded and is a model for future progress.

* Equality Texas (as the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas) strongly supported passage of the Act.

http://www.equalitytexas.org/content.aspx?id=569

———————————————————-

Text of House Bill 587 (2001) signed into law by Gov. Perry
 
“In the punishment phase of the trial of an offense under Title 5, Penal Code…if the court determines that the defendant intentionally selected the victim primarily because of the defendant’s bias or prejudice against a group, the court shall make an affirmative finding of that fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of that case if at the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, the judge or the jury, whichever is the trier of fact, determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected the person against whom the offense was committed or intentionally selected property damaged or affected as a result of the offense because of the defendant’s bias or prejudice against a group identified by race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, gender, or sexual preference. …In this article, ‘sexual preference’ has the following meaning only: a preference for heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.”
 
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/77R/billtext/html/HB00587F.htm

Pictured above is the 'hateful' and 'violence-prone' Matt Barber, Board Member of Americans For Truth, in his days as a professional boxer.

By J. Matt Barber

Though always left of center, the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) once had a reputation as a fairly objective civil rights group. Founded by direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees and partner Joseph Levin Jr. in 1971, the SPLC made important and honorable contributions to many of the historic civil rights gains of the 20th Century. According to its own materials, the SPLC was “internationally known for tracking and exposing the activities of hate groups.”

Alas, “power corrupts,” as it goes, and the SPLC, having amassed tremendous power and wealth over the years, has regrettably become corrupt to its core. By way of an ever-escalating wave of “us-versus-them” money-grubbing schemes, Today’s SPLC has morphed into a far-left political activist outfit, famous for promoting a panoply of extreme liberal causes.

Ken Silverstein, writing for Harper’s Magazine, addressed this untoward metamorphosis in 2000:

“Today’s SPLC spends most of its time – and money – on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. ‘He’s the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement,’ renowned anti-death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, ‘though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.’

“The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the Center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors,” continued Silverstein. “Morris Dees doesn’t need your financial support. The SPLC is already the wealthiest civil rights group in America, though [its fundraising literature] quite naturally omits that fact. … ‘Morris and I…shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money,’ recalls Dees’ business partner, a lawyer named Millard Fuller (not to be confused with Millard Farmer). ‘We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich.’” (You say Fuller. I say Farmer. The two Millards say “call the whole thing off.”)

So, what happens when a dragon slayer – paid per dragon head – runs out of real dragons to slay? Well, he invents new ones, of course. Gotta keep those sprinklers-a-sprinklin.’ (According to Harper’s, “Dees bought a 200-acre estate appointed with tennis courts, a pool, and stables.” SPLC’s 2008 Form-990 shows net assets of over 219 million at the beginning of that year. Yup, there’s a spate to be made in the hate trade.)

Silverstein explains:

“The Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC’s most lucrative nemesis, has shrunk from 4 million members in the 1920s to an estimated 2,000 today [year 2000], as many as 10 percent of whom are thought to be FBI informants. But news of a declining Klan does not make for inclining donations to Morris Dees and Co., which is why the SPLC honors nearly every nationally covered ‘hate crime’ with direct-mail alarums full of nightmarish invocations of ‘armed Klan paramilitary forces’ and ‘violent neo-Nazi extremists…’

Self-described Trotskyite and longtime AFTAH-basher Bob Schwartz of Gay Liberation Network lobbied the SPLC to name Americans For Truth a "hate" group.

But as the real dragons dry-up, new dragons emerge: “Tea Party” conservatives; Evangelical Christians; anti-abortion zealots and anti-gay bigots (read: pro-life and pro-family traditionalists); and, of course, gun-toting, knuckle-dragging 2nd Amendment rednecks. All bundled together – courtesy of the SPLC and Janet “the system worked” Napolitano – in that neat little pejorative package know as – Dun-Dun-Dun! – THE RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST! (You know, basically Middle America.)

So, sadly – shamefully, really – today’s SPLC has become nothing more than a “non-profit” extension of the black helicopter, Huffpo-wing of the Democratic Party – a gaggle of partisan hacks bent on lining their pockets, defaming good people (along with the bad) and filling DNC coffers. (SPLC Director Mark Potok even doubles as a Huffington Post columnist. Seriously. They make it that easy.)

The real problem lies in the fact, however, that the SPLC holds itself out as an objective monitor of potentially violent or subversive hate groups. It presents to municipal, state and federal law enforcement, regular “intelligence files” and an annual “Year in Hate” report. Ostensibly, these reports contain facts – even actionable intelligence – aimed at helping law enforcement officials prevent and/or monitor potentially violent criminal activity.

Then? Perhaps. Now? Not so much.

In recent years the SPLC reports have been utterly tainted – weaponized and used against the leftist group’s ideological and political adversaries. This is a despicable, bad faith abuse of others’ good will, and of the SPLC’s past reputation.

Case in point: Recently, the SPLC came under fire for comparing the “Tea Party” movement and other grassroots conservatives to “terrorists.” Potok slandered “Tea Party” goers, suggesting that “they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” and are widely linked to “hate” and “vigilante groups.” Of course there are always a few nuts in any movement, but clearly Potok’s intent was to defame tens of millions of patriotic “Tea Partiers,” simply because he disagrees with them.

It was earlier reported that Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security relied upon similar reports by the SPLC in preparing the DHS’ own slanderous – now infamous – “Right Wing Extremist” report. You may recall: it painted pretty much all conservatives with that broad, multi-colored brush of “domestic terrorism.” (The report was later pulled, and Napolitano forced to apologize in shame.)

Even more recently, the SPLC launched another in a series of politically motivated attacks against a well-respected Christian organization. The group arbitrarily tagged as an official “hate group” Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH).

AFTAH promotes biblical morality, opposes the radical homosexual activist lobby and publicly decries both violence and hatred against homosexuals or anyone else. Although it has been in operation for a number of years, the SPLC only recently labeled AFTAH a “hate group” after being pressured by the Chicago-based “Gay Liberation Network” to do so.

GLN is a fringe group of self-described Marxists and sexual anarchists best known for disrupting peaceful Christian gatherings with raucous, bullhorn-laden protests. In a twist most ironic, GLN leader Bob Schwartz once threatened AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera in front of witnesses, telling him that if the police weren’t present at a rally, he would have pushed LaBarbera into oncoming traffic. (“Hate crime, anyone?” Love that “tolerance” and “diversity.” Where’s the SPLC when you need them?)

You can only cry wolf so many times before people begin to ignore you. Today, the SPLC’s “hate group” reports have begun to resonate almost exclusively within a far-left echo chamber. Newsflash: Moveon.org wants Bush tried as a “war criminal,” Charlie Sheen thinks the U.S. government was behind 9/11 and, yes, the SPLC has once again awarded its now meaningless “hate group” distinction to yet another conservative organization with which it is admittedly – in every way – both politically and ideologically opposed. Who would’ve thunk it?

Don’t get me wrong. Again, in the past, the SPLC has actually done some good by identifying and monitoring real hate groups such as the KKK, neo-Nazis and Skin Heads.

But now, regrettably, the SPLC has traded in its limited usefulness for radical left-wing activism. It has become much like that which it previously sought to expose. Today it uses the very tactics employed by white nationalists and other bona fide hate groups to malign large groups of people whom the SPLC most decidedly “hates.”

It’s nauseatingly transparent. With empty, ad hominem attacks and pejorative “hate group” smears, the SPLC strives to politically marginalize its ideological opponents. It’s a cynical “guilt-by-false-association” scheme, through which the SPLC hopes – in the public mind’s eye – to equate Christians, “Tea Party” conservatives and other traditionalists to the KKK and neo-Nazis.

Still, in going after Americans for Truth, the GLN surprisingly betrayed its SPLC ally by publicly acknowledging SPLC’s nefarious tactics. GLN boasted that this was the strategy all along. The Gay Liberation Network’s stated goal in goading the SPLC to label AFTAH a “hate group” was to “help assist” in AFTAH’s “political marginalization.”

Of course, by kowtowing to an already deeply marginalized GLN; by so obviously abusing its once-respectable reputation; and by spending its last remaining political capital on such folly, the SPLC has only succeeded in further marginalizing itself.

But, as they say: What’s good for the goose… Let’s try it on for size. It’s a “hate group,” mudslinging good time! In exercise of the SPLC’s trademark “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” criterion for arbitrarily determining “hate group” status, I hereby declare the Southern Poverty Law Center an “anti-Christian, anti-conservative hate group.” There, it’s official. Try it. It’s fun!

But seriously, if AFTAH is a “hate group,” then so is Liberty Counsel, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church. Any group that observes and defends traditional sexual morality would have to be labeled such.

Heck, for that matter, so would the U.S. Armed Forces, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA. These groups publicly expose the undeniable medical and societal pitfalls associated with the homosexual lifestyle and, therefore, must be “hate groups,” right?

Of course, like any bully, the SPLC only goes after those it believes it can push around. But really, it confers a badge of honor upon every legitimate Christian and conservative organization it so disingenuously mislabels “hate group.” It’s a tacit admission by the SPLC that these groups represent a political threat; that their activities undermine the SPLC’s not-so-thinly-veiled, left-wing agenda. (Kind of like winning a conservative Grammy.)

Indeed, I can’t speak for the many conservative and Christian organizations and ministries with which I’m associated. And of course I hate absolutely no one. Nonetheless, I’d like to officially request that the SPLC add my name to its spurious “anti-gay hate list.” It’s good for one’s conservative and biblical bona fides.”

____________________________________

(Hater Matt Barber hatefully sits on the hate-filled board of the official SPLC “hate group” Americans for Truth.)

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen screams with a bullhorn into the window of Boston's Park Street Church, which was hosting an "ex-gay" seminar last April. Will the SPLC investigate virulent anti-Christian activists like Besen in its ostensible campaign against "hate"? How would the SPLC react if right-wing conservatives were to terrorize a homosexual church in the same way?

Well, now I think I’ve seen it all. A Chicago-based Marxist “direct action” group, the Gay Liberation Network (GLN) — which smears Chicago’s historic Moody Church as a “House of Hate,” attacks Catholic Cardinal Francis George as a “homophobe,” and compares the Boy Scouts to racist fringe groups  — has successfully lobbied the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to label AFTAH’s website a “hate site.” The GLN and its co-leader, Bob Schwartz, know a thing or two about hate: in 2005, Schwartz told me, as I was standing in opposition to a “gay youth” event in downtown Chicago, that he would have pushed me into the busy city street were it not for the presence nearby of my “friends,” the police. (Read my 2005 account as Executive Director for Illinois Family Institute HERE; imagine if I had made such a veiled, physical threat against Schwartz: I probably would have been arrested on “Hate Crime” charges right then and there.)

There are few things as sinister, and as cynical, as the Left’s manipulation of “hate” as a political weapon to malign Christians and patriotic, conservative Americans. Thankfully, it seems the only people taking the SPLC seriously anymore are the liberal media and hardened, ‘Move On’-types on the Left. The SPLC is a spent force when it comes to moral authority — and even some honest liberals are seeing through its disingenuous campaign to redefine morality as “hate” and “bigotry.” (Don’t look to the SPLC to investigate homosexual haters like Wayne Besen’s notoriously nasty “Truth Wins Out” anytime soon; Besen is shown at right screaming with a bullhorn into the window of Park Street Church in Boston; click here to read the MassResistance story on the shocking 2009 demonstration.)

GLN's Bob Schwartz knows about "hate" ....

The Left is so steeped in its own ideology and self-righteousness that it is oblivious to how out of step it is with everyday Americans. Sure, there are haters on the right like Fred (“God Hates Fags”) Phelps (who despicably pickets U.S. soldiers’ funerals, and whom AFTAH has repeatedly condemned). But there are far more haters on the Left, and they are much better organized and dangerous to American liberty than those on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

On behalf of Americans For Truth, I am gratified at the outpouring of support we have received from pro-family advocates across the country in response to the SPLC’s shenanigans. We’ll say it again: to defend historic Judeo-Christian moral norms is not “bigotry,” and to disagree with homosexual activists is not “hate.” You can contact the Southern Poverty Law Center HERE. God bless you. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org; e-mail us: americansfortruth@comcast.net>

Matt Barber’s statement on the SPLC follows the jump:

____________________________________

Statement by Matt Barber, Board Member, Americans For Truth, and Director of Cultural Affairs, Liberty Council:

Contact:  jmattbarber@comcast.net

Date: March 23, 2010

SPLC Fritters Away Last Traces of Credibility

LYNCHBURG, Va. – The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – a far-left organization famous for promoting a panoply of extreme liberal causes – has launched yet another politically motivated attack against a well-respected conservative organization. The SPLC has arbitrarily tagged as a “hate group” Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH). Most recently, the SPLC came under fire for comparing the “Tea Party” movement and other grassroots conservatives to “terrorists.”

AFTAH is a Christian organization that promotes biblical morality and publicly decries both violence and hatred  against homosexuals. Although it has been in operation for a number of years, the SPLC only recently labeled AFTAH a “hate group,” after being pressured by the Chicago-based “Gay Liberation Network.” (GLN is a fringe group of self-described Marxists and sexual anarchists best known for disrupting peaceful Christian gatherings with raucous, bullhorn laden protests.)

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, commented: “You can only cry wolf so many times before people begin to ignore you. Newsflash: Moveon.org wants Bush tried as a ‘war criminal,’ Charlie Sheen thinks the U.S. government is behind 9/11 and, yes, the SPLC has once again awarded its now meaningless ‘hate group’ distinction to another conservative organization with which it  is admittedly – in every way – both politically and ideologically opposed. Who would’ve thunk it?

“In the past, the SPLC has actually done some good,” continued Barber. “By identifying and monitoring  real   hate groups such as the KKK, neo-Nazis, and Skinheads, the SPLC once provided information to local law enforcement which was sometimes useful in preventing and investigating subversive and violent activity.

“Unfortunately, in recent years the SPLC has traded in its limited usefulness for radical left-wing activism. It has become exactly   MUCH LIKE [??]  that which it previously sought to expose. It now uses the very tactics employed by white nationalists and other bona fide hate groups to malign large groups of people  whom the SPLC most decidedly ‘hates.’

“It’s nauseatingly transparent ,” said Barber. With empty, ad hominem attacks and pejorative ‘hate group’  smears, the SPLC strives to politically marginalize its ideological opponents. It’s a cynical ‘guilt-by-false-association ‘ scheme, through which the SPLC hopes – in the public mind’s eye – to equate Christians, ‘tea party’ conservatives and other traditionalists to the KKK and neo-Nazis.

“Amazingly, in going after Americans For Truth, the GLN  betrayed its SPLC ally by publicly acknowledging its nefarious strategy. It publicly boasted that this was the strategy all along.  The Gay Liberation Network’s stated goal in  goading  the SPLC  to  label AFTAH a ‘hate group’ was to ‘help assist’ in AFTAH’s ‘political marginalization.’ Of course, by kowtowing to an already deeply marginalized GLN; by so obviously abusing its once-respectable reputation; and by spending its last remaining political capital  on such folly, the SPLC has only succeeded in further marginalizing itself.

“It’s a ‘hate group,’ mudslinging good time!” joked Barber.  ” Let’s try it on for size. In exercise of the SPLC’s trademark ‘I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I’ criteria for determining ‘hate group’ status, I hereby declare the Southern Pov Law Center an officeal  ‘anti-Christian, anti-conservative hate group.’ Try it, it’s fun.

“But seriously,” continued Barber, “If AFTAH is a ‘hate group,’ then so is  Liberty Counsel, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council,  American Family Association, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church. Any group that observes and defends traditional sexual morality would have to be  labeled such . Heck, for that matter, so would the U.S. Armed Forces, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA. These groups publically expose the undeniable medical and societal pitfalls associated with the homosexual lifestyle and, therefore, must be ‘hate groups ,’  right?

“Of course, like any bully, the SPLC  only goes after those it believes it can push around. But really, it confers  an honor upon every legitimate Christian and conservative group  that it so disingenuously labels as a ‘hate group.’  This is a tacit admission by the SPLC that these groups represent a threat; that their activities undermine the SPLC’s not-so-thinly-veiled, left-wing agenda.

“I can’t speak for the organizations with which I’m a affiliated and, of course, I hate absolutely no one,” concluded Barber. “Nonetheless, I’d like to officially request that the SPLC add my name to its apurious ‘anti-gay hate list. ‘ It’s good for one’s biblical bona fides.”

(Matt Barber currently, and proudly, sits on the board of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.)

Congratulations to the vigilant pro-family activists over at MassResistance for stopping this proposed “hate speech” provision in an “anti-bullying” bill (see the proposed text in box at right). It is victories like this that made it easy for me to praise this gutsy organization and its founder, Brian Camenker (and MR blogger Amy Contrada) as a speaker at their recent fund-raising banquet.

For years — no, decades — homosexual activists have been telling us that their agenda (oops, I forgot…there is no “gay agenda”) does not pose a threat to freedom. Then we watched in Canada as religious critics of homosexuality were forced to defend themselves against “discrimination” suits brought through Orwellian government “human rights” tribunals — simply for expressing their beliefs against homosexuality. To label these state-sanctioned spectacles  “nuisance suits” would be to trivialize the great harm they have done to their innocent victims. Meanwhile, in Britain and Sweden, Christians also faced government oppression for opposing homosexuality. Other countries stand poised to criminalize “homophobia.”

The silence among American homosexual activists against this escalating PRO-”gay” oppression has been deafening. After all, justifying state censorship of your critics isn’t easy when you’re playing the victim card.

And now we see the first, rudimentary attempts at legislating a “hate speech” regime here in the United States. Consider the removed paragraph above in light of the common homosexualist accusation that groups like Mass Resistance and Americans For Truth “hate gays.” Self-described “queer” militants routinely equate traditional religious tenets or moral beliefs with hatred (all the while demonstrating consistent “malice” of their own with abundant lies and nasty smears against pro-family opponents).

Faithful Christians and other religious/moral foes of homosexuality will never agree with homosexuality advocates on a definition of “hate.” So imagine the folly of the government stepping in to make that determination — and then enforcing it through clumsy bureaucratic maneuvers that are destined to oppress everyday citizens whose only “crime” is to run afoul of political correctness.

Thanks to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers, who gave us the First Amendment, “hate speech” laws likely would not pass a constitutional challenge in the United States. But that won’t stop arrogant liberals from trying to pass them anyway. Thank God (and thank Mass Resistance) that at least this time around, they failed in Massachusetts. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________

MassResistance writes:

VICTORY: Draconian language removed from bill in Mass. Senate

Posted by MassResistance, March 14, 2010

At the last minute a Senate committee removed draconian language that would criminalize criticism of homosexuality with fines and imprisonment from a bill, just before the Massachusetts Senate voted on it on Thursday. The language had been slipped into a school “anti-bullying” bill. This is a clear victory for the pro-family movement!

This would have been very extreme. (And apparently it was intended to target MassResistance in particular, given our outspokenness at the State House and online.) Similar laws have been used in Canada and other countries to snuff out free speech and religious expression regarding the homosexual movement, and severely prosecute offenders. This has been a goal of the homosexual movement in America. They will likely attempt this again — and spread it to other states.

(The text of the new version of the bill is HERE.)

As we reported last week, the Education Committee chairmen consolidated 16 “anti-bullying” bills into one main bill, S2283. But they also had added this completely unrelated section that would apply to all Massachusetts citizens:

The section near the end of S2283 bill read:

“Whoever publishes any false material whether written, printed, electronic, televised, or broadcast with intent to maliciously promote hatred of any group of persons in the commonwealth because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or disability shall be guilty of libel and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.”

As soon as we saw that language, MassResistance put out the word that we considered it extremely offensive and that we would fight it. (As we mentioned, the phrases “false material” and “hatred” can be very subjective. It’s an open door to harassment of free speech and religious expression.)

We made sure there was a flood of phone calls and emails by activists to the Senate leadership and other legislators. And although the Boston Globe and Boston Herald declined to write about it (no surprise!) we made sure their State House reporters knew where we stood. We were even told that at least one liberal Senator intended to introduce an amendment to take the language out!

Shortly before the Thursday vote the offensive language was removed by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which re-wrote S2283 into a new bill, S2313.   Last year MassResistance had met personally with the Senate Ways and Means Chairman and showed him the horrific homosexual activism that taxpayer funds were being used for in the schools. Soon afterwards the funding for the homosexual programs was eliminated from the budget. Obviously, they clearly understood the value of free speech in this regard — and that it had nothing to do with “anti-bullying.”

The new version, S2313 with amendments, is HERE.

Passed unanimously. Thursday afternoon “anti-bullying” bill S2313 was debated, amended, and passed unanimously by the Senate. It now goes to the House.

Interest across the country regarding freedom of speech

MassResistance was interviewed on two national radio networks, the Washington Times, WorldNetDaily, and other media regarding the freedoms of speech and religion that this bill would affect. It’s been known for a long time that the homosexual movement wants to criminalize criticism of their activities, and Massachusetts is a likely place to start that. The question has been when and where.

WorldNetDaily article: “Jail for dissing ‘gays’ pulled after publicity–Massachusetts plan would have allowed year behind bars”

Additional victory: homosexual programs excluded from anti-bullying bill!

This was a huge victory — and a big loss for the homosexual lobby. (The MassResistance testimony at the public hearing obviously had an effect.)

All language that would require homosexual programs has been excluded from the bill. That had been the main objective of the homosexual and transgender lobby for this bill, and this was a clear defeat for them in that regard.

Using “anti-bullying” legislation as a vehicle to mandate homosexual and transgender programs in public schools has been a major goal of the homosexual movement around the country. MassResistance began tracking that earlier this year, and it became clear that Massachusetts was one of the main targets. At the public hearing for the “anti-bullying” bills held on November 17 it appeared that most of those testifying were homosexual and transgender activists.

But luckily at that same public hearing, MassResistance gave powerful testimony exposing that agenda which apparently resonated with several legislators.

Homosexual groups (and ADL) angry at outcome!

On the morning of the Senate vote, the homosexual newspaper Bay Windows essentially conceded defeat and complained bitterly that their objectives failed, despite their unending efforts to tie “bullying” and “homophobia” together. They wanted to weave this into what they call “enumerated categories” which would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression.”

Here’s what the Bay Windows article said:

While the Anti-Bullying Bill would, if passed, work to make schools safer, several LGBT advocacy organizations are disappointed in the lack of language specifically referring to “enumerated categories”, said Arlene Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay & Lesbian Political Coalition. . .

While several groups lobbied strongly for the addition of this language, it was not included the version of the bill released from the Education Committee. “Though we are disappointed by the absence of enumerated protections, MassEquality believes this is a meaningful bill that will give all students in the Commonwealth the opportunity to learn and grow in a safe environment,” Scott Gortikov, executive director of MassEquality, said . . .

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) struggled to convince the House of Representatives to add LGBT-inclusive language in the list of “victim-specific characteristics” that could be targets for bullying to their version of the Senate bill (HB 483) . . .

While the current version of S. 2283 aims to combat all types of bullying, many activists are concerned that LGBT-motivated bullying will be overlooked by school personnel — with potentially tragic consequences.

The usual propaganda, but it didn’t quite work this time thanks to citizens fighting back….

To read the rest of the MassResistance article, click HERE.

Damian Geminder’s letter to AFTAH:

From: Damian G. [-------]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:53 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site] RE: GOProud article

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:
——————————————————————————–
In your article about CPAC’s sponsor GOProud, you questioned libertarians for supporting “redefin[ing] criminal prosecution to factor in people/s thoughts (hate crimes).” Actually, GOProud was largely formed as a result of homosexual conservatives who opposed the Log Cabin Republicans’ pro-hate crimes stance. GOProud is for many pro-gay causes, but hate crimes is not one of them.

This pro-family press conference — largely ignored by the dominant liberal media — was organized by Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at the Liberty Counsel (and an AFTAH Board Member), was fired by Allstate Insurance Company in 2005 because he wrote an online article — on his own time — critical of organized homosexuality. Since then, he has risen to his current position as one of Americas leading defenders of natural marriage and family. He will be the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet outside Chicago on Oct. 24, 2009.

By Laurie Higgins

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen of the oddly named Truth Wins Out described Dr. Michael Brown’s group of evangelists (the “God Has a Better Way” campaign responding to the Charlotte, N.C. “gay pride” parade) as “uninvited locusts” descending on Charlotte. With that description in mind, I wonder how conservatives should describe the thousands of participants in “pride” parades and “fairs” who pollute our streets with illegal nudity and public sex acts to which law enforcement agents, who are paid by the public to enforce laws, turn a blind eye.

When Besen said that “the notion that gay people in conservative North Carolina needed Brown to educate them about religious fundamentalism was farcical,” he revealed his ignorance about Biblical and Historical Theology. Although the belief that homosexual acts violate God’s will is a belief held by “fundamentalists,” it also integral to all orthodox theological traditions and has been since the beginnings of the church. His ignorance is not surprising, however, since Besen is a member of the homosexual activist movement that regularly makes numerous ludicrous exegetical claims, including the claims that Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan had homosexual relationships.

Then Besen makes a patently false assertion when he states that homosexual activists are “falsely accused of working to undermine freedom of religion.” He may want to read the words of Georgetown University lesbian law professor, Chai Feldblum who writes that when same-sex “marriage” is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

Besen’s clouded vision is manifest in this description of a group of Christians engaged in evangelism: “Most alarming are these charlatans’ deliberate perpetuation of paranoia by trumpeting alleged religious persecution that exists only in their warped minds.” Perhaps Besen should talk to the Christian infertility doctors in California whom a lesbian sued when their religious convictions prevented them from inseminating a lesbian. Or perhaps he should talk to the Christian owners of a New Mexico photography studio who were sued and fined for “discrimination” when their religious beliefs prevented them from photographing the commitment ceremony of two homosexuals.

Perhaps Besen (left) should talk to the Christian mother in Alameda, Cal., whose public school is introducing pro-homosexual resources to first-graders next year. The school is refusing to notify parents prior to the presentation of these resources and is refusing to allow parents to opt out. Or perhaps he should talk to me about the efforts of change.org to get a hotel to break a legal contract with Illinois Family Institute because of our religious conviction that homosexual acts are immoral. Sounds remarkably like religious persecution to me.

What is confusing in Besen’s diatribe are these two seemingly contradictory claims: first, he said, “Brown tries to cover his tracks by sprinkling his apocalyptic rhetoric with calls for non-violence. Good orators, however, understand the principle of ‘layering’ messages. If in one sentence you speak of violence and in the next of non-violence, the listener will almost always embrace the words that support his or her belief system.” This clearly implies that Dr. Brown “spoke of violence in one sentence.”

But shortly thereafter, Besen said, “Brown, of course, doesn’t actually have to make an overt pitch for mayhem,” which seems to imply that Dr. Brown did not, in fact, “speak of violence.”

Besen takes issue with the proposition that the movement to normalize homosexuality tampers “with the foundations of human society.” Surely, he knows that this belief is not unique to Dr. Brown. It is widely held by theologians from most denominational traditions and by many legal scholars, philosophers, political commentators, sociologists, psychologists, and ordinary people of all educational backgrounds and walks of life. Many, many people view heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman who together produce and nurture future generations of children to be the foundational institution of any healthy society. Once society divorces marriage from children and marriage from gender, the institution becomes meaningless and the culture dies.

Besen goes on to say in his apoplectic way that “It is time for Brown and his comrades to abort their increasingly hostile and combative tactics before it leads to more wanton death.” This tactic of misrepresenting any public opposition to the ideologies and political actions of homosexual activists and their supporters as hate mongers, fomenters of violence, and bigots is the stock-in-trade of the “LGBT” movement. The logical implication of the argument that the expression of opposition to one group’s moral claims represents hatred, bigotry, and incitement to violence, however, would be that Besen’s words represent hatred, bigotry, and incitement to violence against Christians, and Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, and secular conservatives.

Besen’s screed is laden with overheated, inflammatory, intolerant rhetoric. Kudos to Dr. Brown for doing what faith leaders should have done decades ago. Let’s hope more brave men step forward.

One last point on another topic: I noticed that Besen (shown with the bullhorn at right) refers to Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth as “Porno Pete” which I also find ironic in light of the homosexual community’s purported opposition to name-calling.  It’s not just ironic; it’s hypocritical. It’s just one more revelatory sign of the intellectual and ethical vacuity of the homosexual movement.

Laurie Higgins is the Director of Illinois Family Institute’s Division of School Advocacy.

“Coalition of Conscience” crowd of more than 500 prepares to offer Gospel witness at homosexual “pride” event in Charlotte, N.C.  Their message: “God has a better way.” See www.godhasabetterway.com.

Dear Readers,

I commend to you my friend Dr. Michael Brown’s and the Coalition of Conscience’s response to the “gay pride” movement in Charlotte, N.C. In a speech last week to Reclaiming Oklahoma for Christ, I said that the appropriate Christian response to homosexual/”trans” activism and homosexual strugglers is a tightrope walk — balancing a witness for truth on the one side and the gracious love of Christ for sinners on the other. I too often fall off that tightrope, but Michael hangs on it as well as any pro-family leader I have observed in the last 20 years. (My only cautionary note is Brown’s use of the term “homophobia” [see this excellent NARTH analysis] — an artificial construct that is now so elastically defined that almost any rejection of homosexualist goals (including same-sex “marriage”) can be and is deemed “homophobic” by “gay” activists and the liberal media. That said, his point it correct: it is wrong to fear and hate men and women trapped in homosexuality — people who need God’s love and grace.)

How I wish that decades ago Christian leaders in Chicago had taken Dr. Brown’s “God has a better way” approach of a mobilized witness against “proud” homosexuality and the dangerous agenda that goes with it. Perhaps if they had, we wouldn’t be seeing the annual, raucous, debauched homosexuality “pride” celebrations on Chicago streets with attendees (“gay” and straight) numbering in the hundreds of thousands. The Church of Jesus Christ in America has largely abdicated its role as a bold witness for truth and Biblical morality in the culture. (And who says proclaiming the Gospel and confronting sexual sin agendas must be mutually exclusive?) I challenged Oklahoma Christians to be as aggressive in defending God’s truth about homosexuality as self-described “queer” activists are in advancing their lies (enumerated below). Such is the spirit that Michael Brown and the Coalition of Conscience have displayed in Charlotte; believers across the nation would do well to learn from and imitate them. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH, www.americansfortruth.org

P.S. As if to prove my theory that no matter how loving biblically faithful Christians are, they will always be cast as hateful, “homophobic” bigots by radical “queer” activists, click HERE to read homosexual militant Wayne Besen’s response to Michael Brown’s “God has a better way” campaign. It is vicious, even by Besen’s low standard.

_________________________________________________

Dr. Michael Brown

STATEMENT TO THE MEDIA, JULY 25, 2009
GOD HAS A BETTER WAY RALLY, CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA

DR. MICHAEL BROWN, DIRECTOR, THE COALITION OF CONSCIENCE [links added by AFTAH]
www.coalitionofconscience.org; www.godhasabetterway.com

We are here today to reach out and resist –– to reach out to the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community with compassion, as neighbors and friends and fellow-workers, and to declare God’s great love for GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] people. And we are here to resist the gay activist agenda and to send a message to the nation.

As followers of Jesus, we first confess our own sins –– our lack of ardent love for homosexual men and women, our lack of compassion for their struggles, our adding to their sense of rejection through insensitive words and deeds.

We acknowledge the fact that homophobia is alive and well in some churches, and we renounce and repudiate that hateful and destructive attitude.

Our love also compels us to speak the truth, and we do not believe that all sexual orientations should be celebrated.

We do not celebrate the fact that some people believe they are women trapped in men’s bodies;

We do not celebrate the fact that two men or two women cannot reproduce their own unique offspring and that same-sex families guarantee that a child will never have either a mother or a father;

We do not celebrate the fact that some people choose to surgically mutilate their God-given organs and must take hormones for the rest of their lives just to be at peace with themselves;

We do not celebrate the sexual confusion that exists in many young people today, to the point that they can only identify themselves “as genderqueer”;

We do not celebrate the pain and brokenness that exists in the lives of many of those attending Pride Charlotte today –– completely apart from societal rejection –– and we proclaim to our GLBT friends that God has a better way, that there is a place of wholeness and transformation to be found in Jesus. And we are here for the long-term to help them on that journey.

And because of our sense of justice and rightness, we take strong exception to the gay activist agenda. We watch its trajectory, we see where it has gone and where it is going, and we say, “It stops here in Charlotte.”

Since gay pride events have been rallying points for GLBT activism, we take our stand here today and declare:

We don’t believe that elementary school children should be taught to find their “inner-trannie” (meaning their inner transgender identity) as advocated in GLSEN’s training materials.

We don’t believe that it is in the best interest of our society to seek to eradicate gender or to multiply it exponentially.

We completely reject the Los Angeles Unified School District Reference Guide when it states that Gender identity “refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.”

We don’t believe it is good or right for four-year-old children to have their preschool teachers read them books like One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads or to be lined up by sneaker color rather than gender so they don’t feel “boxed in.”

We don’t believe in “Queering Elementary Education,” to use the title of a well-known book.

We believe it is outrageous when an African American woman is fired from her university position of vice-president of human resources because she writes an editorial objecting to the concept that sexual orientation is equivalent to skin color.

We believe it is outrageous for the media to cover up the gay identity of a sexual predator who repeatedly raped his adopted, five-year-old African American son and offered him for sex through the internet – for fear of making homosexual couples look bad.

We believe it is outrageous for the mayor of San Francisco to welcome warmly a public fair featuring nude, sado-masochistic displays, and to do so in the name of “diversity.”

And what does it say of our country today when our president, in the White House, could say “We are very proud of you” to a man who leads an organization devoted to making harder core pornography more readily available and who says that bestiality is fine as long as the animal doesn’t mind?

We don’t believe in fining a Christian photographer in New Mexico for politely declining to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony, or punishing an Anglican bishop in England for choosing not to hire an openly gay youth worker, or for putting a lifetime ban on Christian leaders in Canada, forbidding them from expressing the biblical teaching on homosexual practice and threatening them with imprisonment.

We don’t believe in laws that could jail the owner of a Christian bookstore for choosing not to hire a cross-dresser as a receptionist.

We don’t believe in a Hate Crimes bill that is so flawed that even the ACLU is concerned that it could restrict freedom of speech.

We don’t believe it is right for major Charlotte-based companies like Bank of America and Wachovia and Duke Energy to pour tens of thousands of dollars into a radical organization like the Human Rights Campaign, an organization that has stated that supporters of male-female marriage are “right wing extremists” and that mandates that businesses must have special bathroom accommodations for employees undergoing sex-change surgery.

We are saddened by the fact that some of those who came out of the closet forty years now are now trying to put conservative Christians in the closet.

We don’t believe in tampering with the foundations of human society –– male-female marriage and family –– and creating a new institution previously unknown in human history.

We utterly reject the new theologies that advocate “Queering Christ” and writing “Queer Commentaries” on the Bible, and we say to Charlotte and the nation, “By God’s grace, it stops here.”

So, we say “Enough is enough” to the destructive goals of gay activism, and we say to the GLBT community, “Jesus loves you and God has a better way!”

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

July 17, 2009

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

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

Read our News Release for more details.

Call to Action on Hate Crimes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following is Part II of Prof. Robert Gagnon’s series, “Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You.” Click HERE for Part I (“Hate Crimes Bill Promotes Hatred of People Opposed to Homosexual Behavior“) and HERE for Gagnon’s web page containing links to all three parts (scroll down on page).

Part 2:  The irrelevant and inaccurate claim that this bill will not abridge your freedom of speech

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

June 17, 2009

Note: To print a clean copy with proper formatting and pagination go to the pdf version HERE.

Proponents of the current “hate crimes” bill before the U.S. Senate argue that it is a lie that this bill will abridge in any way free speech protections for those who publicly express opposition to homosexual practice without causing, or attempting to cause, bodily harm. This claim is both irrelevant and inaccurate.

The first step of getting “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in federal law

It is irrelevant because, as noted in Part I, this bill does most of its damage in creating, for the first time in federal law, the special legal-protective categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” The first hurdle is the biggest: getting the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the books. A “hate crimes” bill functions as — no double entendre intended — the Trojan horse of an aggressive gay/transgender lobby, offering to the public the “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” law least likely to meet with massive public resistance.

Once the Trojan Horse is within the city walls, the rest of the task is relatively easy. If “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are special civil rights categories in federal law, then many other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws must be passed if society is going to turn back the “homophobic hate” and “discrimination” that makes bodily crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons possible in the first place. President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already indicated their eagerness to advance this agenda (go HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE).

Removing the explicit free-speech protection in the bill

The claim that this bill will not lead to an abridgement of free speech is not only irrelevant but also inaccurate. It is inaccurate, first, because the bill itself does not provide much in the way of protection of free speech rights. When it was first introduced into the House the bill contained this provision:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. (bold added)

Democrats in committee removed the material in boldface so that what was voted on by the full House no longer contained the explicit mention of free speech and free exercise. The remaining phrase “expressive conduct protected …by the Constitution” begs the question about what “expressive conduct” is protected. No piece of legislation could abridge the Constitution anyway so the phrase is useless. The issue is what constitutes abridgement and that is not spelled out in this bill.

U.S. Code stipulating that inducement is as liable as commission

Second, it is inaccurate to claim that free speech will not be abridged inasmuch as other existing legislation requires an extension beyond actual physical violence.

United States Code Title 18, Section 2, stipulates that “whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” Statements that “abet,” “counsel,” or “induce the commission” of bodily injury are thus not protected by the Constitution.

The omission of “any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses” makes it that much easier to prosecute strong statements against homosexual practice as abetting or counseling violence or as inducing its commission. There is nothing in this bill that explicitly prevents any homosexualist-activist judge, of which there are many, from ruling that calling homosexual acts a grave “abomination” by appeal to Levitical prohibitions constitutes an inducement to violence.

The existence of state and local “hate crimes” law that include mere disturbance

Third, this “hate crimes” bill puts free speech in jeopardy because some state and local “hate crime” laws already make simple assault or intimidation prosecutable offenses.

For example, the Illinois Hate Crime Law permits prosecution for mere assault (i.e., a threat or action that puts a person in apprehension of bodily harm prior to any actual harm), property trespass, “disorderly conduct,” or “harassment by telephone” or “electronic communications.” “Disorderly conduct” is defined in Illinois law as a person who “does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace” (emphasis added).

In 2007 two 16-year old girls from Crystal Lake South High School (Ill.) were arrested on felony hate crime charges for distributing about 40 fliers on cars in the student parking lot of their high school. The fliers contained an anti-homosex slur (the media have not reported what precisely the slur was) and a photo of two boys kissing, one of whom was identified as a classmate. The fliers contained no threats of violence. One of the girls was apparently getting back at a boy with whom she had once been best friend.

Assistant state’s attorney for McHenry County, Thomas Carroll, commented: “You can be charged with a hate crime if you make a statement or take an action that inflicts injury or incites a breach of the peace based on a person’s race, creed, gender, or perceived sexual orientation.” Another assistant state’s attorney, Robert Windon, said: “We do not feel this type of behavior is what the First Amendment protects.” State’s attorney Lou Bianchi insisted: “This is a classic case of the kind of conduct that the state legislature was directing the law against. This is what the legislators wanted to stop, this kind of activity.”

The girls spent 18 days in jail (a juvenile detention center) and appeared in court for their hearing with shackles on their ankles. They were ordered by the judge to remain in home detention on electronic monitoring until the court sentenced them some months later. Relieved that they would be allowed to return home for the time being, the girls sobbed uncontrollably in court. Prosecutors eventually dropped the felony hate-crime charge in exchange for a plea bargain, in which the girls pleaded guilty to lesser misdemeanor charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest (the girls fled the scene when a police officer arrived; they did not strike an officer).

The girls were sentenced to one year of probation, ordered to write letters of apology for distributing anti-gay fliers to the boy and the arresting officer, required to do 40 hours of community service, and given a two-week suspended sentence in the McHenry County Jail (to be implemented if the girls violated probation). The girls told the court that the whole matter was a joke that they took too far. State Attorney Louis Bianchi told the press that he still felt the hate crime charge was justified, while acknowledging that the plea bargain was fair for juveniles.

Conclusion

Claims that the homosexual and transsexual “hate crimes” bill soon to be voted on by the U.S. Senate will not lead to an abridgement of free speech rights and other liberties are both irrelevant and inaccurate.

They are irrelevant because the primary purpose of this bill is not to reduce “hate crimes” against homosexual and transgendered persons (laws against violent acts are already in place) but rather to establish “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as specially protected classifications in federal law. This establishment will make possible—indeed, inevitable—an avalanche of other “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” laws that in turn make “hateful bigots” of anyone who opposes homosexual and transsexual behavior.

They are inaccurate because (1) the bill has already had stripped from it explicit free-speech protection; (2) the U.S. legal code already stipulates that verbal “inducement” of a crime makes the inducer “punishable as a principal”; and (3) the federal “hate crimes” law will work in tandem with state and local “hate crime” laws, some of which already make prosecutable any “alarming” or “disturbing” of another.

In Part 3 we will look at other instances where “sexual orientation” laws have led to the curtailment of civil liberties and explain why religious exemption clauses are worthless.

_______________________________

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. (www.robgagnon.net) is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The presiding officer:  Without objection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below we reprint the first of an excellent three-part series on the “Hate Crimes” bill (S. 909) by Pittsburgh Theological Seminary professor Robert Gagnon (left), probably the world’s foremost expert on the Bible and homosexuality from an orthodox (Bible-believing) perspective. S. 909 could be voted on as early as Thursday in the U.S. Senate. (So says the extremist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.) For those who can’t wait on AFTAH for Parts II and III, go to this page on Gagnon’s website and scroll down for the full series.

TAKE ACTION: call or write your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121 or 202-225-1321; www.congress.org) today and urge them to oppose the “hate crimes” bill, which is likely to be tacked on as an amendment to the defense appropriations bill for a vote as early as Thursday. Federal “hate crimes” legislation including homosexuality and gender confusion will lay the groundwork for the persecution of religious Americans or anyone who acts on the belief that homosexuality is wrong — as well as pro-life activists working to save unborn babies and those who fight jihadist Islamo-fascism. Every red state with no “sexual orientation” laws will instantly be affected by this federal power-grab that guarantees unequal treatment in the law by awarding homosexuals, bisexuals and the gender confused specially protected “civil rights” status.

_____________________________

Gagnon writes:

Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You

Part 1: Promoting hatred of people opposed to homosexual practice and transgenderism

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.

May 28, 2009

To print a clean copy with proper formatting and pagination go to the pdf version HERE.

The so-called “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” (H.R. 1913), passed by the U.S. House of Representatives along party lines on Apr. 29 and introduced into the U.S. Senate shortly thereafter by Ted Kennedy (S. 909), is improperly named. The bill is really a hate-promotion bill as regards the inclusion of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” among the groupings slated to receive special protection.

Supporters of this bill who rightly believe homosexual practice to be unnatural and sinful have been duped into thinking that this bill is primarily about protecting homosexual and transgendered persons from violence. They hear the rubric “hate crimes” and think: Who can be for violence toward homosexual and transgendered persons?

The real objectives of the “hate crimes” bill (hint: it’s not about crime)

Supporters of this bill who believe homosexual practice to be immoral rarely stop to consider that all necessary laws are already in place protecting everyone from violent physical attacks or verbal threats to do bodily harm, including persons who engage in homosexual and transgendered behavior. Even homosexual columnist Andrew Sullivan has recently commented: “The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that—and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time.” There is absolutely no evidence that state prosecutors are systematically ignoring genuine crimes against homosexual and transgendered persons, once reported to law enforcement officials.

So why pass “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” so-called “hate crime” legislation? The reason has more to do with foisting an expansive homosexualist agenda on the nation than with concerns about crime. The bill serves the following vital aims of that agenda:

• It gets the federal government to enshrine in federal law “sexual orientation” (i.e. homosexuality and bisexuality) and “gender identity” (i.e. transsexualism and cross-dressing) as identity markers worthy of special protection and promotion alongside racial and gender diversity.
• This in turn gives federal backing to hatred of all persons who express opposition to homosexual practice and transgenderism as the moral equivalent of racists and misogynists (sexists), no matter how loving that expression of opposition may be.
• It also lays the foundation for a litany of future “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” bills that will markedly abridge the civil liberties of all who express moral disapproval of homosexual practice and transgenderism.

The foot in the door

This “hate crimes” bill is the proverbial foot in the door or camel nose in the tent that makes possible —— indeed inevitable —— all future laws involving “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” By simply placing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” alongside of “race,” “color,” “national origin,” “gender,” and “disability,” this “hate crimes” bill does most of its damage. It ensconces in federal law the principle that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality are as benign as race, gender, and disability —— an aspect of human diversity that must be affirmed and celebrated. Those who refuse to go along with this principle then become encoded in law as hateful, discriminatory bigots.

Note that while “religion” (an identity marker involving choice) is one of the protected categories of this “hate crime” bill, the bill mainly makes a connection between “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on the one hand and a host of benign innate conditions on the other (i.e., the five other protected categories of the bill). I’ve never heard an advocate for homosexual practice and transgenderism make the connection between these behaviors and religious belief. The analogy is always made with race and gender.

The thought crime of “prejudice” against homosexual and transgender behavior

Make no mistake about the fact that this is an Orwellian thought-crimes bill. Suppose a young man and a 70-year-old grandmother push each at roughly the same time. The man does so after shouting out “You bigoted homophobe!” while the grandmother does so after responding “Well then, you are a sexual pervert!”

This “hate crime” bill would apply only to the grandmother and would do so solely on the basis that she believed that homosexual practice was a perversion of the natural sexual order. For the bill establishes this conviction to be a “prejudice,” stating that the federal government can intervene when “a crime of violence … is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived … sexual orientation [or] gender identity … of the victim” (emphasis added). The bill effectively (but wrongly, go HERE) declares this conviction to be a hate that society must prosecute vigorously by enhancing penalties and calling for massive federal intervention.

However, the bill shows no concern for classifying as hateful prejudice the alternative conviction; namely, that advocates of a male-female requirement for sexual relations are hateful, ignorant bigots. Rather, the bill promotes this alternative conviction to society at large. It essentially declares to all sectors of society that it is “open season” on hating and ostracizing persons who find homosexual behavior and transsexualism to be morally repugnant, much as society hates and ostracizes members of the Klu Klux Klan or skinhead Nazi groups.

Recent cases in point are the widespread intimidation tactics employed by homosexualist opponents of California’s Proposition 8 against its supporters (for example, go HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE) and the smear campaign against Miss California, Carrie Prejean, for daring to disagree with a homosexual pageant judge’s affirmation of “gay marriage” (note that the point holds whatever Prejean’s deficiencies may be as a role model for Christian sexual modesty). Why shouldn’t those opposed to homosexual practice or transsexualism get special protection from the federal government? The reason is simple: They’re bigots.

The analogy of other sexual orientations

This bill thus goes beyond protection of homosexual, bisexual, and transgendered persons (who are already protected) to promotion of hatred —— hatred toward those opposed to homosexual and transgendered behavior. If you have any doubt about that, consider whether adding pedophilia (‘pedosexuality’) to the list would imply promotion of pedophilic behavior by the state and antagonism by the state toward perceived opponents of pedophiles. Surely it would.

Sadly, this may not be the best example since Rep. Steven King unsuccessfully introduced an amendment to the “hate crimes” bill in the House that would have excluded pedophilia from the definition of “sexual orientation.” If you can believe it, the Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee defeated the amendment along party lines, 13-10. To be sure, the Democrats are right that both “pedosexuality,” sexual desire for children, and “polysexuality,” sexual desire for more than one person concurrently, are “sexual orientations.” Where the Democrats err is in failing to recognize that this is a good reason for not having a “sexual orientation” provision.

Conclusion

So don’t fall for the line that, if you really love “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, you will support this “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” “hate crime” bill. No, support for this bill does not mean that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers. Existing laws already make that point. Rather, it means that you support stigmatizing, marginalizing, and penalizing people who, lovingly or not, oppose homosexual practice and transgenderism. This is a hate-promotion bill.

Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press). See www.robgagnon.net for more information.

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

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

THE WHITE HOUSE

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

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT LGBT PRIDE MONTH RECEPTION

East Room

4:35 P.M. EDT

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

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

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

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

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

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  (Inaudible.)  (Laughter.)

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

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

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

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

(Cell phone “quacks.”)

Whose duck is back there?  (Laughter.)

MRS. OBAMA:  It’s a duck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

END                4:53 P.M. EDT

____________________________

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators and oppose “Hate Crimes” (S 909), ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) and all aspects of President Obama’s homosexual/transsexual agenda (see below). Call or write: 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org.

____________________________

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.americansfortruth.com

June 29, 2009; Contact AFTAH at americansfortruth@comcast.net

AFTAH Warns of Obama’s Radical Homosexual Agenda as President Meets Today with Gay Activists

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) warns that President Obama will likely renew his radical promises to homosexual activists today at a White House “Pride Month” reception –– promises that, if fulfilled, will undermine the freedoms of the majority of Americans who affirm marriage and healthy, time-tested Judeo-Christian sexual values in their daily lives.

This afternoon, President Obama will meet with homosexual and transsexual activists at a “Reception for LGBT Pride Month.” AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera reminds voters that Obama has no mandate for his comprehensive “gay” agenda, since these agenda items were barely discussed in the general election campaign:

• Obama’s commitment to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act –– which could force pro-traditional-marriage states to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages”;
• Obama’s plans to homosexualize the U.S. military despite the plea of 1,100 high-ranking retired military officers not to overturn current law declaring homosexuality incompatible with military service;
• Obama’s plans to create federal workplace “rights” based on transsexuality;
• Obama’s Faith Advisory appointment of Harry Knox, who called the pope a “discredited leader” and homosexuality a “gift from God,” thus mocking holy Scripture;
•  Obama’s appointment of Kevin Jennings to head up “Safe Schools” at the Department of Education. As founder of Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Jennings presided over the 2000 “Fistgate” scandal in which a GLSEN-sponsored workshop exposed underage children to graphic discussions by homosexual adults on how to perform dangerous and bizarre gay perversions; Jennings also said “[F**k] ‘em” and “Drop dead” to religious conservatives in a 2000 speech [click HERE to read Scott Whiteman's shocking "Fistgate" affidavit];
• Obama’s appointment of John Berry as Office of Personnel Management Director, strategically placed to advance homosexual activism throughout the federal government;
• Obama’s agenda of federalizing pro-homosexual “hate crimes” and employment law (ENDA) –– which would undermine Americans’ freedoms and vastly increase the power of the state to punish moral-minded citizens by promoting homosexuality and gender confusion as official government policy;
• Obama’s goal to homosexualize immigration laws, thus further undermining marriage and incentivizing the immigration of homosexuals –– adding new stress to an already burdened system;
• The White House’s honoring of “gay pride” and radical, anti-Christian bigots like homosexual icon Frank Kameny –– who smears religious conservatives as “Christianofascists” –– and who cynically proclaims, despite being an atheist, that “gay is godly”; [Note: Kameny is also "Bestiality-tolerant"];
• Obama’s promotion of homosexual adoption, which (for intentionally fatherless lesbian-led households), contradicts his commitment to responsible fatherhood.

Homosexual activist icon Frank Kameny (left) with Obama’s homosexual director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), John Berry.

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

June 16, 2009

Re: S. 909

Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Addressed to:]

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

Excerpted from the Washington Blade:

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

By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Jun 8 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on WorldNetDaily, May 14, 2009

By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

A longtime pundit and supporter of the homosexual lifestyle choice has admitted online that the so-called “hate crimes” bill now pending in the U.S. Senate is totally unnecessary, according to a report.

“The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that – and Matthew Shepard’s murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time,” wrote Andrew Sullivan in his “Daily Dish” column.

“The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings,” he continued.

“Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It’s very, very powerful as a money-making tool – which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn’t passed.”

The comments came in an article titled, “Intent vs. Motivation” that discussed the “hate crime” law that has been proposed.

By special arrangement through WND, for only $10.95 members of the public can send 100 individually addressed letters to each senator by overnight mail. Each letter is individually “signed” by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary.

Matt Barber, director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and the Liberty Alliance Action, commended Sullivan, whom he described as “one of the foremost leaders in the homosexual activist movement worldwide,” for admitting S. 909 is “a money making scheme.”

“Well, the cat’s out of the bag,” said Barber. “I almost never, if ever, agree with Andrew Sullivan on anything. But I must give credit where credit is due. Sullivan’s admission that S. 909 is both a ‘symbolic’ and ‘meaningless … money-making tool’ devised by the extremist homosexual lobby is both refreshing and stunning at the same time.”

Barber continued, “I hope Sullivan will now join me in calling for his fellow homosexual activist leaders, such as HRC’s Joe Solmonese, to exhibit the same kind of candor relative to this anti-American ‘hate crimes’ charade, do the honorable thing and come together to request that the Senate withdraw S. 909 from consideration.”

Read the rest of the story, “‘Gay’ pundit says ‘Hate Crimes’ a scam,”  on WorldNetDaily.com

TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Senators and urge them to oppose S. 909, the “Thought Crimes” (hate crimes) bill; call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or go to www.congress.org. 

_______________________

Hate crimes’ bill is full of swill

Matt Barber, 5/7/2009 10:15:00 AM

Senate sponsors and liberal activist proponents of the federal “hate crimes” bill, S. 909, have been caught in a series of bald-faced lies. So confident am I of this, that if they can prove me wrong (for real I mean – you know, with evidence and such) I’ll join their little soirée, don a very large pink evening gown and publicly voice support for the legislation.

To the express exclusion of other identifiable groups – including veterans, the elderly and the homeless – S. 909, in its current form, would grant special federal resources and preferred minority status to pedophiles, homosexuals, cross-dressers and – as Democratic sponsor Alcee Hastings recently admitted on the House floor – a host of other APA recognized “sexual orientations” (i.e., deviant sexual fetishes and perversions).

Not only is this legislation constitutionally dubious on First Amendment grounds, and a prima facie violation of Fourteenth Amendment required “equal protection of the laws;” it also flies in the face of the Tenth Amendment, which explicitly limits the federal government’s authority in such matters to those powers delegated by the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s how they’re doing it:

In order for the feds to usurp the States’ police power, liberals in Congress have had to openly place, within the very language of the bill, a series of transparent lies. To get around that pesky old Constitution and accomplish this brash federal power grab, they’ve been forced to misuse and abuse the Commerce Clause.

In a feeble attempt to constitutionally justify federal interference with local law enforcement, S. 909′s sponsors have made – within the bill’s “Findings” section – several outlandish and unsustainable claims relative to “interstate commerce.” So outlandish are these claims, in fact, that the same language was intentionally withdrawn from the House version before it was passed and referred to the Senate.

But since the bill’s Senate sponsors recognize that failure to include these fantasy “findings” immediately renders the legislation unconstitutional, the interstate commerce language has quickly and quietly found its way home.

First, while addressing “hate crimes” allegedly motivated by so-called “sexual orientation” bias, the bill asserts that existing law is “inadequate to address this problem.” This is patently untrue.

When the legislation’s 1968 “hate crimes” forerunner was introduced, there were multiple and verifiable cases of local prosecutors refusing to indict whites for violent crimes committed against blacks. Moreover, the 1968 law was actually conceived and passed with the primary purpose of righting this specific wrong.

The exact opposite is true today. As FBI statistics reveal, in the relatively few instances where bias motivated crimes are committed against homosexuals or cross-dressers, those crimes are, without fail, zealously prosecuted under existing law. Victims are granted “equal protection of the laws” regardless of sexual preference or proclivity.

Yet these same victims are, nonetheless, shamelessly and publicly exploited by homosexual activists and the mainstream media as the latest “hate crimes” cause célèbre. This, even as hypersensitive local prosecutors bend over backwards to take-down alleged “gay-bashing” assailants as to avoid kneejerk accusations of systemic “homophobia.”

To illustrate the point, one need look only to the most famous supposed “hate crimes” victim of all, Matthew Shepard, who, as it later turned out, was killed during a robbery for drug money gone awry.

This fact notwithstanding, the left continues to disgracefully politicize Shepard’s memory by claiming he was murdered simply for being “gay.” Indeed, this very legislation, S. 909, is cited as the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.”

The bizarre irony is palpable. The two thugs who killed Shepard are currently serving life sentences for their crimes – and rightfully so – in the complete absence of any discriminatory and unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation. Justice prevailed and existing law was undeniably “[adequate] to address this problem.”

In fact, I challenge proponents of S. 909 to provide one verifiable example of a prosecutor refusing to charge a violent criminal because the victim was a homosexual or a cross-dresser.

They won’t. They can’t.

But back to the interstate commerce charade:

Here, the federal government’s own statistics serve to derail the “hate crimes” gravy train. According to the FBI, in 2007 – out of 1.4 million violent crimes in the U.S. – there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by the victim’s “sexual orientation.”

Yet S. 909 makes the fantastic claim that there is an epidemic of such “hate crimes.” So many, in fact, that it “poses a serious national problem.”  The bill hysterically declares – while providing zero evidence – the following nonsense:

• Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways;
• [T]he movement of members of targeted groups (homosexuals, pedophiles, cross-dressers, etc.) is impeded, and members of such groups are forced to move across State lines to escape the incidence or risk of such violence;
• Members of targeted groups are prevented from purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining employment, or participating in other commercial activity;
• And, here’s the kicker. Wait for it ….Wait for it:
• Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.

So there you have it, folks. If it weren’t so serious, it’d be comical. But let’s make sure we have it straight. According to Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Barack Obama and their S. 909 cheerleading cohorts, we must pass S. 909 immediately because right here, right now in America, it’s not at all unusual to witness terrified hordes of fabulously dressed – yet wrongfully unemployed – “gays” and otherwise gender-confused blokes in lipstick and Jimmy Choo pumps, frantically fleeing Dolce & Gabbana before they’ve even had a chance to make a purchase, while inbred, homophobic, bat-wielding rednecks hotly pursue them across state lines.

Don’t think I’ll be wearing that pink evening gown any time soon.

###

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law. He also co-hosts the nationally syndicated “Liberty Live” talk radio program on AFR Talk. This column is printed with permission.