The judicial confirmation process has become a spectacle almost as comical as one of Al Franken’s (D-MN) jokes. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was not grilled on whether she believes Americans have a First Amendment right to oppose homosexuality — i.e., whether their religious and moral liberties are overridden by “sexual orientation” laws.

“Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s ['sexual orientation' nondiscrimination] policy would have excluded the Catholic Church.” –CNSNews.com, reporting on Kagan’s confirmation hearing

By Peter LaBarbera

Solicitor General Elena Kagan has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 13-6 vote — after hypocritically dodging and weaving her way through the farce that now masquerades as the judicial confirmation process. Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) was the lone Republican to vote for her — despite the fact that South Carolina is conservative while Kagan is the ideological cousin of our elitist, far-left president. (Click HERE for the MassResistance report on Kagan’s pro-homosexual record at Harvard.)

Kagan’s future now rests with the Democrat-dominated Senate — where most pundits (betting on listless GOP opposition) expect her to win confirmation; the vote is expected to come in early August.

Americans now face the prospect of a radically pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality social Leftist-for-Life sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially  for 30 or more years. In just 105 days, on Election Day (Nov. 2), U.S. citizens will be able to cripple Barack Obama’s power — a day anticipated by millions of citizens outraged over his arrogant and reckless presidency. In two more years, Obama could be voted out of office a la Jimmy Carter.

Not so with Kagan. Unless Republicans summon up the guts to actually block her via filibuster (don’t bet on it), she likely will soon become Justice Kagan until she retires at an old age. There, if her past is any indication, one day she will vote to create a new “fundamental right” of “same-sex marriage” out of an “evolving” Constitution –  all the while protecting that old make-believe “constitutional right,” sacrosanct to liberals, of abortion-on-demand. (See this Omaha World-Herald story on Kagan’s manipulation of  expert testimony in the Clinton administration to fight legislative attempts to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion.)

And why not? The same Supreme Court that upheld anti-sodomy laws as constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 struck them down as unconstitutional just 17 years later in Lawrence v. Texas. Will the same fate befall laws and state amendments banning “same-sex marriage”? Could a Justice Kagan be in the minority in a Court decision that rejects homosexual “marriage” (in its current conservative-vs.-liberal composition) — and then be in a majority that later overturns that decision, as happened with homosexual sodomy laws?

There hasn’t been ”rule of law” in America for decades, at least as it was understood by our Founding Fathers, and they knew a thing or two. The best evidence of that — and, indeed, of the folly of the U.S. legal system –  is our national difficulty in banning what is essentially legalized infanticide (partial-birth abortion; see description of this killing procedure HERE). How appropriate that Kagan herself played a central role in that — essentially the legal preservation of infant murder. (Perhaps she will find her ideological soulmate in current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who strayed off the “pro-choice” talking points in a racist interview comment about Roe v. Wade:  ”I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”)

Rule of Law?

Without a foundation in transcendent moral truth and biblically-based (Judeo-Christian) justice, “constitutional law” becomes whatever liberals (or libertarians) interpret it to be, according to the whims of the age and as long as they can muster a one-vote majority. Remember the Boy Scouts of America — who came within a single vote of being forced to allow homosexuals as Scoutmasters despite the Scouts’ “morally straight” oath? These are the sorts of cases Kagan could be deciding for decades — subjectively applying her liberal “empathy” standard per Obama’s mandate.

(Whenever I hear a liberal like Obama talk about “empathy,” I wonder where it disappeared to regarding the protection of  the unborn – who are slaughtered in the womb in the name of adult “choice” because it would be inconvenient for them to be born. Never allow yourself to be intimidated by liberals pontificating on ”compassion” — they generally show greater “empathy” for the lives of death-row inmates guilty of committing heinous crimes than unwanted innocent babies in the womb. On the homosexuality issue, liberals are quite willing to encourage homosexual sex, which leads to “gay” men dying young, so great is their compassion.)

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Given her long record of social radicalism — including harassing the U.S. military as Harvard dean because the latter would not allow homosexuals to serve — it’s not too difficult to predict how a Justice Kagan would behave on the Court. As Sen. Grassley states below, Kagan even wants to incorporate “international law” into America’s jurisprudence — and we know the result of ”sexual orientation” laws in countries like Britain and Canada. Both nations are becoming pro-homosexuality police states — arresting Christians for preaching publicly against sexual sin — even merely for expressing “anti-gay” ideas. Will America follow those laws? Will we honor and respect the European Union’s legal precedents? (See this European Parliament press release on “transgender” rights.)

The following is Sen. Charles Grassley’s (R-IA) statement of opposition to Kagan, followed by an article reprinted from CNSNews.com. The latter item illustrates the perils of pro-homosexuality “nondiscrimination” law. We wish Senators had demanded more answers from Elena Kagan on the “zero-sum” game between religious and First Amendment liberties and “gay rights” — because if she is confirmed she could become a leader on the court of Justices willing to impose their version of morality on Christians and others who refuse to lend legitimacy to homosexual practice.

Lastly, why is that Republicans so often fail to pull out all the stops in opposing a dangerous left-wing ideologue like Kagan. As Randy Thomasson writes HERE, the GOP could have upped the ante and refused to vote out Kagan — using a little-known provision that requires at least one minority member vote to approve a nominee out of committee after a member moves to block the vote. Maybe it would have only stalled the nomination further — but that’s what the Left would try to do were this a Republican-appointed nominee with a history of right-wing activism at a major university!

The Republican Party could do the nation a big favor by using the Kagan nomination to educate the nation on Obama’s extremist policies and goals. That way, even if she wins confirmation, they would undermine Obama’s potential to do further damage. But as is typical in these situations, the Democrats play hardball while the Republicans play wiffle ball. And unless they grow a backbone and quick, they’re about to strike out again by not doing everything possible to stop Kagan’s undeserved assent to the highest court in the land. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________________________

Sen. Grassley’s Opposition Statement on Kagan:

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement regarding his vote on Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court:

“Since the nomination hearing for Solicitor General Kagan ended, I have spent time reviewing the hearing record. Thorough consideration has led me to conclude that I cannot vote for Solicitor General Kagan to be the next Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

“In her hearing testimony, Solicitor General Kagan failed to answer directly many of the questions posed to her.  This was extremely disappointing, especially since she previously took the position that Supreme Court nominees should be forthcoming in their answers on substantive issues.  Because she has no previous judicial experience, candid answers were essential for us to ascertain whether she has the appropriate judicial philosophy.

“Solicitor General Kagan’s record shows that she allows her politics and personal views to steer her legal thinking and takes an outcome-based approach when analyzing cases. She also has praised jurists who endorse an activist judicial philosophy. At the hearing, she declined to fully commit to upholding the constitution when it came to the Second Amendment. She appeared reluctant to recognize any constitutional limits on federal power, and also indicated that she would use international law for ‘good ideas’ when making decisions on the bench.

“Solicitor General Kagan is an accomplished political lawyer, but my vote must be based on the nominee’s ability to be an impartial jurist who would exercise judicial restraint and strictly adhere to the Constitution. Based on the record and the nomination hearing, I am not convinced that Solicitor General Kagan will be able to shed her deeply held personal ideological beliefs, political views and experiences, and check those biases at the door of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I must vote against her nomination.”

____________________________________________

CNSNews story:

Kagan Dodges Question On Whether Catholic Recruiters Would Be Banned from Harvard
Friday, July 02, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68904

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who banned military recruiters from Harvard Law School’s career services office when she was dean of the school, declined to say whether she would have also banned the Catholic Church from recruiting on campus….
While testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Kagan was questioned several times about her decision to ban the U.S. military from Harvard Law School’s Office of Career Services. Kagan maintained that she was merely applying the school’s non-discrimination policy and was not targeting the U.S. military recruiters.

While at Harvard, Kagan prohibited the U.S. military from using school resources because she claimed the military’s ban against open homosexuals – the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” — violated the school’s policy. The policy says that prospective employers who would recruit on campus cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation, among other criteria.

On Wednesday,  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Kagan whether she would have applied the same policy to the Catholic Church, if it were looking to recruit and hire lawyers on Harvard’s campus.

The Catholic Church does not allow women to become priests, Graham noted. Catholic teaching, incidentally, also says that homosexuality is a moral disorder and the practice thereof cannot be condoned.

Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s policy would have excluded the Catholic Church. The exchange between Sen. Graham and Kagan occurred as follows:

Sen. Graham: “Would it [the Harvard policy] apply to the Catholic Church, if they wanted to come and recruit lawyers from the law school because they don’t have women priests?”

Kagan: “Well, the way we enforced this policy is if an employer comes, we give the employer a form, and the form basically says, ‘I comply with the following policy’ that says, ‘I will not discriminate on the basis of.’ And then it says something like race and creed and gender and sexual orientation and actually veterans’ status as well. And if the employer signs the form, the employer can get the services of the Office of Career Services. And if not, not [get them].”

The Office of Career Services is the office that coordinates between students and prospective employers, and was the office from which Kagan banned the U.S. military and its recruiters.

New York City homosexual activist Joe Jervis recklessly claims that the Americans For Truth Academy "will train young people how to properly hate faggots and dykes and foster violent crimes against them." Jervis, here protesting California's pro-traditional-marriage amendment, routinely conflates moral opposition to homosexuality with hatred.

Jervis wildly claims that the Americans For Truth Academy “will train young people how to properly hate faggots and dykes and foster violent crimes against them.”

Folks, it didn’t take too long for homosexual activists to smear the Americans For Truth Academy, which will be held in Carol Stream, Illinois, August 5-7. Here is one particularly inane and mean-spirited post by atheist “gay” leatherman Joe Jervis, who runs the blog “Joe.My.God.” With clockwork-like regularity, homosexual activists resort to their favorite lie: that civil speech opposing homosexuality in the public square leads to violence against homosexuals. (Such claims form the basis for demands to banish said speech; of course, vicious and nasty attacks on Christians somehow do not qualify as “hate” nor lead to violence against people of faith….)

Experienced pro-family followers of AFTAH who have read Jervis’ J.M.G. blog know that if there were such a thing as a Hate-O-Meter scale, few could hope to score as high as Joe and his perverted friends (see some examples of their bigoted bile below). Even so, after AFTAH’s website was labeled a “hate site” by the Southern Poverty Law Center — on the recommendation of the Marxist, cop-hating, Christian-bashers over at Chicago’s Gay Liberation Network — Jervis and pals dutifully took up our challenge and labeled every pro-family group they could think of as also being a “hate” group. Get the message? Oppose homosexuality (publicly) and you are automatically a “hater.”

Per Jervis’ piece below, “Porno Pete” is a smear term against yours truly invented by another hypocritical homosexual militant, Wayne Besen, and circulated by fellow “gay” activists (who simultaneously condemn name-calling against homosexuals — go figure). One of the things we will teach at the ongoing AFTAH Academy is that while homosexual activists demand respect and tolerance from others, they consistently dish out vitriol and invective against their opponents — all the while cynically equating historic, Judeo-Christian moral truths with hate, bigotry and “homophobia.”

I challenge readers to get a sampling of the demented, ad hominem attacks that proliferate on Jervis’ homosexualist site and see if there is anything comparable on AFTAH’s website or that of any other mainstream, pro-family organization, such as Family Research Council. Go HERE for more info on the Academy. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

___________________________

Here’s Jervis’ twisted entry on the AFTAH Academy, followed by some hateful, perverted and intolerant comments responding to his item:

Porno Pete LaBarbera has just announced the formation of the “Americans For Truth Academy,” which will train young people how to properly hate faggots and dykes and foster violent crimes against them. For a mere $99 donation, you can buy a budding young bigot a Scholarship In Hate™.

… The usual cast of knuckle-dragging douchenozzles have signed on to be LaBarbera’s Professors of Hate: Robert Knight (Coral Ridge Ministries), Matt Barber (Liberty Counsel), Laurie Higgins (Illinois Family Institute), Greg Quinlan (PFOX), etc. The first Three Day Hate™ will take place August 5th-7th in Porno Pete’s luxuriously appointed basement dungeon headquarters outside of Chicago.

_________________________________________

Comments on Jervis’ site following article:

ANLAGUY:

How can that [the AFTAH Academy] be a tax deductable [sic] function? or is that just another lie they tell them so they will sign up? How can they have a seminar on [teaching] hate to people and the government NOT get involved.

———————–

INKKY JET:

HEIL!

I want to attend and watch the live demo with Porno Pete and Bam bam Barber [Matt Barber, an AFTAH Board Member and AFTAH Academy speaker] when they demonstrate sodomy and fisting; their two most favourite [sic] activities.

HEIL!

———————–

LYMIS:

“Okay, boys, pay attention. When someone touches you like THIS it’s really bad. Who needs to see that again?”

———————–

RICK CABRAL:

The important questions have yet to be asked! Will the pornmaster be sharing his rich cache of porno material? Will there be “helping hand” beat-off sessions during and afterwards? Are there shower facilities or must participants bring wetwipes and sanitizing lotion? How are attendees supposed to prepare properly without these clarifications?

Pro-family Christian Julio Severo fled his home country of Brazil to avoid state prosecution and harassment on "homophobia" charges. Would Severo be granted U.S. asylum like Brazilian homosexual Augusto Pereira de Souza?

By Peter LaBarbera

Homosexual websites are celebrating that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has granted asylum to 27-year-old Brazilian homosexual Augusto Pereira de Souza, who claims he would face torment and violent attacks if forced to return to his country.

I wonder what would happen if Julio Severo (right), the outspoken Brazilian Christian advocate who fled his country due to escalating oppression against critics of homosexuality, were to apply for applied for U.S. asylum. An article in the “Queerty” blog claims that Brazil is “one of the world’s most violently anti-gay countries … with 180 reported LGBT murders in 2008 alone.” I do not know the accuracy of this information. But here is the problem: already Queerty and other pro-homosexuality activists are citing the case of Souza (whose asylum claim was secured by three students at Columbia Law School’s Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic,” Queerty reports) as good news for Ugandan homosexuals who might want to make similar claims.

Is the United States of America under President Obama going to become the magnet for foreign homosexuals and “queer” activists the world over? AFTAH has condemned draconian punishments against homosexuals (such as “solutions” prescribed by radical Islamists). However, America and the West have no right to impose their decadent, perversion-celebrating values on the rest of the world, and other countries certainly have the right to criminalize homosexual behavior just as it was criminalized in the United States prior to the Supreme Court’s activist Lawrence v. Texas decision. (Anti-sodomy laws remain on the books in many states and laws that do not solely ban homosexual sodomy have NOT been struck down; here is a Wikipedia article which — despite that website’s strong pro-homosexual bias — describes the sodomy law situation in all 50 states.)

Here in America, we realize that sodomy may never be criminalized in San Francisco, where men are allowed to walk the streets fully naked. But if more conservative locales or states choose to do so according to their local community standards, that SHOULD be their prerogative (ditto for legislative attempts to ban abortion or “partial-birth” infanticide). And if liberals are concerned about the death penalty being imposed against homosexuals, and rightly so, they should also be concerned about public policy that promotes homosexual behavior with all its attendant, even life-threatening, consequences.

A good place for America to start “re-criminalizing” would be to ban all bathhouses and sex clubs were sex is allowed to go on in a commercial establishment. “Gay” and straight. See this AFTAH article about ex-”gay” Christian advocate James Hartline’s successful campaign in San Diego to close down a local homosexual bathhouse.

Augusto Pereira de Souza (center)

For more on Brazil: go HERE to read a LifeSite article about the socialist Brazilian President’s “hate speech” plans. And go HERE to read Julio Severo’s blog. To subscribe to LifeSiteNews’ daily news feed, go HERE, and to subscribe to OneNewsNow’s daily news brief, go HERE. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

One News Now reports:

__________________________________________

Asylum for Homosexual Perverts U.S. policy
By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/6/2010

A homosexual from Brazil has been granted asylum in the United States because he fears mistreatment in his home country over his sexual orientation.

According to LifeSiteNews.com, 28-year-old Augusto Pereira de Souza — as a result of the ruling — will be allowed to work and receive Social Security benefits in the U.S., and eventually will be permitted to apply for permanent residency. De Souza had submitted testimony that he had been verbally harassed by a policeman and, on a separate occasion, been chased by “skinheads” who were armed with baseball bats.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality finds the case astounding because Brazil, he notes, is one of the most pro-homosexual countries on the map. He says Christians are the target of animosity in Brazil if they speak out against homosexuality.

Peter LaBarbera”I happen to have a friend, Julio Severo, who left Brazil in fear for being prosecuted as a Christian under the anti-homophobia mechanisms that are being set up in that country,” he explains.

The Americans for Truth spokesman admits he finds it hard to believe that de Souza had anything to fear in Brazil over his choice in favor of homosexuality.

“It’s not becoming a friendly place for people who believe homosexuality is wrong,” he says, “and so this is just preposterous that the United States is accepting a Brazilian homosexual on that basis.”

LaBarbera adds that since Brazil is becoming “a homosexual dream country,” it is a perversion of U.S. asylum policies to grant Brazilian homosexuals the privilege of coming to America over fears of persecution for their lifestyle.

“When you say that your organization is no more hateful than the Catholic church, we have a rare point of agreement. You are both haters.” — Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network

The Catholic Church should also be on the "hate" list, says Bob Schwartz of the Gay Liberation Network.

Bob Schwartz, a leader of the Gay Liberation Network, a Marxist “direct action” group that reportedly lobbied the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to mislabel Americans For Truth as a “hate” website, sent the e-mail below to AFTAH through our website. Schwartz describes himself as a Trotskyist (after Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, who advocated worldwide communist revolution before being assassinated by a Soviet agent in Mexico in 1940). Communists have such a long and storied history defending human rights and individual rights and dignity, you know.

Note that you don’t have to agree with the Catholic Church’s handing of its homosexual/pedophile crisis (most Catholics I know do not) to see the absurdity of labeling the church a “hater” because it defends traditional sexual morality and natural marriage between a man and a woman. The folly of the SPLC’s expanding “hate” dragnet is that it threatens to engulf all religious/moral opposition to homosexuality. Indeed, it would be revealing to query the top 25 “GLBT” activist across the nation and ask them if they would also label, as Matt Barber pokes fun HERE, the following as “hate groups”: Family Research Council, AFA, the Roman Catholic Church, Focus on the Family, the Southern Baptist Convention and ADF. (I posed the question to one young “gay” activist, Alex Blaze, HERE, and received no response.)

[Homosexual activists] Wayne Besen/Evan Hurst/Joe Jervis/Jeremy Hooper/Rea Carey/[insert GLBT activist here]: take up the challenge!

Yes, we’re all “haters” now (except the likes of Schwartz, despite his bully tactics and GLN’s ugly, anti-Christian bigotry). And just like ObamaCare is padding the rolls of the IRS to keep Americans in “compliance” with government “health” mandates, perhaps the SPLC needs an infusion of Obama stimulus funds to expand its already large staff and huge budget to accommodate its “reporting” on the ever-expanding “hate” network.

Note Schwartz’s reference to an article in the Naperville (Ill.) Sun, reprinted below.  The headline for the print edition of this story was changed from “Local anti-gay group rejects ‘hate site’ tag” to “Web site called hateful by civil rights group.” The task ahead, to demonstrate that the SPLC is more of a pro-homosexual, left-wing advocacy group than an honest “civil rights” organization, is a necessary but difficult one. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

GLN’s Schwartz writes:

______________________________________________
From: [Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network]
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 1:26 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: Fwd: [GLN Organizers] LaBarbera Says Group “No More Hateful Than the Catholic Church”

When you say that your organization is no more hateful than the Catholic church, we have a rare point of agreement.  You are both haters.  Hopefully, Ratzinger’s cover-ups of criminal pedophiles will result in more people leaving the gay- and woman-hating Church of Rome.

Bob Schwartz

_______________________

Naperville Sun article:

Local anti-gay group rejects ‘hate site’ tag

March 27, 2010

By JENETTE STURGES  jsturges@stmedianetwork.com

Naperville-based Americans for Truth About Homosexuality describes itself as “dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda.”

Others just describe the group as “hateful.”

The anti-gay group was called out by civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center for operating a “hate site,” one of 670 identified by the SPLC in its latest issue of their publication, Intelligence Report.

President of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality Peter LaBarbera says he has “taken issue” with that, and is asking for a public apology from the organization and a debate with its president, Mark Potok. His organization, he says, while against homosexuality, is not a hate group. “You can disagree without being hateful,” LaBarbera said.

The Southern Poverty Law Center did not add Americans for Truth About Homosexuality to its yearly listing of hate groups, which this year includes 932 groups including the anti-gay Family Research Institute, chapters of the Ku Klux Klan and the Nation of Islam. Also included on this year’s list of hate groups is Downers Grove-based anti-gay Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment.

But the content of AFTAH’s Web site did warrant the listing, according to Booth Gunther, public affairs coordinator at SPLC.

The AFTAH Web site, www.americansfortruth.com, is largely a collection of articles from across the Web focused on homosexuality that “defend historic Judeo-Christian moral norms,” according to the site.

The Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network, which contacted SPLC to have Americans for Truth About Sexuality added to the list, however, contends that the site, the group and its president spread inciting misinformation about homosexuality.

“Mr. LaBarbera has not only opposed marriage rights, he’s opposed equal employment and equal access. If that criterion were ever applied to other groups, the would be called a hate group,” said Andy Thayer, co-founder of the Gay Liberation Network.

Those who label the site as a “hate site” point to the repeated inclusion of research by Paul Cameron, psychologist at the Family Research Institute whose writings have claimed gays and lesbians are more likely to be child molesters and criminals, as well as the site’s association of homosexuality to everything from crystal meth to the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Still, LaBarbera contends that his organization and its Web site are no more hateful than the Catholic Church.

As for a public apology or debate, the SPLC says there’s none coming.

“He can debate all he wants,” said Gunther. “We stand by our designation.”

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2125076,Local-anti-gay-group-hate-tag_NA032610.article

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.

Focus on the Family web ad rejected by the NCAA.

Behold the latest pathetic capitulation to the Homosexual Lobby by a “mainstream” American institution, the NCAA. It is corporate cowardice of this nature that breeds homo-fascism, a term describing aggressively intolerant homosexual activism that will come to be understood by Americans — as larger and larger portions of the culture cave into the idea that disagreeing with or offending homosexuals (people practicing homosexuality) is beyond the pale. From a logical, historical and spiritual perspective, such an assertion is preposterous, but in the current zeitgeist, emotion, secularism and sheer intimidation trump reason, tradition, and spiritual truth.

Whoever would have thought that 1-3 percent of the population — united around the practice of deviant, unhealthy sex — could command such power? (Only in a declining society, we maintain.) Focus on the Family employs a “soft” resistance to the aggressive “queer” movement (too soft, in our view); if they can’t place an innocuous ad on the NCAA website, then no group defending traditional sexual morality can.

And the hucksters (homosexual and straight) who push the “gay” agenda do so in the name of “diversity.” What a sham. Memo to homosexual extremists: keep demanding such bans on opposing viewpoints — and cheer loudly whenever a pro-normalcy group is silenced! The more you do, the more the American people will see your true colors — which do not match a rainbow’s but rather the oppressive black of a censor’s pen. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.ogl

__________________________________________

– The following is reprinted from OneNewsNow, the news ministry of American Family Association; subscribe to ONN’s daily news briefs HERE and their e-alerts HERE.

NCAA nixes family ad, Focus ‘befuddled’

The NCAA has withdrawn Focus on the Family’s banner ad on its website, apparently because of the organization’s stance on homosexual relationships.

Associated Press reports the National Collegiate Athletic Association heard from some of its members that the banner conflicted with the organization’s policy of inclusion, regardless of sexual orientation. The ad — part of the pro-family group’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign — was pulled without any notice, according to Focus on the Family’s Gary Schneeburger.

“We’re a little befuddled, I guess is the best way to say it, that an ad that clearly that was not controversial,” he responds. “It was not even political — it was simply about a father wanting the best for his son….”

The ministry spokesman suggests the banner ad was taken down “not…because the ad itself was offensive, but because the very existence of Focus on the Family apparently to some people is offensive.”

The major governing body of college sports says ads must be in agreement with NCAA principles, and its own standards allow it to exclude advertising and advertisers that it deems “do not appear to be in the best interests of higher education and student athletes.”

“What that tells us,” says Schneeburger, “is that we’re not allowed to advertise our family help services because we have biblical values on issues like marriage.” And if such material were “all of a sudden labeled hate speech,” he says “we have deeper problems in our country than we even know.”

Schneeburger points out that Focus spends 90 percent of its budget on parenting and marriage resources, and only 10 percent advocating on behalf of the unborn and for traditional marriage. The supposedly controversial Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, was part of Focus’s “Celebrate Family – Celebrate Life” campaign.

Folks, below my friend Laurie Higgins ably rebuts the spurious, ongoing “gay” activist attempt to blame Christians and religious people for tragic, violent attacks on homosexuals, like the August 1 slaughter at a “gay youth” center in Tel Aviv. Many homosexual activists apparently are compelled by their rejection of Biblical morality to lie in such a way about Christians. (At the same time, they malign us for highlighting gay-on-gay violence and for pointing out the obvious: that homosexual practice threatens longevity.)  The claim that Christian, conservative and religious speech causes “anti-gay violence” will continue to be used to advance a totalitarian homosexualist agenda, here and abroad. All lovers of freedom must fight this Orwellian agenda that has as its end game the very destruction of liberty as we know it — all in the name of “civil rights.” Please send this article to your friends. — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

P.S. Unlike the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, I would support the death penalty for the Tel Aviv murderer (though Israel abolished the death penalty for such crimes). That would be far more effective than “hate crimes” laws in deterring such attacks in the future.

_________________________________

Higgins writes:

Are Christians Responsible for Anti-Homosexual Bloodbath in Tel Aviv?

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted from Illinois Family Institute, 8/3/09

Yet another tragic, horrific, and utterly unjustifiable murder of homosexuals has taken place, this time in Tel Aviv, Israel at a youth center for homosexual teens. Saturday night [August 1], two were killed and thirteen wounded when a gunman opened fire in a club where homosexual teens meet. The unspeakable carnage exposes how very dark the mind of fallen humans can become.

And this recent mind-numbing crime provides yet another occasion for homosexual activists and those who support their social and political goals to lay an unbiblical, unchristian, indefensible crime at the feet of all Christians who hold biblical views on the nature and morality of homosexuality and who deplore murder.

Mourning for those young people whose lives were violently taken had not even begun before attacks on Christians could be found in the comments section of homosexual blogs. For example, last night one blog comment read, “The extremist religious people in our society, especially those like [National Organization for Marriage] and other anti-gay religious organizations (Pat Robertson, et al) are the cause of this kind of violence against the GLBT community. Members of these organizations spew their hatred on television and in their churches, and the weak-minded grab hold of their hateful words and act on them.”

Another read, “Last night I was at evening Mass in my home town. The priest began his sermon by talking about the ‘culture of death’ and his disapproval of euthanasia. How did he get from that to an attack on gays and lesbians? I don’t know, but somehow he did. He ranted about the introduction of civil partnerships for gays and lesbians in the UK and the adoption of children by gays and lesbians, and said that God had shown his attitude to ‘active homosexuality’ once and for all by his destruction of those ‘wicked people’ of Sodom and Gomorrah. We see from the events in Tel Aviv exactly where that kind of thinking leads.”

In an exploitative effort to silence Christians, homosexual activists rush in to impute culpability directly and speciously to orthodox Christian teaching on the morality of homosexual acts.

Can any homosexual activist provide evidence that those who are responsible for crimes associated with hatred of homosexuals are or were serious, committed followers of Christ who loved the Lord and His Word, knew Christian doctrine, and sought to live a life that would bring glory to God?

How specious to claim that the deaths of Nir Katz and Liz Trubeshi in Tel Aviv, Sakia Gunn, Sean Kennedy, Lawrence King, Jose Sucuzhanay (who was presumed to be but was not homosexual), Scotty Joe Weaver, or Carl Walker-Hoover and Jaheem Herrera (who were not homosexual but called anti-homosexual epithets) were caused by the orthodox beliefs of those who desire nothing more than that all should come to Christ so that they can know “the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding” and the “fullness of joy.”

How specious to claim even implicitly that the convicted offenders Richard McCullough, Stephen Andrew Moller, Brandon McInerney, Hakim Scott, Christopher Gaines, Nichole Kelsay, Keith Phoenix, and the schoolyard bullies who harassed children were true followers of Christ who believed that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves.

One of the problems with the line of reasoning manipulated by homosexual activists is that they make the error of claiming that because two disparate groups of people share one idea in common, they must share all ideas in common. In other words, homosexual activists falsely claim that because orthodox Christians believe homosexual acts are wrong and anti-homosexual haters believe homosexual acts are wrong, both groups share all ideas in common and are equally culpable for the acts of violence that only one group endorses and in which only one group engages.

That would be like saying that Quakers who opposed the war in Viet Nam but rejected violence and the Weather Underground that opposed the war and endorsed the use of violence were equally culpable for the violence committed only by the Weather Underground.

Or it would be like saying that all people who oppose the exploitation of the environment are culpable for the acts of ecoterrorism engaged in by the Earth Liberation Front.

It’s exactly the same kind of charge that pro-abortionists level at all pro-lifers. Pro-abortionists offensively claim that those who oppose the killing of the unborn and reject murderous vigilantism are responsible for the murderous acts of vigilantes.

Are homosexuals who believe that polyamory, or “swinging,” or adult consensual incest is immoral guilty of creating a climate of hatred and danger to those who are in plural relationships, open relationships, or incestuous relationships? Do all moral claims about behavior constitute hatred toward people and contribute to climates of danger and fear, or is it just the moral claims with which homosexuals disagree that create climates of hatred, danger, and fear?

The kind of reasoning employed by homosexual activists is akin to the logical fallacy of “guilt by association.” Homosexual activists are attempting to coerce orthodox Christians into either self-censorship or outright rejection of the belief that homosexuality is immoral by associating it with a group with whom no one, including orthodox Christians, would want to be associated. But as one writer explains, “the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).”

This line of reasoning also employs the logical fallacy of “hasty generalization” in which all members of a group are assumed to have all the characteristics of one or a few of its members.

In the book After the Ball [see MassResistance analysis HERE], homosexual tacticians Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, architects of what is referred to in the book’s acknowledgments as a “gay manifesto,” urge homosexual activists to “learn from Madison Avenue, to roll out the big guns. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign. . . .We’re talking about propaganda” which “relies more upon emotional manipulation than upon logic, since its goal is, in fact, to bring about a change in the public’s feelings.”

Kirk and Madsen’s goal is to “make homohating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them.” What must be made clear is that what Kirk and Madsen mean by “homohating beliefs” are any negative views of homosexual acts, including even those that involve no hatred whatsoever. They go on to say that they “intend, by this tactic, to make the very expression of homohatred so discreditable that even Intransigents will eventually be silenced in public.”

Then they offer their truly pernicious tactic:

“The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appall and anger Middle America. These images might include:

• Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated;
• Hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged;
• Menacing punks, thugs, and convicts who speak coolly about the ‘fags’ they have based or would like to bash;
• A tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.”

I’m sure Kirk and Madsen would have liked nothing more than to be able to associate the Tel Aviv masked gunman’s bloodbath with orthodox Christianity.

Christians ought not to fall victim to this tactic. Christianity teaches not only that homosexual acts are sinful but also that no person shall commit murder; that hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses; that we are to love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God; that anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love; that we are to do good to those who hate us and bless those who curse us and pray for those who mistreat us; and that all are created in the image and likeness of God.

Orthodox Christians who are living out the entirety of Scripture do not hate, commit acts of murder, or endorse acts of murder.

Now is the time to pray for those who were injured and for the loved ones of those lost in Saturday’s carnage and to administer the full weight of civil justice to the guilty party: the man with the seared conscience who opened fire on a group of teens.

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.

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.

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.

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

_____________________________________

Media Advisory

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

June 16, 2009; Contact: Angela at 847-722-5330; americansfortruth@comcast.net

Coalition Press Conference: Obama’s Appointments and Policies Reflect Extreme Homosexual Agenda

CHICAGO, Ill. – Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is organizing a news conference Wednesday, June 17th at 11:00 AM, to highlight President Obama’s radical homosexual appointments and overall “gay” agenda:

Where: 29 South LaSalle Street, Suite 610, Chicago, IL
When: Wednesday., June 17, 11:00 AM
Who: Scheduled speakers:

Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel;
Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R);
Hiram Crawford, pro-family, pro-life advocate, Chicago;
Mary Ann Hackett, Catholic Citizens of Illinois;
Diane Gramley, American Family Association of Pennsylvania;
David Smith, Illinois Family Institute;
Pastor Larry Rogers, Israel Methodist Community Church, Chicago;
Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Pro-Life Law Center;
Pastor Calvin Lindstrom, Church of Christian Liberty, Arlington Heights, IL

What: press event drawing attention to Obama’s emerging homosexual- and transsexual activist agenda:

• Obama’s radical appointments including anti-traditional-Catholic Harry Knox (of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign) and Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) founder Kevin Jennings;
• Hate Crimes bill;
• Obama’s radical promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Clinton in 1996);
• Obama’s ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) plans to force businesses to approve of homosexuality;
• Obama’s plan to homosexualize the U.S. military (repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”);
• Obama’s confusion about Christianity, the Bible and homosexual practice;
• Obama’s lack of mandate to push the envelope on homosexual and transsexual issues

“Americans are largely ignorant about President Obama’s extreme pro-homosexual goals, which includes repealing DOMA and homosexualizing the U.S. military,” said AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera. “We are thrilled that these organizations and leaders are coming together to expose Obama’s ‘gay’ and transsexual agenda –– for which he has zero mandate because these issues were almost completely ignored in the general election campaign.”

Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel attorney and AFTAH board member, said: “By pledging his support for every demand of extremist homosexual pressure groups, President Obama has revealed himself to be out of step with those he serves. For example, he has promised to homosexualize the military supplanting sound judgment with San Francisco vice. It’s dangerously irresponsible for the President to place political correctness above national security. Now is not the time for sexual revolution in this nation. Now is the time to return to the family values that made America great.”
_________________________________________

Americans For Truth Needs You! … Give $25 and Get a Free Book

We need your financial help and prayers to keep fighting the powerful “queer” lobby.  If you will help Americans For Truth with a tax-deductible gift of $25 or more, we will send you a free copy of the hard-cover book Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far, by the late Dr. Charles Socarides, who dedicated his life to understanding homosexuality and helping people overcome it.  Will you consider a gift of $25, $100, $500 or even $1,000 or more to help Americans For Truth fight the powerful, well-financed Homosexual Lobby?  You can make your gift online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate, or mail your gift to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

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

_________________________:

Liberty Counsel

April 30, 2009

Hate Crimes Passes House and Heads to Senate

Yesterday the U.S. House passed H.R. 1913 and elevated “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the same federal legal status as race. The vote was 249 to 175, with 10 not voting. You can see how your representative voted by checking the roll online.

Senator Ted Kennedy has  introduced a similar bill (S. 909) in the Senate. The bill, which has 34 cosponsors, has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. There is still time to combat this bill, and here is how you can help:

• Sign the Petition to Congress against “Hate Crimes” laws.
• Contact Your Senators and request them to vote NO. They will listen to constituents. Call the Capitol Switchboard number, (202) 224-3121, and ask to be connected to your Senator.
• Continue to pray against this dangerous piece of legislation. Together we can make a difference.

50 Ways to Lose Your Freedom

We are providing a link to a document compiled from various organizations that overviews the appointments and actions taken by the President in his first 100 days in office. Please read it and draw your own conclusions about the State of the Nation. Then, pray for a reversal of each of the alarming and destructive anti-life, anti-family policies that are being implemented.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write your U.S. Representative and Senators in opposition to H.R. 1913, the “Hate Crimes” bill that will likely be voted on by the House tomorrow, Wednesday, April 28. Call 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or contact your representatives through www.congress.org.

Editor’s Note: we delayed in making a change in copy desired by the author, in paragraph I.A. (“Characteristics”), giving the proper credit for a description of the Hate Crimes bill, HR 1913. That paragraph was corrected on May 1, 2009.

Following is an outstanding analysis of the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, HR 1913, which could be voted on by the House of Representatives tomorrow (Wednesday, April 29). Shawn Akers is a relative newcomer to the pro-family movement but is shaping up to be a future all-star. He serves as a Policy Analyst with Liberty Counsel, and as Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of Academic Support with Liberty University School of Law.  Akers is a close friend, colleague and former Regent Law classmate of Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and current Culture War heavyweight also with Liberty Counsel. (Barber will keynote AFTAH’s fundraising banquet on Saturday, Oct. 10 — save the date.) Keep an eye on Shawn. The Lord will be using him mightily as the heated culture war reaches a boil. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.com.

Click here for the text of H.R. 1913, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009; emphasis is author’s below:

__________________________________________

The “Hate Crimes” Bill

H.R. 1913, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009″

By Shawn D. Akers

I.    Characteristics

A.     “This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law” – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” “Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or ‘includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.’” See Legislation Detail: http://www.overcriminalized.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?id=441.
B.    The bill includes the terms “Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” – ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define.  It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.
C.    As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).
D.    The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”

II.    Status

A.    The version of the bill titled HR 1913 RH  passed out of Judiciary committee on a 15-12 vote.  It appears that the only change from the prior version, HR 1913 IH,  was the dropping of the original section 2 –  the findings section which included exaggerated figures of so-called hate crimes and included the interstate commerce language.
B.    Rep. Steve King, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and others offered and argued persuasively for several amendments all of which were defeated.  One that was particularly interesting was Steve King’s amendment to merely exclude pedophiles from the protected class based on “sexual orientation” – it was voted down 13-10.
C.    If Rep. Barney Frank is to be believed, the bill will likely go to the floor of the house very quickly, probably within the next few weeks. [A House floor vote is expected to come as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, April 29--Editor.]

III.    Major Concerns

While the bill’s supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection.  Indeed, if the bill’s drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act.  On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality.  The particular concerns with the bill are numerous, but a few of the most troublesome are listed below.

A.    Unequal Protection of Laws Under 14th Amendment

1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all citizens be extended equal protection under the law. HR 1913 in effect creates two classes of victims, i.e. those who are a member of the preferred and protected class created by the bill and those who are not. Inclusion in the preferred class is to a great extent based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct, subjective gender, and subjective gender self-identity.
2. The practical effect of the carrot and the stick of federal funds, federal promotion and federal oversight is the promotion of the preferred class and the neglect of non-class members.  Specifically, local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving these preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of less valuable victims.  Additionally, with federal funds available when the requisite “hate” connection can be alleged, the bill creates a powerful incentive to force cases into the “hate crimes” mold.  This heavily incentivized increase in reported “hate crimes” would artificially inflate the number and apparent prevalence of so called “hate crimes.” The natural and very political result of such a perceived increase in “hate crimes” would undoubtedly be an increase in the political influence of the preferred class, and as night follows day, a corresponding increase and expansion of even more intrusive “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation to address the perceived crisis.

B.    Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political thought) rather than Mere Intent To Commit a Crime.

1.    Ironically hate is not even an element of a “hate crime” in the bill. Rather, the definition of a “hate crime” is borrowed from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – requiring only that the defendant selects a victim because of the membership or perceived membership in one of these proposed protected classes. Proponents of the bill argue that the criminal is being punished for his or her intent to terrorize an entire class of people (i.e. all homosexuals) but no such intent to terrorize is actually required.  Indeed, despite the framing of the term “hate crime” the bill does not even require a showing of animus toward the victim or the preferred class.  Under existing law, the criminal would be punished if he or she possessed the requisite intent to commit the act.  The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by HR 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim’s membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim.  In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, HR 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed.  As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought.

C.    Wider Immediate Application than Claimed.

This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (emphasis added).  This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener.  Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence.  This argument is misleading and naïve in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they physically contributed to the act.

D.    Federal Power Grab

The bill, if passed into law, would as a practical matter federalize virtually every sexual crime in the United States.  This federalization would occur even in the absence of any evidence of failure by states and municipalities to prosecute.  Under the bill, membership in one of the preferred classes does not have to be the impetus for the criminal act but merely a factor in the defendant’s selection of his victim.  This is almost always the case. Muggers invariably choose little old ladies as victims precisely because they are little old ladies and unlikely to be able to fend them off.  Under the bill, consideration of the gender of the victim effectively creates the potential for federal jurisdiction. Considering both the extreme breadth of the bill and the built-in incentives to bring crimes under the bill, the likely result is the practical federalization of large swaths of state and local criminal law.

E.    Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity.

1.    The recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) widely increased the number of people who may be classified as terrorists and who almost by definition would be members of hate groups.  Under the HR 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive so long as a prosecutor can show that the speech or association was “specifically related” to the criminal act.

2.    Substance and methods similar to that offered in the DHS report have recently been echoed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  That group provides influential lists of alleged hate groups relied upon by state and federal law enforcement.  The reports have begun to blend among its lengthy list of true hate-based groups such as neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan, other organizations based on little more than their opposition to homosexuality.  The effect of listing a pro-family organization along side several neo-Nazi groups is to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association.

3.    Additionally the appointment of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Department and the rise of acceptability of his stance that international laws should be used to interpret American laws, even among such figures as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, creates the danger and likelihood that judicial activism would further increase the power, reach, and tyrannical effect of HR 1913 by bringing its application in line with its counterparts in Canada, the Netherlands, etc.

4.    Proponents of HR 1913 argue or imply that the law would provide greater protection for members of all faiths, presumably including Judaism and Christianity.  The application of hate crimes laws in the countries they are most prevalent (and the countries to which Harold Koh would likely look for interpretive guidance), produce exactly the opposite result.  The application of hate crimes laws in countries like the Netherlands experiencing the increased influence of Shariah – stringent Islamic religious law — is patently and consistently anti-Semitic.  The most concrete example of this is the stark contrast in the application of the hate crimes laws in the Netherlands between those who criticize Shariah and those who call for violence against Israel and the Jewish people.  For instance, Geert Wilders, who produced a 17-minute film critical of Shariah, is being vigorously prosecuted under the Netherlands’ hate crimes laws — while the blatant and violent anti-Semitism of others such as Dutch MP Harry van Bommel, who called for intifada against Israel earlier this year, and Doekle Terpstra, who sponsored an “Olive Tree Campaign” rally in Amsterdam where the participants chanted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!” are apparently immune from hate crimes prosecution.

5.    The same is likely true of the UN Anti-Blasphemy measures which realistically can be seen only to forbid criticism of Shariah while allowing wholesale anti-Semitism.

6.    Christians who vocally oppose homosexuality and the state endorsement of homosexuality in Holland, Canada, and Brazil routinely receive similar treatment, finding themselves on the prosecuted and persecuted end of hate crimes legislation while the anti-Christian actions of other groups are ignored.

7.    Historically an increase in Shariah influence and/or a rise in economic problems have consistently shown a corresponding rise in anti-Semitism.  The growing national and international acceptance and preferential treatment of the pro-homosexual movement has likewise shown a similar increase in anti-Christian activity (such as the threats of violence against Proposition 8 supporters in California and the recent attack launched by homosexual activist Perez Hilton against a contestant in the Miss USA competition).  Were the United States under the leadership of Harold Koh, Janet Napolitano, etc., to follow the hate crimes trends and precedents established in the international community, the actual application of HR 1913 and its certain coming hate crimes and hate speech progeny, would likely undermine the rights of Christian and Jewish citizens.

F.    Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.

1.    All of the above can reasonably be expected to lead to a quickly spawned progeny of hate crime legislation demanding greater and greater control of thought, expression and association.  This is the pattern in the international community. HR 1913 would firmly brand one’s thoughts on the issues of human sexuality as potentially criminal activity. The logical next step is to recognize the “harmful impact of hateful speech” on preferred classes and to begin outlawing speech that would communicate what members of preferred classes find offensive.  Proponents of HR 1913 have argued that this is preposterous but tellingly, in the April 23, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearings on HR 1913, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said unequivocally that “We need to protect victims against hateful words, hateful acts and even violent acts.” (emphasis added).

IV.    Action Steps

1. Encourage constituents to participate in immediate, continued, and persistent contact with both personal senators and congressmen and those of other districts and states (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121; or 202-224-3121; www.congress.org).
2. Support, promote and demand a filibuster if the measure reaches the floor of the Senate.
3. Record and hold to account every member of Congress supporting the bill in the coming elections.
4. Actively oppose the confirmation of Harold Koh.
5. Vigorously hold Janet Napolitano responsible for the libelous report issued by the DHS.

___________________________________

1  Shawn D. Akers is a Policy Analyst with Liberty Counsel, and an Adjunct Professor of Law and Director of Academic Support with Liberty University School of Law.  He can be reached via email at akerslaw@aim.com.

“Passage of ‘hate crimes’ legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable ‘suspect class’ characteristics such as skin color or a person’s true gender. This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism.” – Matt Barber

By Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel

Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) have quietly re-introduced the federal thought crimes bill, H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. As has proved to be true in both Europe and Canada, this Orwellian piece of legislation is the direct precursor to freedom killing and speech chilling “hate speech” laws. It represents a thinly veiled effort to ultimately silence – under penalty of law – morally, medically and biblically based opposition to the homosexual lifestyle. The bill is expected to be marked up Wednesday before the full House Judiciary Committee.

Under the 14th Amendment, victims of violent crime are currently afforded equal protection under the law regardless of sexual preference or proclivity. If passed, H.R. 1913 will change all that.  It overtly and, most likely, unconstitutionally discriminates against millions of Americans by granting federally preferred status, time and resources to individuals who define their identity based upon aberrant sexual behaviors (i.e., “gay” and lesbian “sexual orientation” or cross-dressing “gender identity”).

Of course, this entire concept flies in the face of the 14th Amendment. It inarguably codifies unequal protection under the law, creating a two-tiered justice system made up of first-class victims such as those who self-identify as homosexual or “transgender” and second-class victims such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, veterans, the homeless and others who choose not to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors.

There is exactly zero evidence to suggest that homosexuals or cross-dressers do not currently receive equal protection under the law. In fact, you need only look to the most famous “hate crime” of all – Matthew Shepard – for proof. Although the evidence determined that Shepard’s murder was not a “hate crime” by definition (a misconception still widely propagated by the homosexual lobby, the media and liberal lawmakers), the two thugs who committed the crime nonetheless received life in prison – and rightfully so. (Shepard’s murder turned out to be the end result of a robbery for drug money gone from bad to horrible).

Likewise, the murderer of Mary Stachowicz – a devout Catholic grandmother who reportedly was brutally killed by a homosexual man in Chicago merely for sharing the Bible – was also given a life sentence. The system worked in both cases and both victims received equal justice under the law apart from any discriminatory “hate crimes” legislation.

Yet, proponents of H.R. 1913 claim it’s needed to curb an epidemic of so-called “hate crimes” committed against homosexuals and those who suffer gender identity disorder. This is a lie that is knowingly and intentionally cultivated by a very well funded and intrinsically deceptive homosexual lobby.  The alarmist propaganda simply doesn’t square with the facts.

According to the latest FBI statistics, in 2007 there were about 1.4 million violent crimes committed in the U.S. Of those, only 1,512 were reported as “hate crimes” motivated by “sexual orientation” bias. Over two thirds of those were allegations of “hateful” words, touching, intimidation, pushing or shoving. There were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) allegedly motivated by “sexual orientation” bias nationwide. In each case, where appropriate, offenders were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and victims were afforded the exact same justice guaranteed every other American.

The entire push for federal “hate crimes” legislation is rooted in fraud. In fact, many of the most high-profile reports have turned out to be false. For example, investigators determined that the very “hate crime” (Andrew Anthos in Michigan) exploited by liberal lawmakers to justify the same legislation in the last Congress, was a false report. It never happened. (See report from Detroit News [PDF].) And instances of such fabricated and politically motivated “hate crimes” continue to pile up.

So, if proponents of H.R. 1913 are neither justified nor motivated by an actual need for the bill – as clearly demonstrated – then what drives them? The answer is twofold. First, passage of “hate crimes” legislation would place the behaviorally driven and fluid concepts of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” on an equal footing with legitimate, neutral and immutable “suspect class” characteristics such as skin color or a person’s true gender.

This creates both a sociopolitical and legal environment wherein traditional sexual morality officially becomes the new racism. Those who publicly express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

In short, this bill places newfangled “gay rights” in direct conflict with our enumerated constitutional rights. It becomes the first step in the official criminalization of Christianity. It’s a zero sum game and someone has to lose. Ultimately, what we lose are our First Amendment guaranteed rights to freedom of speech, religious expression and association.

But the threat is not just some shadowy phantom looming in the near future. It’s a clear and present danger. While debating the notion of “conspiracy to commit a hate crime” in the last Congress, Representative Artur Davis (D-Alabama) admitted that the legislation could be used to prosecute pastors for merely preaching the Bible under the concept of “inducement” to violence.

Furthermore, under existing criminal statute if H.R. 1913 becomes law, actual violence or injury need not take place for a “hate crime” to occur. For example, if a group of Christians are at a “gay pride” parade and a one of them gently places his hand on a homosexual’s shoulder and shares that there is freedom from homosexuality through a relationship with Jesus Christ, then, voila, we have a battery and, consequently, a felony “hate crime.”

But the Christian needn’t even touch the homosexual.  If the homosexual merely claims he was subjectively placed in “apprehension of bodily injury” by the Christian’s words then, again, the Christian can be thrown in prison for a felony “hate crime.” The FBI has included mere words – “insults” and “intimidation” – in calculating “hate crimes” statistics and – under the current political regime in Washington – there’s every reason to believe they’ll subjectively consider “insults” and “intimidation” (read: traditional sexual morality) for purposes of prosecuting “hate crimes.”

Yes, it’s a brave new world and with H.R. 1913 – among other things – a once free America has moved, both literally and figuratively, a quarter of a century beyond Orwell’s 1984.

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.

Send To Phone

Bob Schwartz of the Chicago-based Gay Liberation Network supports Wright State University’s ban against the Campus Bible Fellowship. The Christian campus group opposes Wright’s “nondiscrimination” code, which would force it to abandon its faithfulness to Scripture by allowing unrepentant homosexuals as members. Schwartz previously claimed to oppose laws criminalizing Christian speech — yet he favors banning groups because he  considers them “bible bigots.” Would Schwartz and GLN (which AFTAH considers to be an anti-Christian hate group) allow a tax-supported public university to dictate ITS membership standards if it operated on a college campus?

AFTAH was copied on the following e-mail letter from Bob Schwartz of the left-wing Gay Liberation Network, based in Chicago, to Wright State University President David Hopkins. Schwartz sent his letter following Americans For Truth’s reprint of a press release by the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) , which is fighting to overturn Wright State’s oppressive policy of forcing Campus Bible Fellowship to violate its faith creed in order to stay on campus. Note at bottom Schwartz’s clarification in response to a question from this writer.

Please study this series of e-mails and links [Wright State story HERE and Schwartz's previous statement against censorship HERE] and see if you can comprehend how Schwartz can simultaneously hold two seemingly contradictory positions:

1. he “opposes” government censorship against Christian speech (for which AFTAH wrote that “we are pleasantly surprised that the GLN leader is not an outright advocate of censorship”);
2. while he supports a government-funded school banning a Christian group for, effectively, sticking to its Biblical faith creed.

Hint: if you love the First Amendment, you won’t like Bob’s “clarification.” By banning Campus Bible Fellowship, Wright State has censored CBF’s speech. [TAKE ACTION HERE, or contact Wright's President, David Hopkins, at david.hopkins@wright.edu.] All of this begs the question: why would anyone expect the American Left — which has carried water for totalitarian governments the world over — to understand and honor religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms in the United States?– Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth, www.aftah.com

Here is Schwartz’s letter to Wright State President David Hopkins and BCC’d  to Americans For Truth, sent following AFTAH’s posting of the FIRE press release:

_________________________________________

From: [Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network]
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 1:55 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: Bible Bigots at Wright University

[To Wright State University President David Hopkins; link added]

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

No doubt you have received angry messages from bible bigots claiming that “religious freedom” is being compromised by the banning of the hate group from campus.

Racists and women haters have claimed religious sanction for their beliefs and discriminatory acts.  Gay and lesbian people deserve the same respect and protection accorded to other groups.

Please maintain the ban on the Campus Bible Fellowship.

BOB SCHWARTZ [of Gay Liberation Network]

Chicago

_________________________________________

Here is our follow-up with Schwartz and then his “clarification” equating a group maintaining Biblical standards against homosexuality with “hate speech”:

—–Original Message—–
From: Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth, americansfortruth@comcast.net
To: [Bob Schwartz, Gay Liberation Network]
Sent: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 8:35 am
Subject: RE: Bible Bigots at Wright University

…. And this does seem like a retrenchment from your other email (which I posted on AFTAH) in which you say you defend opposition speech.

_________________________________________

From: [Bob Schwartz]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:23 AM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Bible Bigots at Wright University

I am opposed to government imposed restrictions on free speech, as such restrictions are historically directed at left-wing oppositionists.  I consider bible based bigotry against gays to be hate speech subject to antidiscrimination policies as in the case of Wright State University.

_________________________________________

By Laurie Higgins
First published Feb. 25, 2009 by Illinois Family Institute

Wayne Besen said this visual target graphic representing homosexual activists targeting traditional marriage — in a video produced by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia — turned the video into a “violent ad.” At bottom is an excerpt of the narration of the video surrounding the portion with the “target” graphic.

Wayne Besen, former spokesman for the subversive homosexual activist Human Rights Campaign and founder of the hate organization Truth Wins Out, apparently can’t make a distinction between a domestic terrorist threat and — a metaphor.

Besen has a West Virginia marriage initiative in his sights. He sees in this utterly benign video by The Family Policy Council of West Virginia a nefarious sniper threat. Please watch the video that has so terrorized Besen and that is more like an episode of The Waltons than 24:  http://www.wvformarriage.com/ [Click on YouTube above to watch video.]

His claim is both idiotic and comical. In one frame of this video, we see the nuclear family through the sight of a gun, which is a commonplace metaphor that means that someone or something is taking aim at or opposing something.  Is Besen actually claiming that society should prohibit the use of this metaphor? Will society tolerate this kind of intrusive censorship? And is Besen claiming that he and his collaborators don’t have traditional marriage and the natural family in their crosshairs?

I can’t think of a more serious domestic threat to fundamental First Amendment rights than that which is posed by homosexualists who seek to circumscribe both speech and religious rights if the exercise of those rights impedes their unholy march toward compulsory approval of homosexual behavior.

As I’ve mentioned before and will likely mention again, Georgetown University lesbian law professor, Chai Feldblum, has stated that when same-sex marriage is legalized, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights.

Public school libraries engage in virtual absolute censorship of all books that espouse conservative perspectives on homosexuality, all the while accumulating a horde of pro-homosexual books that would make Midas envious.

Public schools expose students to resource after resource in context after context that affirm the view that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality while never offering resources that challenge that view.

Anti-discrimination policies that include the term “sexual orientation” are being used to prohibit people of faith from acting according to their consciences. Because we, in our ignorance, apathy, and cowardice, permitted this term to be included in anti-discrimination policy, schools can’t fire administrators and teachers who have elective amputations of healthy body parts and cross-dress.

And now, homosexual activists have metaphors in their sights.

____________________________________

Here is an excerpt of the narration from the pro-traditional-marriage video by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia, in the portion surrounding the “target” graphic:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is held up as the ideal in all of civilized society because its profound stabilizing effects on our culture, as well as the important economic benefits of strong and intact families. ["Target" graphic begins here] But today that ideal is under an unrelenting attack as same-sex marriage in West Virginia is a closer reality than you may think [target graphic ends]. Thirty states have already passed constitutional amendments defining marriage but activists outside our state are aggressively targeting the remaining 20, including West Virginia — working tirelessly to redefine marriage away from God’s design to favor the desires of adults over the needs of children for the naturally balanced model of a mother and a father. The push for SSM has produced an historical crisis for the church. Today in courtrooms across the country in decisions as recent as last month, our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty is going toe to toe with an aggressive social agenda, and the Church is losing….”

Send To Phone