Glenn Beck needs to attend the next AFTAH Truth Academy, says Champion News editor John Biver.

Reprinted with permission from ChampionNews.net; first published August 27, 2010

By John Biver

From coast to coast, platform-supporting Republicans have reacted to Glenn Beck’s weak-kneed cave-in regarding the issue of homosexual “marriage.” He’s quoted as telling Fox News Network’s Bill O’Reilly,

“I believe that Thomas Jefferson said, ‘If it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me.’”

Some people are even calling for a “moratorium” on the political discussion of the cultural issues. That idea is foolish, as we’ve addressed on links found HERE. Try as you might, you can’t separate economics from culture.

The cultural issues are numerous. They include the proper use of facts when it comes to history, honesty in intellectual debates, integrity in the free market system, standing with our friends and allies in foreign countries, the right of the unborn to not have their life taken through the barbaric procedure of abortion, and decorum that befits a civilization when it comes to matters that should be private such as individual sexual predilections.

The two that get the most attention are abortion and the sexual problems of at best 3 percent of the population: homosexual behavior. I call it a problem because it is. The physical health statistics, sociological data, and psychological evidence reached critical mass a long time ago about the dangers of that behavior choice.

Note that I said behavior choice. If you can’t control your urges, then you should seek help. It’s called mature adulthood. If you think nothing is wrong with homosexual activity, that is your right. It’s not your right to indoctrinate children, force an extreme social agenda on an unwilling country, or demand acceptance from people whose religions refer to that activity as sin and a crime against nature.

We’re not guilty of “homophobia.” They’re guilty of moralityphobia. We don’t fear them – we fear the tearing of the moral fabric. They fear the preservation of common sense moral standards.

Unfortunately too many people within the Republican Party are intellectually lazy and refuse to learn what they should about the real agenda of those pushing homosexual “marriage.”

Champion News has addressed the issue of marriage at some length through links listed on this page. Champion News has also addressed the moral confusion surrounding what I’d refer to as the arrested-development push for amoral sexual behavior in the public square. It’s no longer a private issue; the other side marches in pride parades much like children might march to celebrate having been potty trained.

(One friend has observed: “Although it wouldn’t be appropriate to hold a parade for potty-training in that it’s a private activity, I think being potty-trained—unlike homosexual practice—is a legitimate accomplishment.”)

Glenn Beck needs to go to school on the issue by purchasing the DVDs or CDs of the last Truth Academy put on by Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, and he should attend the next one. There he’ll learn the facts that no one is born gay, its causes are psychological and emotional, the Bible in no way supports or condones homosexual behavior, and that there is no compromise possible between our First Amendment right of freedom of religion and the agenda of those who are seeking to make the American culture into one where sexual morality is tossed out the window.

Speaking of windows, Glenn Beck’s novel The Overton Window is premised on the idea presented by Joseph Overton – here is how Wikipedia sums it up (emphasis added):

“At any given moment, the ‘window’ includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too ‘extreme’ or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office.

“Overton arranged the spectrum on a vertical axis of ‘more free’ and ‘less free’ in regards to government intervention. When the window moves or expands, ideas can accordingly become more or less politically acceptable. The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as: Unthinkable, Radical, Acceptable, Sensible, Popular, Policy.”

I appreciate the good work Glenn Beck is doing on several fronts, but he needs to open his eyes to the cultural Overton Window phenomenon he’s falling prey to when it comes to our nation’s culture. Our second President John Adams gave one of the more succinct quotes from the Founding era about our nation’s survival:

“Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Surely Beck understands that the ethical roots of the American regime have their lineage in both Athens and Jerusalem, and that the religion Adams had in mind was Christianity. Surely Beck realizes the consequences of allowing the sexually troubled to win in their overthrow of the First Amendment. Surely Beck understands that if you surrender to the extreme agenda of the social left on any matter, the Overton Window moves in the wrong direction. Surely Beck realizes that the problems of the 3 percent put at risk the support of the cultural conservative base of the one party – the Republican Party – that still understands that civilization is behavior.

If he doesn’t, he should take some time off from his radio and TV show, his book-writing, rally-planning, and speech-giving – and learn.

John Biver is the Editor of Champion News.

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

7-24-10, Wayne Lela & John McCartney, All

“Peter LaBarbera has unveiled the instructor list and official curriculum for his upcoming three day anti-gay hatefest/”truth academy” … and it is pretty much going to be the gay-hatingest thing you have ever seen.”

Wow. “Gay-hatingest.” Reactionary liberals are expanding their smear-term lexicon. Seriously, though, most people on the Left are not quite willing, yet, to define anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as “hateful” — although they might call them “homophobic” (an artificial construct whose elastic definition has evolved to meet the needs of pro-”gay” liberals). I’m sure there are exceptions, but I suspect that most “gay”-affirming people would not automatically label anyone who believes that homosexuality is immoral — or that homosexual sex is unnatural – as “haters.”

However, if you reflect that moral opposition in the public square — if you defend the age-old position that homosexuality is wrong – then suddenly you become, yes, “hateful.” Hard to win that argument: ME: pro-gay, loving and tolerant. YOU: anti-gay, hateful and intolerant. Is this what now passes for discourse in dumbed-down America? Give me the old-fashioned liberals who might disagree with AFTAH’s beliefs forcefully but who at least understand that name-calliing is no substitute for an argument.

Morality is not “hate” and defending the historic Judeo-Christian sexual ethic is not “bigotry.” Homosexuality is wrong, and a controversial moral and religious issue involving behavior. It is wholly unlike race: there are no “ex-Blacks” or “ex-Asians”; there are thousands of former homosexuals — people like our Truth Academy instructor Greg Quinlan, who once considered himself “gay” before leaving the lifestyle. The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual practice — especially among men — is a big factor in the spread of diseases like HIV. In a free society, we debate moral issues, and we discuss public health issues arising from dangerous behaviors. Does PFAW hold that it is OK to crusade for acceptance of homosexuality, but “un-American” and ”hateful” to oppose it civilly?

Maybe “Senior Fellow” Kyle, who edits PFAW’s “Right-Wing Watch” blog, and his pro-homosexual allies can explain it for us:  Is every American who opposes homosexuality hateful — or just those who defend that position in public? When does moral disagreement become “hate”? (I know, I’m a fool for trying to reason with the Left….)

Meanwhile, below are the Truth Academy curriculum and speakers, not one of whom has a hateful bone in his or her body. Please spread the word on this wonderful opportunity to educate citizens about an activist movment that reveals its own brand of hatred and bigotry – and intellectual bankruptcy — by castigating its critics and Judeo-Christian morality itself as “hateful.” – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. We’ve just learned that the “loving and tolerant” folks over at (Marxist) Gay Liberation Network — whose intemperate rhetoric might make even PFAW blush (see GLN applauding the firing of a Catholic professor HERE) – are planning to picket the Truth Academy.

___________________________________________

Americans For Truth Academy

Tentative Speakers Schedule

Thursday, August 5 – Saturday, August 7, 2010

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

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

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

THURSDAY

Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality: “From gay pride to gay tyranny”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law: “History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”

11:20-12:20 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Board Member, AFTAH: “Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality”

1:20-2:20 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California: “The ‘born gay hoax”

2:30 – 3:30 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute: “Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments”

3:40-4:40 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change: “Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality”

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

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

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

7:45 – 9:15 – Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network: “An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality”

FRIDAY

9:00 – 10:00 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival, Accuracy in Media: “The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law: “The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms”

11:20-12:20 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute: “Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda”

1:20-2:20 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality: “The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”

2:30 – 3:30 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”

3:40-4:40 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty U. School of Law: “The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”

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

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

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

7:45 – 9:15 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism: “From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”

SATURDAY

9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “’Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”

10:10 – 11:10 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries: “Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”

11:20-12:20 – Greg Quinlan, PFOX, Pro-Family Network: “The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”

1:20-2:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media: “Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’”

2:30-3:40 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”

3:50-4:50 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California: “Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”

5:00-6:00 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH Board Member: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”

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

Tentative Speakers Schedule

Thursday, August 5 – Saturday, August 7, 2010

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

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

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

Truth Academy Instructors:

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

_______________________________________________________

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5 (Day One)

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

8-9:30 – Light breakfast;  Registration

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

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

“From gay pride to gay tyranny”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The ‘born gay hoax”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________________________

FRIDAY, AUGUST 6 (Day Two)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________________

SATURDAY, AUGUST 7 (Day Three)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[NOTE: Corrected contact info for American Red Cross below]

“Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.” – Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

In the book And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic, homosexual journalist Randy Shilts documents how homosexual activists originally fought the effort to ban "gay" male blood donations, saying it was discriminatory. This caused a delay in starting the ban, which led to the needless deaths of many innocent people. Shilts himself died of AIDS.

Folks, thankfully, sanity has prevailed and the political attempt to weaken the FDA ban on blood donations from “men who have had sex with men” (MSM) failed in a 6-9 vote Friday by the FDA committee mentioned in Cliff Kincaid’s article below. (Note the American Red Cross’ condemnation of the vote, along with “gay” activist organizations; contact the Red Cross HERE.) I only wish the homosexual activists and their liberal allies (most importantly the CDC) would redirect their energies toward shutting down homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs — i.e., the venues that encourage the anonymous hyper-promiscuity that facilitates the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. (See our story: “CDC: Gay Men’s HIV Rate 44 Times that of Other Men; Syphilis Rate 46 Times Higher.”) But this would run contrary to the history of homosexual activism, which elevates deviant sex and “rights” based on same above the public health and other interests of the public. TAKE ACTION: Contact the Food and Drug Administration HERE; Contact the Red Cross HERE; and you can reach Congress at 202-224-3121. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org,

____________________________________

The Battle Over Blood

By Cliff Kincaid, Reprinted with permission of Accuracy in Media, www.aim.org |  June 9, 2010

With the public focused on the calamity of the Gulf oil spill, another disaster that could affect millions of lives is in the making. The federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is holding meetings on June 10 and June 11 to consider lifting the ban on gay blood.

In this battle, if the gays win, you lose.

Gay activists, who are expected to dominate the proceedings and intimidate federal policy makers, insist that the ban is discriminatory and homophobic and are demanding the “right” to donate blood. The lifting of the ban on gay blood is seen as a necessary prerequisite to lifting the ban on open gays in the military. After all, how can gays be on the battlefield, where they could be called upon to provide a blood transfusion to a fellow soldier, if they cannot legally donate blood?

What this means, if politics is played with the blood supply, is that that the five million Americans a year who receive blood transfusions, in addition to soldiers on the battlefield, could be exposed to the AIDS virus or other infections in the diseased blood of sexually active homosexuals.

Tragically, despite the life and death nature of this issue, news organizations are spreading deliberate lies.

For example, The Desert Sun of Palm Springs, California, reports that “Gay advocates in the Coachella Valley say now is the time to change the ban they consider discriminatory.” It then quoted David Brinkman, executive director of Desert AIDS Project in Palm Springs, as saying, “There is no scientific or medical evidence that supports the need for the ban anymore. All blood is tested twice and there’s 100 percent accuracy to insure no HIV gets into the blood supply.”

I informed Nicole Brambila, the author of the story, that the claim she featured in her story was absolutely false. But she refuses to correct the record.

In fact, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with jurisdiction over the blood supply, says, “Blood donor testing using current advanced technologies has greatly reduced the risk of HIV transmission but cannot yet detect all infected donors or prevent all transmission by transfusions. While today’s highly sensitive tests fail to detect less than one in a million HIV infected donors, it is important to remember that in the US there are over 20 million transfusions of blood, red cell concentrates, plasma or platelets every year. Therefore, even a failure rate of 1 in a million can be significant if there is an increased risk of undetected HIV in the blood donor population.”

This is one reason why gay males, or men who have sex with men (MSM), are prohibited from donating blood.

The FDA also says, “Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.”

These critical facts are being carefully omitted from media coverage of the pending change. And because the major media are influenced or intimidated by such groups as the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and the gay-run Media Matters organization, reporters can find themselves targeted as “haters” and “homophobes” if they tell the truth about the gay lifestyle. As a result, many writers and commentators decide to avoid the topic.

The truth is so sensitive that when the Obama Administration tapped a Washington University professor by the name of Jonathan I. Katz to serve on a scientific panel to review the handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, he was immediately attacked because of his article, “In Defense of Homophobia,” on the dangers of homosexual behavior.

As a result of the outcry from the homosexual lobby, Katz was dropped from the panel, even though the article had nothing to do with the Gulf matter. This is how they operate—protest and intimidation. As we recently saw with George Will’s capitulation to the gay lobby, very few conservatives have the intestinal fortitude to go up against them.

Despite the controversial title, the Katz article is well-researched and touches on the gay blood problem, noting that the homosexual activists have been campaigning for a lifting of the ban for several years and that their position is that “In order to satisfy their demand for full acceptance by society, the homosexual movement demands to kill some transfusion recipients by infecting them with AIDS…”

Do you or your loved ones want to die in order to advance the gay rights agenda?

In advance of the Thursday and Friday meetings on blood safety, a federal notice has reiterated that male homosexuals “have an increased incidence and prevalence of several currently recognized transfusion-transmitted diseases”—Hepatitis B virus, HIV, syphilis, and cytomegalovirus.

It also says, “There is a theoretical concern that MSM populations may also be at increased risk for other unrecognized transfusion-transmitted agents.” That means another infectious agent could be lurking in the blood that they want to have the “right” to donate to the nation’s blood supply.

The move to lift the ban is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights lobby which contributes to the campaigns of liberal Congressional candidates. It reports “progress” in this effort, based on the fact that Senators John Kerry and Al Franken have done the organization’s bidding and pressured the federal government to hold the June 10 and 11 meetings to consider lifting the ban on gay blood. The FDA commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, is a political appointee of the Obama Administration.

The pressure campaign has already forced the American Red Cross and two other blood groups to previously argue for lifting the ban. But the FDA, after reviewing the policy in 2006, reiterated the prohibition, which has been in effect since 1983 and applies to MSM since 1977, the beginning of the AIDS epidemic.

Randy Shilts’ book, And the Band Played On, and the movie by the same name that was based on it, documents how gays at that time of the discovery of AIDS and the virus causing it, HIV, were even then arguing that a ban on gay blood was discriminatory. The blood industry was then resisting the testing of the blood, mainly because of the cost.

The result was an unconscionable delay in banning gay blood and the unnecessary deaths of many people.

The gays even objected to the original name for AIDS as GRID, standing for gay-related immune deficiency. Another name for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome,  the “gay cancer,” was also jettisoned because of its obvious association with the gay lifestyle.

Upset at the delay in responding to the dangers to the blood supply, one official of the Centers for Disease Control, reported Shilts, attended a meeting on blood safety and pounded his table with his fist, shouting, “How many people have to die? How many deaths do you need?”

A representative of hemophiliacs, dependent on blood transfusions for their day-to-day survival, objected to all of the talk at the time about the rights of gays not to be discriminated against, asking, “What about our right to live?”

Once again, as we have seen in the gays in the military debate, the gays are constantly screaming about their rights, oblivious to the point of madness about the rights of others. In this case, it’s our right to be free of infected blood when our loved ones get a blood transfusion.

But unless the public quickly offers its comments and raises an outcry with the federal authorities coming under the influence and intimidation of the gay rights lobby, the “right” to donate blood could soon be extended to a politically-connected special interest group that has a demonstrated propensity to acquire life-threatening and deadly diseases.

* CONTACT: Jerry A. Holmberg, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability, Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 250, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8803, FAX (240) 453-8456, e-mail ACBSA@hhs.gov; Contact the Red Cross HERE and the the FDA HERE. Call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or go to www.congress.org.

Additional Red Cross information:

American Red Cross National Headquarters
2025 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

Phone: (202) 303-5000

General Red Cross Contact Page: http://www.redcross.org/contactus

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

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

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

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

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

6-12-10, Matt Barber, All

"Autumn" Sandeen, here pictured in a skirt, is a man who left his wife and family to pursue his twisted "transgender" dream of living as a "woman." The federal ENDA bill would create employment rights based on such gender confusion in all 50 states. ENDA's expansive definition of "gender identity" nondiscrimination, would likely force companies to build "transgender" restrooms to protect women from having to share a restroom with men pretending to be women.

“GENDER IDENTITY- The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” – definition of “Gender Identity” in the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

Haven’t we learned as a nation about the danger of Washington’s “one size fits all” legislation to “fix” nonexistent “crises”? The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) [H.R. 3017, S.B. 1584] – which would federalize homosexuality-, bisexuality-, and transsexuality-based special protections in the workplace — is one such bill. AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera appeared as a guest today on the WVCY program “Crosstalk” to discuss ENDA, which could soon come to the House floor for a vote. (Lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) said action on the bill could come soon after the Easter recess.)

From the Crosstalk website:

ENDA and Religious Freedom

Date:    April 08, 2010
Host:    Jim Schneider
Guest:    Peter LaBarbera, [AFTAH]

Listen:    RealAudio | Windows Media | MP3 | Order Tape or CD

Peter LaBarbera is the President of Americans for Truth, a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda.

The effort to force certain aspects of “change” on Americans continues. This time the “change” is being attempted through legislation known as ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR-3017 & SB-1584).

ENDA would force businesses in all 50 states with 15 or more employees (part- or full-time) to avoid discrimination of potential job candidates or current employees due to their gender identity.

This sounds good until you hear Jim as he reads the way ENDA defines gender identity: “The term gender identity means the gender related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” In other words, ENDA would provide special employment recognition for individuals engaged in homosexual, bisexual or transsexual lifestyles.

If you are a Christian business owner, you are encouraged to get informed and review this timely edition of Crosstalk.

More Information: http://americansfortruth.com/

Capitol Hill Switchboard
877-851-6437
202-225-3121

To order today’s program on CD or Cassette for a donation of $6.00

Online: Use this link

By mail:

Crosstalk
3434 W. Kilbourn Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53208

By phone: 1-800-729-9829 M-F 8am-5pm Central

From WVCY about Crosstalk:

Crosstalk Radio Talk Show is heard each weekday on over 80 radio outlets across America and worldwide on the Internet. Crosstalk covers the issues that affect our world, our nation, our families and the Christian church from a perspective centered in the Word of God. Whether we discuss the economy, the political scene, the continuing moral collapse of our nation, legislation that affects the family, or the state of evangelicalism, our authority is found in the unchanging standard of the Holy Scriptures. Veteran co-hosts Dr. Vic Eliason, Jim Schneider, and Ingrid Schlueter have worked as a team for over 20 years to bring solid information to the body of Christ. For more information on the program, contact us at 800-729-9829.

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL): only pro-life Democrat who didn't cave in.

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

We should have seen Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak’s sellout on abortion and ObamaCare coming. Here is a video of Rep. Stupak, a Democrat, at a townhall meeting with constituents in Cheboygan, Mich., on Oct. 29, 2009. Other “Profiles in Cowardice” abound, as pro-life advocate Jill Stanek reports:

The only pro-life Democrat to change his vote from a yes to a no due to the failure to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment was Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), pictured [right]. (Lipinski is the congressman for the district in which Christ Hospital, my former employer, is located. His father, Congressman Bill Lipinski, was a co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)

Remember: the same dynamic (bogus “rights”) that will expand taxpayer funding/subsidies of abortion will also be at work expanding taxpayer funding of gruesome transsexual “sex-change” operations — unless we as Americans act to stop it. To read more of Stanek’s ObamaCare analysis, go HERE.

[To listen to the ONN story online, click on "HEAR REPORT" button at upper right corner of the ONN story; to subscribe to ONN's "Daily News Brief," click HERE; to subscribe to ONN's Web Alerts, click HERE. ]

______________________________________________

LaBarbera: UNAIDS has ‘backwards’ thinking
By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 3/17/2010

A United Nations Aids agency complains that homosexuals, drug users and prostitute don’t seek help because of laws that criminalize their practices.

Michel Sidibe of UNAIDS is quoted as saying it is unacceptable that 85 countries still make homosexual conduct illegal, but Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), does not accept that thinking.

“They’ve got everything backwards,” he contends. “Rather than have a campaign – for example an anti-sodomy campaign, an anti-prostitution campaign, an anti-drug abuse campaign that targets the bad behaviors themselves – instead they target countries that are trying to implement conservative policies that target homosexuality.”

In compatibility with his logic, Sidibe suggests that laws against the immoral behavior be changed.

“Mr. Sidibe is just completely confused,” LaBarbera notes. “He says that in states where there are not repressive laws, HIV is contained. Then he goes on to express shock that more than 50 percent of infections in the United States are among homosexuals. So he contradicts himself.”

Homosexual behavior is not illegal in this country, but the AFTAH president believes the answer to the issue is to launch an all-out campaign to educate people and change the behavior that results in infection. That is what reduced smoking in this country.

_____________________________________

Excerpts from the Associated Press story:

“New HIV infections increasing among homosexuals”

By EDITH M. LEDERER (AP) – March 16, 2010

NEW YORK — New HIV infections are increasing among homosexuals, drug users and prostitutes who don’t seek help because of laws that criminalize these practices, the head of the U.N. AIDS agency said Monday.

Michel Sidibe, the head of UNAIDS, said “it is unacceptable” that 85 countries still have laws criminalizing same sex relations among adults, including seven that impose the death penalty for homosexual practices.

He called a proposed Ugandan law that would impose the death penalty for some gays “very unfortunate” and expressed hope it will never be approved.

At a time when UNAIDS is scaling up its program and seeking universal access to HIV treatment, Sidibe said he was “very scared” because bad laws are being introduced by countries making it impossible for these at risk groups to have access to services.

“You have also a growing conservatism which is making me very scared,” Sidibe added….

Sidibe told a group of journalists at a luncheon hosted by the United Nations Foundation that in countries from China to Kenya and Malawi, about 33 percent of new HIV infections are in men having sex with men, a significant increase.

By contrast, he said that in the Caribbean where most countries don’t have repressive laws, only between 3 and 6 percent of HIV infections are in male homosexuals.

Even in the United States, where laws are not restrictive and the gay community was the first to tackle AIDS, Sidibe said it is “shocking” that more than 50 percent of new HIV infections last year occurred among homosexuals. And he said in the 19-25 age bracket the infection rate was even higher.

“It seems like we have come full circle” in the United States, he said. “After almost no cases a few years ago we are seeing again this new peak among people who are not having access to all the information, the protection that is needed.” …

In Nigeria, where there are 1,000 new HIV infections every day, over 30 percent are in vulnerable groups — drug users, sex workers and homosexuals, he said.

Sidibe called for “a prevention revolution” including a campaign in major cities around the world like the anti-smoking campaigns launched in recent years.

“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC

"Where the boys are": homosexual bathhouses lure young men into anonymous sodomies. The CDC and Obama Administration should shut down these perversion centers or at least hit them with a large "sin tax." Above is taken from the Steamworks bathhouse chain's website.

Dear Readers, once again the reality that Nature itself discriminates against homosexuality breaks through the bureaucracy’s official political correctness on this issue. Note how the CDC admits that anal sex is  a much higher risk activity than other sexual practices. Yet to teach the special risks of sodomy in schools would be to invite a “discrimination” lawsuit by the ACLU! Homosexual oral sex also is mentioned as a risk factor for syphilis. So why don’t the nation’s “Best and Brightest” on this issue launch an educational, pro-health campaign against “gay” sex, especially sodomy?

A less bold option might be to levy a heavy “sin tax” on homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs where dangerous, anonymous, “queer” sex proliferates, or — God forbid — actually to shut down these perversion centers as public health hazards. (Instead, “gay” bathhouses like “Steamworks” (right) are flourishing and even offering “Spring Break discounts” to lure young men.)

We understand that such ideas are anathema to the “gay”-pandering fraternity of the enlightened who run the country’s incompetent “war on AIDS” — you know, the types who truly believe their own propaganda that “homophobia” helps spread HIV. But the folly of their failed approach is revealed by press releases like that below. Common sense dictates that our government get out of the “gay” advocacy business and start aggressively targeting homosexual practices linked directly to disease — rather than trying to make those inherently unsafe practices “safe.”

If you have any other ideas on how to target destructive homosexual behaviors rather than “homophobia,” write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

NCHHSTP – National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

Press Release [emphasis added]

All Findings Embargoed Until: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:30pm EST
Contact: NCHHSTPMediaTeam@cdc.gov [the NCHHSTP is the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention within the CDC]; (404) 639-8895

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men

A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

While CDC data have shown for several years that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV and new syphilis infections, CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM. Because disease rates account for differences in the size of populations being compared, rates provide a reliable method for assessing health disparities between populations.

“While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. “It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts.”

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.

The new analysis is the first step in more fully assessing the impact of HIV among MSM and other populations significantly affected by the disease. CDC is developing more detailed estimates of infection rates among MSM by race and age, as well as among injection drug users. CDC is also in the early stages of planning for estimates among heterosexuals. Ultimately, these data can be used to better inform national and local approaches to HIV and STD prevention to ensure that efforts are reaching the populations in greatest need.

Research shows that a range of complex factors contribute to the high rates of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men. These factors include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services.

Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.

“There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men,” said Fenton. “We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men.”

Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority. CDC provides funding to health departments and community-based organizations throughout the nation to implement proven behavior-change programs for MSM and will soon expand a successful HIV testing initiative to reach more gay and bisexual men. Additionally, CDC is implementing an updated National Syphilis Elimination Plan in cities where MSM have been hardest hit by the disease, and will release an updated HIV prevention strategic plan within the next year to support the President’s upcoming National HIV/AIDS Strategy. CDC officials note that the new analysis released today underscores the importance of the HIV and STD prevention efforts targeting gay and bisexual men recently announced as part of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal.

For more information on HIV or syphilis, please visit www.cdc.gov/hiv or www.cdc.gov/std.

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

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

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

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

______________________________

Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed

By J. Matt Barber

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer to both is no.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

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

Dear Admiral Mullen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With due respect,

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

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

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

Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton -- who is on record affirming homosexuality as "natural, normal and healthy" despite the College's biblical faith charter -- has joined homosexual activists in crusading against Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality law. Perhaps Throckmorton, who has lost his faith in the ability of Jesus Christ to help "homosexuals" leave the lifestyle, could learn something from the more biblically faithful Ugandans.

TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural “orientation”).

___________________________

Folks, I’ve been trying to avoid the Ugandan “Culture War” on homosexuality because I figure we’re busy enough with our own here in the USA. But that hasn’t stopped American homosexual activists and fellow travelers like Professor Warren Throckmorton of the “evangelical” Grove City College from insinuating themselves into the Ugandan situation. (Sadly, Warren has lost his faith in the ability of God to radically change homosexuals through Christ, and now busily works — even in Uganda! — to promote the faithless and disheartening message that most “gays and lesbians” cannot change their basic “orientation”; see his Uganda Independent column in which he makes that assertion HERE.)

Here’s the question I keep asking myself about the Uganda controversy: just what is it that qualifies the United States of America to lecture the Ugandans about homosexuality? Is it our public policy that enshrines immoral sexual behavior (oops: “sexual orientation”) and gender confusion (er…”gender identity and expression”) as a “civil right”? Is it our homosexual “marriage” laws that make a mockery of this divine institution (laws about which Prof. Throckmorton is curiously silent)? How about our pro-homosexuality educational propaganda in K-12 schools that corrupts young students’ minds in the name of “tolerance”? Or the 24/7 “gay bathhouses” and sex clubs that proliferate in urban centers across the United States to facilitate quick-and-easy (and anonymous) deviant sexual hook-ups? (“Come to America: where you can have all the safe sodomy you want! Discounts for students (no joke) and free condoms available for your perverted pleasure!”)

Tell me: does Uganda have something to learn from Christian “defectors” like the opportunistic Prof. Throckmorton — who is now a de facto promoter of homosexuality as normal, natural and healthy while ostensibly still claiming some sort of “Christian” mission at GCC? (Grove City College boasts in evangelical circles that it is “authentically Christian” — an advertising claim of diminishing accuracy the longer it abides likes of Throckmorton.)

[TAKE ACTION: contact Grove City College HERE and GCC President Richard G. Jewell (rgjewell@gcc.edu; 724-458-2500) and request a written explanation as to why they employ an activist professor who undermines the Bible's clear teachings on homosexuality as a changeable sin (and not a natural "orientation").]

Challenge to Accommodationists: I stand corrected if Prof. Throckmorton or any Grove City prof — indeed, any homosexual activist or pro-”gay” apologist — can show me anything resembling “sexual orientation” in the Bible as this concept is currently understood and posited in academia, the media and society.

Nope. What we’re seeing here is sheer Western activist arrogance. (Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media calls it “Homosexual Imperialism.”) I haven’t yet studied the proposed Ugandan legislation but I agree with Bob Knight’s analysis below — and AFTAH is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals. But I do know this: Uganda would do well to avoid the example set by America of a cultural-elite-driven society that celebrates homosexuality (along with other sexual immoralities) — and then reaps the whirlwind that results, including the following:

• devastating (public) health crises that are prolonged by the politically correct protection of the very sexual misbehaviors that helped spread the disease in the first place;
• the proliferation of “gay” activist groups that war against Judeo-Christian values and cruelly smear people of faith who dare to defend those values;
• pro-homosexuality, politically correct indoctrination — even on the job — masquerading as “diversity” — i.e., the gradual replacement of Christian proselytization with the institutional advocacy of sin, disguised as tolerance;
• public immorality and annual “gay pride” parades that subject children to immoral displays including public nudity;
• the undermining of historic Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage; “queer” theological attacks on the Bible and sacred texts due to their unambiguous teachings against homosexual acts;
• the rise of “gay”-sympathetic, anti-religious bigotry and even laws that criminalize the outworking of a biblically-informed conscience against homosexuality; legal and cultural harassment of moral-minded organizations like the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army that refuse to treat homosexuality as a civil right;
• the corruption and victimization of children — including ever younger “coming out” ages for children declaring their supposed “gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” (“queer”) identity.
• turning the public schools into indoctrination zones for the “GLBT” ideology — all in the name of tolerance and “protecting kids”; the spread of “gay” school clubs, first to high schools, then to middle schools, and ultimately to grade schools.

As you can see, most of America’s “lessons” on homosexuality for Uganda are negative ones. Could it be that the more faith-filled and Bible-trusting African Christians have something to teach jaded Americans like Barack Obama and Warren Throckmorton about homosexuality?  – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org ; send us your thoughts at americansfortruth@comcast.net

__________________________________

The following is a column by Bob Knight in World Net Daily:

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

Exclusive: Robert Knight hits N.Y. Times for ‘knee-jerk spasms’ targeting Christians

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

You cannot find a better example of selective outrage and character assassination than the Jan. 5 New York Times editorial, “Hate begets hate.”

This humdinger of a self-descriptive screed has it all: wild, unsubstantiated charges; villains; hysterical calls for action; and a smug, holier-than-thou tone that would put “Saturday Night Live”’s Church Lady to shame.

At issue is Uganda’s proposed law criminalizing homosexuality. But the editorial’s real focus is crucifying Christians who had given talks in Uganda and any part of Christendom that has not bowed its knee to the gay gods.

The Times notes that “three evangelical Christians, whose teachings about ‘curing’ gays and lesbians have been widely discredited in the United States, helped feed this hatred.” The editorial names Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge and Don Schmierer, who “gave a series of talks” last March that “claimed that gays and lesbians are a threat to Bible-based family values.”

I don’t know Mr. Brundidge, but I do know Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer. Both are honest and courageous men who, out of Christian compassion, dare to tell the truth about homosexuality. For this, the Times brands them as hatemongers.

While Mr. Lively has written perceptively and passionately about countering the homosexual activists’ political and cultural agenda, there is no evidence of “hate.” Trying to steer someone away from destructive, immoral, changeable behavior is an act of love, not hate. And it is beyond absurd to label as a bigot a man like Don Schmierer, who supports AIDS ministries and reaches out to sexually conflicted people with the life-changing gospel of Jesus Christ. Casting the gentle, soft spoken Mr. Schmierer as a “hater” is like calling Mother Teresa a foul-mouthed harpy.

These men discuss sexual behavior and its consequences for individuals, families and societies, and the blessings of God-given hope. As is typical for a fully owned subsidiary of the homosexual activist movement, the Times falsely claims that the Christian leaders oppose the people themselves. The Times has bought into and promoted the media-fed fiction that people are born gay, cannot change and therefore their volitional sexual behavior is synonymous with identity. In gay parlance, it’s “who they are,” not what they do.

This is nonsense. If we are defined by our sexual behavior, then men addicted to pornography are nothing more than “pornophiles.” It is homosexual activists who have insisted on making sexual desire the be-all and end-all of personal identity. They did this to hijack the moral capital of the black civil-rights movement, equating “sexual orientation” with immutable characteristics like skin color or ethnicity. One big problem remains for them, though. Skin color and ethnicity are morally neutral. Sexual behavior is fraught with moral, social and physical consequences and has been regulated by every society since time began.

The Times ignores the Christian men’s pointed criticisms of the proposed Uganda law and says, “We don’t have much hope that they will atone for their acts.”

Well, we don’t have a whole lot of hope that the Times will atone for its many portrayals of Christians as hate-filled bigots whenever the “gay” issue surfaces. They are following the playbook of “After the Ball,” a gay strategy manual from 1989 that instructs activists to “jam” opponents into silence through threats of guilt by association, outright smears and phony “scientific” claims that go unexamined. The strategy has worked brilliantly, as even conservative voices have been frightened into silence or into steadily ceding moral ground, circling the wagons only around the word “marriage.”

The Times is not alone, of course, in its relentless pursuit of homosexual orthodoxy. On Jan. 7, the Washington Post ran an editorial about Uganda entitled, “A barbaric proposal.” The Post editors, at least, did not engage in Christian bashing, and stuck to very real problems with the proposed law. They did repeat a gay mantra, however: “Being gay is not a choice.”

Science has by no means settled the issue. None of the highly publicized studies by gay researchers in the 1990s has been replicated, and several have been discredited. Then, too, there is the inconvenient existence of many people who engage in homosexuality for years and later embrace the straight life. The “ex-gay” movement is large and growing, but the media are keeping it one of the best-kept secrets out of deference to militant gay activists in the newsrooms.

Uganda has been in the cultural elites’ hot water before by bucking the U.S.-backed condom crusade in Africa and slashing its AIDS rate with campaigns for abstinence and fidelity. The current homosexuality bill is seriously flawed. It contains such overreaches as jail terms for people who do not report homosexual activity and life imprisonment for people who engage in the behavior. But the Times and the Post go beyond criticizing the harsher aspects of the law and attack the underlying concern of Ugandans to defend marriage and family, avoid the corruption of their children and put the brakes on AIDS and other diseases.

The Times and the Post warn that Uganda will become a “pariah” nation “shunned globally” if the law is passed. That may be so. But it might behoove the press to take a closer look at some other countries in Africa whose governments, in the grip of Muslim extremism, routinely cut off people’s heads merely for changing religions. Some nations, such as Egypt, have governments that look the other way as young Christian girls are abducted, raped and forced into Muslim marriages. Do these nations qualify as “pariahs”?

The Times’ editors need to come to terms with their knee-jerk spasms against evangelical Christians and others who defend family values. They routinely depict pro-marriage Americans as motivated solely by hatred and prejudice, never by genuine, heartfelt concerns.

In their editorial’s own words: “You can’t preach hate and not accept responsibility for the way that hate is manifested.”

If this is so, the next equipment the Times should order for its newsroom is … a mirror.

____________________________

Robert Knight is senior writer and correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of “Fighting for America’s Soul” (Coral Ridge 2009) and the upcoming book “Radical Rulers.”

Matt Barber's brutally honest description of homosexual sodomy was too much for Exodus International.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, a few days ago we ran a story about CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) allowing a homosexual activist group to be a co-sponsor, in which I quoted my friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber offered a colorful description of homosexual sodomy and same-sex “love.” It was appropriately dismissive toward this “detestable” act (Leviticus 18:22) once known as a “crime against nature,” and you can read it HERE.  The point was: no true “conservative” can support or celebrate homosexual perversion.

Well, thanks to the politically correct overreaction of Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers of Exodus International (an ex-”gay” umbrella group), Liberty Counsel (Barber’s current employer) issued an apologetic statement that was not fully accurate in that it left out a key fact: Matt’s ownership of the bold sodomy description. This could create the  impression that Barber might not have made the comment, which he did.

Today Matt issued his own clarification (emphasis added):

“This is for clarification only. As affirmed in Liberty Counsel’s statement, neither I nor anyone with Liberty Counsel ever publicly ‘wrote or made’ the comment in question – an unapologetically direct and accurate depiction of the sin of sodomy (a sin that God directly and accurately calls both an ‘abomination’ and ‘detestable’). Some years before I began working with Liberty Counsel, I made the comment in private conversation with Peter LaBarbera. At the time, Peter asked if he could ‘quote me on it’ and I said yes.

“On a personal note, let me take this opportunity to share with those caught-up in this particular sin lifestyle that I am no less a sinner and no better a person than they. None of us are. The good news is that, through Christ’s earth shattering sacrifice on the cross, we are redeemed. We need merely believe, call upon His name, repent and make every effort to ‘go and sin no more.’

“Unfortunately, however, we live in a society where this particular sin is embraced, promoted  and even celebrated. People erroneously equate this unnatural and sinful behavior with ‘identity’ and ‘orientation’ even taking ‘pride’ in an objectively deviant lifestyle. My hope and prayer is that this silly faux ‘controversy’ might actually make people reflect –– if only for a moment –– upon the emotionally, spiritually and physically destructive nature of homosexual conduct. ‘Gayness’ is about what people do, not who people are. It’s about feelings and behaviors alone. But those feelings and behaviors don’t make those caught-up in them any less precious to God, to me or to anyone I know.

“Scripture tells us that the ‘wages of sin is death.’ It breaks my heart that so many ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ continue in a lifestyle that ultimately results in spiritual and, yes, even physical death. I’m very grateful for ministries such as PFOX, Exodus and others that reach out to those who seek to escape the homosexuality snare. In the meantime, I will push forward, undeterred, on the front lines of the ongoing culture war, fighting the militant homosexual activist organizations that enable and encourage those trapped in homosexuality to continue down that changeable path of destruction. Shame on them and shame on those who support them.” – Matt Barber

Exodus published two blog posts by Randy Thomas (first THIS ARTICLE and then THIS FOLLOW-UP pegging off the LC statement) highly critical of Barber’s remark and this writer for using it. Predictably, these Exodus articles have been exploited by homosexual activists such as Wayne Besen — who typically exaggerate the story in their zeal to embarrass Americans For Truth and by extension the pro-family movement. (Besen is also a malicious liar whose life ambition is to discredit ex-”gays”; he revels in ad hominem attacks on Barber, me (he came up with and continues to use the nasty smear “Porno Pete”) and others in the pro-family movement. Needless to say, he despises and maligns Exodus on a regular basis. By the way, the hateful Besen is also a strong contender for AFTAH’s “Gay Grinch of the Year” 2009 award due to — among other mean-spirited acts — his bullhorn harassment of Boston’s Park Street Church, which was holding an ex-”gay” conference.)

Below is a reprint of my original response to Liberty Counsel’’s statement — which I published as a comment on Randy Thomas’ Exodus blog.  AFTAH will continue to work with Exodus even though occasionally we have philosophical and semantic disagreements with them about the proper approach toward homosexuality and the “Gay” Activist Lobby. The reality of our movement — like all coalitions — is that different groups take different approaches, hopefully all with the same end goal in mind. Exodus has a problem with re-stigmatizing homosexual behavior; we believe doing is essential to turning back the GLBT Lobby’s gains.

We also appreciate the work of Liberty Counsel and look forward to partnering with them as always in the fight against the aggressive and anti-Christian homosexualist movement.

This episode made a mountain out of a molehill and we regret that Exodus chose to draw more attention to it and to condemn us in such a self-righteous manner. If you would like to read my four responses to Randy’s posts (and to a comment by another writer critical of AFTAH) on the Exodus blog, go HERE to see all four posts. I look forward to reading Randy’s responses to my questions if he can find the time to answer. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera’s first comment on Randy Thomas’ Exodus blog post, “Liberty Counsel Responds to Crass Quote Attributed to Matt Barber”:

December 18, 2009 at 2:00 pm

This is Peter LaBarbera. The quotation in question by Matt Barber — a brutally honest and necessarily accurate description of homosexual sodomy — is printed verbatim and was made in conversation between the two of us years ago — long before he went to work for Liberty Counsel. I asked Matt at the time if I could quote him on it and he gave me permission to use it, and ultimately I did — in the context of showing how CPAC or any organization that defends sodomy (as GOProud and countless other GLBT organizations implicitly and explicitly do) cannot call itself “conservative.”

I presume and hope that what Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel meant to say was that Matt Barber’s quoted words were not uttered or published under the auspices of Liberty Counsel — as they were made several years ago in private conversation long before Matt came to work there.

Frankly, I am appalled at Randy’s “spiritualized” condemnation of Matt Barber’s phrase. Sorry, Randy, I disagree with your self-righteous take on Christ-like compassion. Philosophically, I believe that you are conflating behavior with a supposed “identity” — “sexual orientation”/”gayness” — found nowhere in the Bible. Sin is what we do in our fallen nature, not who we are. Is Tiger Woods’ serial infidelity part of his “core” identity? I think not.

Would Randy be upset at a similar, direct condemnation/description of other sinful sexual behaviors condemned in the Bible, like pornography, adultery or incest? We’re talking about behavior here (sodomy) that God calls an “abomination.” Using the same logic, is Randy going to get on God’s case next for His very unambiguous (you might say harsh) classification of homosexual sodomy as detestable? Is Almighty God demonstrating “insensitivity” toward “gay” men with such language?

Let me ask you, Randy: how would you accurately and honestly describe the act of sodomy, and are you opposed to forcefully condemning it?

There is so much to disagree with regarding Randy’s posts that I will leave that for a formal reply on my site (Americans For Truth: http://www.americansfortruth.org). But I do want to clarify that Matt Barber’s candid description of homosexual sodomy — typical of his bold, entertaining and decidedly non-PC style –  is completely accurate; that he stands by it; and that he did indeed give me permission to use it years ago — which has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberty Counsel today.

Next time please shoot me an e-mail and we’ll clear this up easier.

_____________________________________

Randy Thomas responds to Peter LaBarbera’s comment:
December 18, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Peter, I have tried to dialog with you in person and via email in the past and it hasn’t cleared up anything before. You nod, say nice things and then go do something else that stigmatizes people who struggle with or embrace homosexuality. This time you wrote a hateful public quote attributed to someone else and contextualized it as a current reaction to the GOProud situation. We went through the direct and appropriate avenue to follow up with the person you alleged made this quote and got the above response.

Do what you got to do Peter.

____________________________

Peter LaBarbera responds to Randy Thomas’ “snippy” answer:
December 18, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Nice snippy non-response, Randy.  Talk about presumption. Perhaps you are correct: dialogue between us is not very productive as you seem to have one foot still in the “gay” camp (at least sympathy-wise) and another in the Christian pro-family camp. I sometimes wonder if you are more troubled by conservative pro-family groups like AFTAH than you are by homosexual activists. According to your loaded and misguided definition of “hate,”  I suppose you could make the case that the God of the Bible is a “hater” because He calls sodomy “detestable.” Matt and I and others are re-stigmatizing homosexual behavior, Randy — not people. Please, I beg you, show me anything close to “sexual orientation” in the Bible!  If you cannot, then stop defining people by destructive behaviors and treating homosexuality like some sort of special sin that deserves more deference than all the others. In fact, if criticizing bad sexual behavior is truly “hating” people, then much of the country is hating Tiger Woods right about now. (Do you “hate” Tiger? I don’t, and yet it makes me sick what he has done.) The practice of anal sodomy — or the infamous “crime against nature,” as that “hater” Noah Webster defined it — has caused untold physical destruction in this country, and across the world: I make no apology for agreeing with Matt’s dismissive and bold condemnatory description of it.

Star Parker, founder and president of CURE, says legalizing homosexual "marriage" is like offering a glass of wine to a drunk.

Folks, I wish more conservative leaders: a) understood the truth about government-celebrated homosexuality as Star Parker does; b) had the guts to take a strong public stand on the issue like the column below. We encourage you to check out Star’s organization, CURE (Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education) at www.urbancure.org. — Peter LaBarbera

Parker writes (emphasis and web links added):

____________________________________

Sodom in the nation’s capital

There is a centrality of the traditional family to the American dream of opportunity and a centrality of family breakdown to poverty

At a time when our country is sick, it shouldn’t surprise that one our sickest places is our nation’s capital.

The poverty rate of Washington, D.C., almost 20 percent, is one of the highest in the nation. Its child poverty rate is the nation’s highest..

D.C.’s public school system, with a graduation rate of less than 50 percent, is one of the worst in the country.

According to D.C.’s HIV/AIDS office, three percent of the local population has HIV or AIDS. The Administrator of this office notes that this HIV/AIDS incidence is “…higher than West Africa…on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya.” And the principal way that HIV is transmitted continues to be through male homosexual activity.

Amidst this dismal picture, the D.C .City Council, perhaps on the theory that serving up another glass of wine is the way to help a drunk, is scheduled to vote on December 1 to legalize same-sex “marriage” in America’s capital city.

Looking at realities in Washington, D.C. should make clear why George Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”

But the America that our first president had in mind was very different from the vision of our DC government officials.

George Washington’s America was one in which the point of freedom is to allow Man to rise to what he can become. To do this, the greatest challenge he faces is conquering himself. To rise above his baser instincts, to rise above the many temptations that lead him astray. And to achieve this end, as Washington said, “religion and morality are indispensible supports.”

In left-wing America, of which the D.C. government is a poster child, freedom means to indulge every instinct that the tradition and religion of George Washington would have us overcome.

Where does it lead? Well, look at D.C.

It is tempting to look at D.C.’s realities and just call this a black thing. And by and large it is.

DC is largely black — almost 60 percent. Its poverty is black poverty. Its public school system serves mostly black children. And its AIDS crisis is mostly among blacks.

But the pathologies that strike the weakest parts of our population most brutally are nonetheless pathologies of the nation.

The Brookings Institution is one of our oldest policy institutes and certainly no bastion of conservatism. But in a recently published volume, Brookings scholars Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill point out the centrality of the traditional family to the American dream of opportunity and the centrality of family breakdown to poverty.

Reporting data showing the general breakdown of the traditional American family, they say, “Some claim that anyone who is concerned about these trends is simply out of touch with modern culture; we respond that, if that be the case, then, “modern culture is out of touch with the needs of children.”

The Catholic Archdiocese of D.C. announced that legalization of same sex marriage would make it impossible to continue its relationship with the D.C. government and require termination of the social services it provides to some 68,000 of the city’s poor — including about one third of its homeless. The reaction of D.C. Council member David Catania was essentially “so what.” According to him, “their services are not indispensable.” [Editor's note: Catania is one of two open homosexual activists on the Council.]

Is Catania out of touch with the needs of D.C.’s poor?

No. He just has different priorities. More important to him, and more important to D.C.’s left-wing city council, is advancing moral relativism and the indulgences it feeds.

This is more important to them than feeding the poor or recognizing the values that would get them out of poverty.

It should concern every American as we watch our nation’s capital city transform officially into Sodom.

Star Parker is founder and president of the Coalition for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.  Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service.

The following is reprinted from American Family Association’s news service, OneNewsNow [you can listen to Charlie Butts' audio report by going to the ONN site and clicking the "Hear Report" button at the upper right; also, ONN offers a very useful daily NewsBrief email and topical Web Alert service]:

Newspapers reach end of story

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 11/18/2009

Several homosexual newspapers have closed their doors.

Employees of the Southern Voice in Atlanta and the Washington Blade, among other homosexual newspapers, arrived for work to find the doors locked and a note on the door explaining their jobs no longer existed on account of bankruptcy. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality says he is not surprised by the closings.

“The homosexual media arose from serving the special interests of essentially a perversion movement, a sin movement called the GLBT movement, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, but it arose because they saw a need for it,” he explains. “Now with the secular media, [including] Associated Press, ABC [and] NBC, all doing the gay media’s job of essentially advocating for the homosexual agenda, there is no need for a special gay media.”

The four newspapers in the chain will permit employees to return to their respective offices Wednesday only for the purpose of permanently removing all personal belongings.

P.S.  Why would parents entrust their children to adults who proudly call themselves and their sexual agenda “queer”?  And are we surprised that such a movement actually has spawned groups built around such vile perversions as “fisting”?

[WARNING: Very Graphic Sexual Language; sex acts and perversions described just as they were in group conversations between adults and underage youth at the GLSEN-sponsored conference in Boston in 2000]

“What’s Fisting?”: That’s the question that a teenager asked an adult at a Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN)-sponsored conference at Tufts University in Boston in 2000. (GLSEN was founded by Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s pick to head up the “Safe Schools” wing at the Department of Education.) What followed from this perverse question was a detailed explanation of this disgusting perversion, including “how-to” advise on how to “fist” (hand/arm-anal and -vaginal penetration) “correctly.” At left is the logo of the Chicago group MAFIA, Mid-America Fists in Action, Inc., a homosexual club that holds “fisting parties” for men into this vile and dangerous perversion. (MAFIA holds “fisting” parties every year at Chicago’s International Mr. Leather.)

TAKE ACTION: Kevin Jennings wants to use schools to “promote homosexuality.” His group has repeatedly exposed children to harmful and promiscuous “gay” sexual behaviors and exhibited a recklessness toward youth that should disqualify him and GLSEN from working in any school anywhere. Call your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121) and urge them to call for the withdrawal of Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Also call or write President Obama (202-456-1414) and Education Secretary Arne Duncan (arne.duncan@ed.gov; 202-401-3000) and urge them not to reward Jennings and GLSEN with this influential appointment.

_________________________________

The following affidavit is reprinted from the Lambda Report newsletter (April 2000), published by Peter LaBarbera, which preceded Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. On April 18, 2000, Scott Whiteman submitted an affidavit, excerpted below, describing the March 25 conference of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in Boston to the Hon. Martha Coakley, District Attorney for Middlesex County, Mass.

LaBarbera and Massachusetts pro-family advocate Brian Camenker had advised Whiteman to secretly tape the “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class” youth panel – presuming that: 1) highly inappropriate discussions would occur; 2) homosexuality advocates likely would deny that the controversial talks actually took place; and 3) the subject matter would be so shocking and outrageous that nobody would believe Whiteman unless he provided proof of the actual GLSEN workshop. Those predictions proved to be right on the money as Whiteman’s “undercover” audiotape –– the basis of what came to be known in conservative circles as “Fistgate” –– provided the most damning evidence to date of homosexual activists’ breathtaking irresponsibility toward children in their care.

Homosexual activists ended up suing Whiteman and Camenker for making the secret recording — incredibly citing the “privacy” rights of the students in the “Queer Sex & Sexuality” workshop. For an even more detailed report on the GLSEN “Fistgate” seminars, see MassResistance’s website.

Following is Whiteman’s affidavit (emphasis added in bold):
_____________________________________

It is my belief that three public servants should be investigated for their involvement in the corruption of minors at a recent student/teacher conference in Medford. Additionally, as the conference was supported by several publicly funded and private groups and the Department of Education, I believe that they may have some liability for the corruption of children.

On the weekend of March 25, 2000, I attended the tenth annual “GLSEN/BOSTON & Project 10 East Teach Out!” conference at Tufts University. GLSEN is a national Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, led by Kevin Jennings a former Massachusetts teacher. GLSEN works with teachers and students throughout the nation and claims to fight what they deem “homophobia.” GLSEN/BOSTON is headed by Wallace Bachman and receives some funding from the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and the Massachusetts Department of Education through the Safe Schools Program.

I attended two workshops while at the conference that should be brought to your attention. In the first workshop, entitled “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only ages 14-21,” the three homosexual presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The three presenters were:

• Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed lesbian
• Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed lesbian
• Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed “gay” man

The workshop syllabus was a follows:

This workshop for youth addresses what is different for glbt (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual) youth when it comes to sex, dating, relationships, HIV etc. Come and discuss the questions you couldn’t or didn’t ask in health class. What’s it like to be young, queer and beginning to date? Are lesbians at rick for HIV? What does it to identify as queer and still be sexually active with the opposite sex? Who can you talk to about these things? And, why aren’t queer issues addressed in Sex Ed classes? We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met.

The workshop opened by the three public employees asking the children how they know, as gay people, whether or not they’ve had sex. Questions were thrown around the room about whether oral sex was “sex,” to which the Department of Public Health employee stated, “If that’s not sex, then the number of times I’ve had sex has dramatically decreased; from a mountain to a valley, baby.” Eventually the answer presented itself, and it was determined that whenever an orifice was filled with genitalia, then sex had occurred. In coming to that conclusion, one student, egged on by the Department of Public Health employee, said in response to the question, “What orifices are we talking about?”:

Michael Gaucher: “Don’t be shy, honey; you can do it.”
Student: “Youth mouth.”
Gaucher: “Okay.”
Student: “Your ass.”
Gaucher: “There you go.”
Student: “Your pussy. That kind of place.”

By my estimation, that child was just about 16 years old.

But since sex occurred when an orifice was filled, the next question was obviously whether lesbians could “have sex.” At one point, Margot Abels asked whether a dildo [fake penis] had to be involved; could one be too big or too small; and where would students go to get these questions answered?

The children were asked to role play at this point. The scene was set up like this: One student was a “young lesbian who’s really attracted to another woman, and it’s really coming down to the with and you’re thinking about having sex.” The other student played the “hip GSA (gay, straight alliance) lesbian advisor, who you feel you can talk to.” In effect, Michael Gaucher was telling these high school aged children that they should be talking about lesbian sex, oral-vaginal contact, or “carpet munching,” as one student called it, with a teacher. The student asked whether it would smell like fish.

“What’s Fisting?”
At one point in the session, there was a five-minute break so that all of the teenagers could write down their questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland: “What’s fisting?”

A student answered this question by informing the class that “fisting” is when you put your “whole hand into the ass or pussy” of another. When a few of the students winced, Gaucher, the Department of Public Health employee, offered, “A little known fact about fisting, you don’t make a fist, like this. It’s like this,” forming his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier [this way].

Margot Abels told the students that “fisting” is not about forcing your have into somebody’s “hole, opening or orifice” if they don’t want it there. She said that “usually” the person was very relaxed, and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience.

At this point, a child of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He said that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn’t sound very appealing to him. Abels responded by pointing out that although fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” it usually isn’t about the pain, “not that we’re putting that down.” She informed the student and the class that “fisting” was “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” Thus Gaucher provided the “how-to” of this lascivious act, and Abels the incentive. When a teen asked the question, “why,” Margot Abels provided comfort to the children, to “put them into an exploratory mode.”

Gaucher then read the students’ next question: “Do lesbians rub their clits [clitorises] together?”

Gaucher and Abels asked if it was possible, and whether someone would do a “hand-diagram” for the class. No one volunteered, but a girl who I estimate was 15 or 16 stepped up to the board and draw a three foot high vagina, and labeled each of the labia, the clitoris, and “put up inside the ‘G’-spot.” While drawing, Gaucher told her to use the “pink” chalk, to which Abels responded, “not everyone is pink, honey.” All of the youths laughed.

After the chalk vagina was complete, the children remarked about the size of the “clit,” and the presenters stated that that was a gifted woman. Then, Abels informed all of the young girls that indeed, you can rub your “clitori” together, either with or without your clothes on, and “you can definitely orgasm from it.” Gaucher told the entire class that “these is a name for this: tribadism.” Which he wrote on the board, and told one girl who I estimate was 14 years old to bring that vocabulary word back to Bedford, where she apparently went to school. Julie Netherland, the other Department of Education consultant, informed the children that this lesbian sex act wasn’t too difficult, because “when you are sexually around, your clit gets bigger.”

Gaucher then read the following from a card: “Cum [semen] and calories: Spit versus swallow and the health concerns.” He informed the children that although he didn’t know the caloric count of male ejaculation, he has “heard that it’s sweeter if people eat celery.” The public employee thereafter asked, “Is it rude not to swallow?” Many of the high school boys mumbled, “No,” by one, about the age of 16, said emphatically, “Oh no!” Another student, against about the age of 16, offered his advice on avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission while giving oral sex: do not brush your teeth or eat course food for four hours before you “go down on a guy…because then you probably don’t want to be swallowing cum.”

Another question submitted to the presenters was whether oral sex was a better with tongue rings. A 16-year-old student murmured, “yes,” to which all of the children laughed. Gaucher said, “There you have it,” and said something to the effect that the debate on that issue had ended.

Advising the Teachers
The second session which I attended was far less graphic, but potentially more dangerous. This session was presented by the same three public employees in their professional capacity and was titled, “Putting the ‘Sex’ Back Into Sexual Orientation: Classroom Strategies for Health & Sexuality Educators.”

The workshop syllabus read as follows:

What does it mean to say “being gay, lesbian and bisexual isn’t about sex?” Where do queer youth get their information about sex and sexuality? How can we deny that sexuality is central for all of us? How do we learn to address the unique concerns of queer youth? What about the epidemiology and risk behavior data concerning sexual activity, HIV and pregnancy for queer kids? This workshop is for educators to examine strategies for integrating sexuality education and HIV prevention content specific to gay, lesbian and bisexual students into the classroom and GSA’s. Data will be presented, exercises from the GSA/HIV Prevention Project will be shared and additional strategies will be discussed.

These three presenters who had just instructed a group of 14- to 18-year-olds on how to properly position your hand for “fisting” now assumed the task of teaching teachers how to facilitate discussions about “queer” sex with their students. Several of the attending teachers asked to review the questions which the students had submitted earlier.

Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), “We always feel like we are fighting against people who say publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex…We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us, and particularly queer youth.”

Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher reviewed a few “campaigns” that have been used to demonstrate to homosexual youth how to best “be safe.”

The campaign, “Respect yourself, protect yourself,” was praised as effective in getting the message to kids that they should use protection, but since it made children who didn’t protect themselves feel bad, ultimately it was judged a poor message.

Gaucher asked if children [are] “with an older partner, [whom] they are not feeling they can discuss things with, does that mean that they don’t respect themselves?” My question is why does Gaucher not consider boys having sexual relations with men, either with or without a condom, to be a problem. Let me put this into perspective. If I, a 26-year-old man, were to approach a 16-year-old girl for sexual intercourse, wouldn’t I end up in trouble? Yet public employees, who are bound by law to report abuse under [Massachusetts] rule §51(A), are concerned more with how the young sodomized boy feels that whether he is being sodomized at all. This is absolutely outrageous.

The campaign, “No sex, no problem,” was ridiculed, as it assumed that children could opt not to have sex. Additionally, it made those children who had already had sex feel bad, or think they had a problem, since they had sex.

After reviewing a few of the campaigns, Abels described the project she works on. The “Gay/Straight Alliance HIV Education Project” goes around five different schools each year conducting up to eight HIV prevention sessions in that school’s gay club. These same presenters who just told a group of children how to properly position their hands for “fisting” were now telling a room full of educators that they would visit their schools and conduct their workshops for their students.

One participant remarked halfway through that Abels just wasn’t “talking to” her, since she, the participant, was a lesbian-middle school teacher. She wanted to know specifically what she could do to facilitate discussions about homosexuality in middle school. After I left that session, I met a few people and we compared notes. I was told of another session entitled, “Struggles & Triumphs of Including Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum.” Christine L. Hoyle, Special Education Teacher and workshop presenter, told the story of how she turned the Holocaust portion of her curriculum into a gay affirming section. Ms. Hoyle allowed the group at the conference to watch a video which she had her students produce and which was narrated by a seventh grade girl. This girl told the audience that ancient Greeks “encouraged homosexuals; in fact, it was considered normal for an adolescent boy to have an older, wiser man as his lover.” In effect, this teacher informed her adolescent students that it is okay if an older man approaches them for sexual gratification.

I have a compendium of resources and information which I obtained at the conference encouraging young children to become actively engaged in homosexual activities. I approached the Sidney Borum Community Health Center table to obtain a cassette sized “pocket sex” kit, which included two condoms, two antiseptic “moist” towelettes, and six bandages, which were for when the sex got really rough according to the high school-aged volunteer behind the desk. I now have a countless supply of condoms supplied by both Sidney Borum and Planned Parenthood, all of which was for the taking by any child who wanted them…

I am extremely troubled by what I learned at the GLSEN conference, and even more troubled…that it was led largely by Department of Education employees and was supported by Commissioner [David] Driscoll and the Department of Education, which is demonstrated by [Driscoll’s] attached letter [of support] to participants as well as the Department’s endorsement of the conference by offering six Professional Development Activities hours for teachers attending the conference.

The specific areas in the law I am asking for you to investigate are the abrogation of Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 272, § 2, 4, and 28: Enticing away a person for prostitution or sexual intercourse; Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse; and Matter harmful to minors, dissemination; possession; defenses, respectively…

I swear under oath and the pains and penalties of perjury that everything written within this letter, to be best of my knowledge and recollection, is true and factually accurate.

Scott T. Whiteman
Peabody, Massachusetts

Barber is the keynote speaker at Americans For Truth About Homosexuality’s fund-raising banquet outside Chicago on Saturday, Oct 24.  An AFTAH Board Member and former professional heavyweight boxer, Barber is currently Director for Cultural Studies at Liberty Counsel. Sign up to hear Matt at the AFTAH banquet by using the “Online Banquet Sign-up” link at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (discount rates for students and pastors).

_________________________________________

‘Intolerance’ Will Not Be Tolerated

Reprinted from: http://across.co.nz/IntoleranceNotTolerated.html

By J. Matt Barber

We were in elementary school — morning recess by the jungle gym.  My buddy Kyle presided over the ceremony.  I was the groom and Karen Smith was the blushing bride.  The mock wedding lasted about three minutes.  The mock marriage lasted about half-a-day.  Oh, I was faithful — until Christina McCarroll caught my wandering eye during Math class.  Of course we weren’t really married — we were fourth graders – but we sure had fun pretending.

Flash forward about twenty-five years — San Francisco, CA — An activist Mayor, Gavin Newsom, taunts the State’s voters and defies both the rule of law and the sanctity of marriage as he cons thousands of “same-sex couples,” including the corpulent Queen of crass herself, Rosie O’Donnell, into taking part in a number of mock weddings held in San Francisco’s City Hall.  Of course they weren’t really married — but they sure seemed to have fun pretending.

Webster defines marriage as: “The legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife” – a definition consistent with humanity’s own since the very beginning of recorded time.  Marriage between one man and one woman, and the nuclear family have forever been cornerstones of civilized society.  Regrettably, there are at present, many within the militant homosexual lobby who wish to take a sledge hammer to those cornerstones — many who hope to undermine both the historical and contemporary reality of marriage and family – many who, through judicial fiat, aim to circumvent the Constitution, the legislative process, and the overwhelming will of the people in an effort to redefine marriage. Accordingly, the unsolicited, oxymoronic and spurious expression “same-sex marriage” has been forced into popular lexicon.

As more and more Americans begin to unite against the radical concept of “same-sex marriage” we learn that our northerly Canadian neighbors are once again on the cutting edge of societal de-evolution.  The Canadian Parliament is considering passage of legislation, which would legalize “same-sex marriage” nation-wide [and has now done so].  To Canada, we offer this sincere admonition:  If you pass it, they will come — that is, along with all the Blue-State fringe lefties despondent over our recent Presidential election, expect to see droves of American “same-sex couples” crossing the border in search of their own little slice of “progressive” utopia. But we digress.

As the “same-sex marriage” battle wages on within the larger culture war here in our own Country, it’s important to accurately define the terms. Aside from the obvious, what is homosexuality?  Is it a status – a state of being — a word that typifies one’s membership in a suspect, minority class no different than Black or Female?  Let’s consider.  To be Black or Female, one need only be Black or Female.  Membership in either class is contingent upon nothing.  It’s a state of being, which represents entirely neutral qualities (i.e., skin color and/or gender).  On the other hand, homosexuality is contingent upon something: behavior — a person’s actions — choices made — their “sexual preference.”  It’s the end result of choosing to define one’s identity based upon with whom, and how one elects to have sex.

There are those who hold to the theory that people who engage in homosexual behavior are “born that way” — that they’re merely acting upon intrinsic characteristics of their own, unique genetic make-up.  They desperately cling to, and repeatedly cite various “studies” which seem to support the “born that way” theory.  They entirely disregard the fact that to date, there has been no credible, empirical evidence to support the theory, nor has the “respectable” scientific community embraced even one study.  In fact, the vast majority of studies have been debunked outright, and the associated “scientists” have been exposed as homosexual activists attempting to further an extremist agenda.  Additionally, the theory’s proponents have been wholly unable to reconcile its central theme with the so-called “bi-sexual” condition, which on its face would seem to eliminate any illusion of merit.

By the same token, there’s a growing movement among adulterous heterosexual men with estranged wives, who likewise embrace the theory that they were “born that way” — that their genetic makeup precludes the monogamy option, and requires that they have multiple sex partners. Charming, no?

At the risk of being arrested, charged with a “hate-crime” and dragged away to a “progressive” re-education camp, I’ll put aside for a moment the flawed, emotion based, irrational silliness that is “Political Correctness” (in the event I’ve been overly PC thus far).  Rather than approaching our analysis of homosexual behavior from the traditional, liberal, PC perspective, let’s look at it from the rarely visited “Biologically Correct” (BC) vantage point.  For one to believe that homosexual behavior, the act of sodomy in particular, follows the biological order of things, one must ignore the fact that sodomy violates natural law – you know, wrong plumbing, square hole/round peg.  The whole thing really is a testament to man’s creativity.  Give us something good, and we’ll bend over backwards to twist it into something else.

Without delving into the overly descriptive mechanics, suffice it to say that, scientifically speaking, the sexual act was designed for procreation — nothing more, nothing less. I know, not very romantic, but we’re talking science here.  Further, the design behind the human digestive system was solely and entirely intended for digestion, not for makeshift sexual activity — there’s not a sex organ in the mix.  The notion that the act of sodomy is a natural, biological event simply does not square with biological reality.  It may be PC but it sure ain’t BC.

Still, perhaps the most troubling aspect of the homosexual lifestyle in general, is its destructive nature. Destructive not only in terms of the emotional harm it may cause, but destructive also in terms of the health related issues that will almost certainly arise as its consequence.

You may have noticed that you’re barraged on a daily basis by the left’s self-righteous indignation, as they wax eloquent about the harm caused by tobacco, pollution, drugs, alcohol — fatty foods — name your poison. Countless lawsuits have been filed under the pretext of recovering damages to cover health care costs relative to these vices. And they are vices, no doubt.  But, these vices are fair game; they don’t fall within a PC protected class.  Consider this:  When was the last time you heard about the dreadful and preventable health related pitfalls, which stem from the homosexual lifestyle?  You don’t — you won’t — you can’t — you shan’t — Don’ t confuse the Left with the facts. That’s “insensitive!”

As a result of the concerted effort by liberals to mask the devastating effects of the gay lifestyle, many people are shocked to learn that the average life expectancy of a homosexual male is only about 45 years old – 30 years younger than that of a heterosexual male.

One study determined that homosexual males have from between 20 to 106 sexual partners per year.  It’s no wonder that homosexual men account for over 50% of all hepatitis cases, and still account for over 50% of all AIDS cases despite the fact that they only make up 1-3% of the population. Homosexual men and women share a markedly increased risk of contracting nearly all forms of STD.  The men frequently suffer from other sodomy related injuries, and are far more likely to be murdered (likely by another homosexual) than their heterosexual counterparts; this, due to the typically raucous and oft anonymous nature of the gay lifestyle.

All of these things considered, and given that the cost to treat an AIDS patient averages nearly $350,000, the homosexual lifestyle shares responsibility, by no small measure, for this country’s skyrocketing health care costs.

Fortunately, for those who wish to escape the homosexual lifestyle, there is support.  A number of homosexual recovery organizations such as Exodus International and NARTH have helped thousands of people who have been addicted to homosexual behaviors, successfully leave the lifestyle.  Many have gone on to have happy and fulfilled heterosexual marriages, to include the greatest of all blessings. children.

But the militants don’t want to hear it.  In fact, they don’t want you to hear it, and have proposed legislation to ban such recovery organizations claiming that any mention of homosexual recovery is “hate-speech.”  But it’s predictable — any time anyone dare expose the aforementioned truths about the homosexual lifestyle, or criticize the homosexual lobby for its radical anti-marriage, anti-family agenda, there’s an enormous backlash.  It’s an age-old tactic geared toward silencing one’s critics.  It consists primarily of the ad hominem attack — Homophobe! Hate-Monger! Bigot! Gay Basher! Neanderthal! — And on and on it goes.  It grows old. It wears thin, but it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Many homosexuals choose not to recognize that the majority of their detractors really do care for them as individuals, hold no animus toward them, and would not presume to dictate what sexual anomalies they entertain behind closed doors, whether self-destructive or not.  However, when militant homosexual activists attempt to quell all criticism of their behavior, force society to accept that behavior, and further attempt to alter the fabric of society by changing it to correspond with their own morally relative, androgynous notion of marriage, then those same activists shouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that they’ve angered those who value the sanctity of marriage — they shouldn’t be taken aback to find that they have one h*ll of fight on their hands – to expect anything less would be queer indeed.

___________________________

[NOTE: This was the attribution provided for the piece on this website in 2004:]

Copyright © 2004 by J. Matt Barber  (Used with permission)

J. jmattbarber@comcast.netMatt Barber is a non-practicing attorney, an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer (Matt “Bam Bam” Barber), and a jazz drummer in Chicago, IL.  In addition to his Law Degree, Barber holds a Master of Arts in Public Policy from Regent University.  Matt is a Contributing Editor for TheConservativeVoice.com, and a Contributor to the Washington Times “Insight Magazine,” as well as a number of other top conservative publications. E-mail your comments to Matt, at

TAKE ACTION: Call and write your U.S. Congressman and Senators and urge them to push for the replacement of Education Secretary Arne Duncan (below, right) and Kevin Jennings (left), the Obama appointee put in charge of “Safe and Drug Free Schools.” Jennings — who raised money for Obama’s election — is an embarrassment to the whole notion of “safe schools,” and is on record advocating the outright “promotion” of homosexuality to schoolchildren K-12. (Homosexual behavior is hardly “safe,” as evidenced by the disproportionately high incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases among homosexuals.) Jennings must go, as should Sec. Duncan for ignoring the appeals of countless American parents outraged at the promotion of his aggressively anti-Christian bigot who presided over the “Fistgate” scandal and used a predatory homosexual seduction of one of his sophomore students to confirm the victimized boy as “gay.” Call/write Congress at: 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org.

_________________________________

The following article is reprinted from Illinois Family Institute:

Help Oust Kevin Jennings — ‘School Safety Czar’

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, Sept. 30, 2009

The indefensible decision of [Education Secretary] Arne Duncan to appoint radical homosexual activist and founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Kevin Jennings, to the position of Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools is finally generating the public opposition it deserves.

Criticism of Jennings is coming from multiple sources all over the country. From small and large pro-family organizations to the Washington Times to Sean Hannity — all are calling for Jennings to resign or be terminated. Now is the time to act. Call or email your representatives and senators to politely demand the ousting of Kevin Jennings who is at least as unsuitable and controversial an appointment as the former “Green Czar” Van Jones was.

Jennings began his career in education as a teacher in a private Massachusetts boarding school. He has written and spoken about an incident that occurred when he was teaching there in which a troubled 15-year-old boy confessed to Jennings that he was having a sexual relationship with an older man he had met in a Boston bus station bathroom. Jennings’ response to this troubled teen was to advise him to use condoms. Even more troubling, Jennings failed to fulfill his legal obligation to report sexual activity between an adult and a child under the age of 18. When Jennings’ professional misconduct was reported to the National Education Association (NEA) by the chair of the NEA Republican Educator’s Caucus, Jennings threatened a lawsuit against the teacher who reported it.

For a fascinating expose of this disturbing chapter in Jennings’ disturbing life, read these articles by Grove City College professor, Warren Throckmorton:

• “Remembering Brewster”
• “The saga of Kevin Jennings and Brewster: Enter Robertson”

Fortunately, Jennings left teaching but unfortunately for the nation went on to found GLSEN, whose mission is to use public funds and public education to normalize homosexuality. GLSEN was the sponsor of the notorious sexuality workshop “Teach Out” held at Tufts University in 2000 where students as young as 14 were exposed to graphic descriptions of deviant sexual practices by adult homosexual “educators.” This workshop has come to be known as “Fistgate” because of one particular [horrific] sexual practice taught to teens. [WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION:"Fisting" is a sadomasochistic perversion emerging from the homosexual subculture -- in which a man inserts his hand and then forearm up the rectum and into the colon of another man (for sexual pleasure); among some lesbians or straight sadomasochists into this dangerous act, the hand and arm are inserted deep into the vagina. "Fistgate" came to light because a concerned parent secretly taped the GLSEN-sponsored workshop. You can listen to the incredible Boston "Fistgate" audiotape and read a transcript of the outrageous discussion with underage students HERE on the MassResistance website. Kevin Jennings never directly apologized on behalf of GLSEN for this this scandal; in fact, GLSEN and other homosexual activist organizations attacked conservatives for "violating the privacy" of the students who were secretly audiotaped by Scott Whiteman, the Massachusetts citizen who taped the workshop, thus providing the world the evidence of GLSEN's corruption of children.]

In addition, GLSEN is the sponsor of the annual Day of Silence, a pro-homosexual protest that takes place in thousands of high schools and increasing numbers of middle schools around the country every year. On this day, students are encouraged and permitted to remain silent all day even during class in support of GLSEN’s view of homosexuality.

On September 30, 2009, twenty-one years after the boarding school debacle and with public pressure mounting, Jennings finally issued this rationalization:

“Twenty-one years later I can see how I should have handled the situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little training and guidance about this kind of thing. All teachers should have a basic level of preparedness. I would like to see the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools play a bigger role in helping to prepare teachers.”

How convenient.

His “mishandling” of the incident wasn’t really his fault. Oh no, it was a lack of “training,” “guidance,” and “preparedness.” How could a 24-year-old teacher be expected to know that he should report sexual activity between a teen under his charge and an adult male whom the teen met in a bus station bathroom located almost an hour from the boarding school where the teen lived? If only the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools had existed then with a zealous homosexual activist at the helm, Jennings would have known exactly what to do.

Kevin Jennings violated both professional standards of ethics as well as Massachusetts law. He has publicly expressed contempt for theologically orthodox Christianity and Christians and has spent his entire adult life trying to exploit public education to effect social changes that reflect his sexual preferences and unproven, controversial, and perverse views of homosexuality. His appointment to the Department of Education is an unmitigated outrage that must be opposed.

Close down the gay sex clubs? Homosexual sex is dangerous — the CDC says “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely than other groups to have HIV. And yet homosexual sex clubs flourish across the country. At left is Steamworks, a Chicago homosexual bathhouse where men go for anonymous sex with other men. This is a photo taken at the 2005 “Market Days” street fair, at which Steamworks advertises itself like any other business. Why doesn’t the government move to close down such perversion centers as public health hazards, given the overwhelming evidence of the dangers of male homosexual sex? 

____________________

So much for gay “equality.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the U.S. government agency tasked with guarding Americans’ health — has finally put a number on the massively increased HIV risk associated with “men who have sex with men” (MSM): “gay” and “bi” men are 50 times more likely to have HIV. This does not mean that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, will take some tough, politically incorrect steps necessary to prevent AIDS — like closing down homosexual bathhouses and gay (male) sex clubs in major cities, and educating teenagers on the hugely disproportionate health risks associated with homosexual sex. The relentless pandering by federal, state and local governments to “gay” activists even as these same agencies fight diseases specifically linked to homosexual sex is one of the greatest public policy follies of our time — indeed, of history itself.

The issue in this ongoing “culture war” is not the cause of homosexual “orientation” — or merely the legality of “same-sex marriage.” It’s homosexual behavior itself — and whether government should promote it or discourage it, or be neutral. I say discourage it, since the evidence keeps pouring in that conduct which has been proscribed as immoral down through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition is also highly dangerous. Now if the CDC will only stop blabbering on about “homophobia” and start telling the truth — that the rectum is not a sexual organ, after all, and that we must take tough measures against “gay” promiscuity — America will become a healthier place. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

The following is excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

_______________________________

Gay, Bi Men 50 Times More Likely to Have HIV

CDC reports hard data at National HIV Prevention Conference

By DYANA BAGBY, Washington Blade
Aug. 28, 2009

ATLANTA — Gay and bisexual men account for half of new HIV infections in the U.S. and have AIDS at a rate more than 50 times greater than other groups, according to Centers for Disease Control & Prevention data presented at the National HIV Prevention Conference this week in Atlanta.

Dr. Amy Lansky of the CDC presented research at the Aug. 24 plenary in which the CDC estimated in the U.S. there were 692.2 new HIV cases in 2007 per 100,000 men who have sex with men.

While the CDC data has continually reported gay and bisexual men and other MSM of all races as the groups with the highest numbers of new HIV cases each year, AIDS activists said this was the first time the CDC clearly stated with a concrete rate how the disease is impacting gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men are also the only risk group in which new infections are increasing.

“They have never converted the numbers into a rate,” said Walt Senterfitt of the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project. Senterfitt is an epidemiologist.

“It’s not like this is totally new information. But they are saying now that gay, bisexual and other MSM are 50 times more likely to have AIDS than women and non-gay or bisexual men. This is a new statement. We weren’t able to make that equivalent before. We can now compare apples to apples. We represent the largest proportion.”

The CDC estimates gay and bisexual men make up about four to six percent of the population. When the CDC reports on African-American women, it says black women have an HIV infection rate that is nearly 15 times higher than that of white women. And Hispanics, who make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population, account for 17 percent of all new HIV infections in the U.S. each year, according to the CDC.

According to a 2006 CDC report, 13,230 white MSM were estimated to be newly infected with HIV, followed by African-American MSM at 10,130 and then black heterosexual women at 7,340 new infections. The CDC estimates more than 56,000 Americans become infected each year; throughout the HIV Prevention Conference, the CDC stressed that number represents one person every nine-and-a-half minutes.

“If you ask 10 people in this room,” Senterfitt said at the conference with hundreds of people in attendance, “it’s likely only one person will answer correctly [that white MSM are the hardest hit by HIV].

“I think the CDC is finally trying to put out accurate information so the community can collectively respond — and these numbers help to show that HIV/AIDS never left the gay community.”

Kevin Fenton, director of the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD & TB Prevention at the CDC, said in opening remarks at the conference Aug. 23 that “gay and bisexual men account for half of new infections and are at greatest risk.”

But Fenton, who is gay, also noted that just 20 percent of gay and bisexual men report hearing of HIV prevention campaigns.

President Barack Obama’s new Office of National AIDS Policy has the mission of putting HIV/AIDS in the U.S. back on the radar after, as many speakers said at the conference, the country has become complacent about the disease. …. [continued on Blade website]

Click HERE to read the entire article in the “gay” newspaper, Washington Blade