Scott Lively addressing the AFTAH banquet in October. Lively received AFTAH's "Americans Truth Teller" award for 2011.

Part Five of the AFTAH interview [click HERE to listen] with Scott Lively of Defending the Family International.  This was pre-recorded and aired Dec. 3, 2011. Go to the AFTAH Radio Hour Archive for the rest of this very informative interview. In the course of AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera’s interview with Lively, the two discussed:

• The dire state of the American Christian Church vis-a-vis the aggressive movement to normalize homosexual behavior and gender confusion in the culture;
• The “terror” tactics and aggressive campaigns used by homosexual activists to intimidate good people into silence on this issue;
• Lively’s personal experience with the dirty tactics and lies used by radical LGBT activists against pro-family leaders attempting to stop the “gay” revolution (including one notorious fake “anti-gay hate crime” in Oregon). Lively more than almost any pro-family conservative alive today has experienced these tactics firsthand in more than 20 years of working on the front lines (here and abroad) against the homosexualist agenda;
• The futility of relying on politics and the courts to contain the advance of government-backed homosexuality — and how many “ministry-minded” or apathetic believers are woefully naive about the Culture War raging on this issue;
• The campaign of lies used by pro-homosexual militants (and repeated by the media) to smear Lively and others as allegedly supporting the murder of homosexuals in Uganda;
• The corruption of words by the pro-homosexual Left, including “gay,” “sexual orientation” and “marriage equality”;
• The appearance of PRO-homosexuality “evangelicals” like Grove City College’s Warren Throckmorton and Chicago’s Andrew Marin – who confuse Christians and undermine biblical truth on the issue by capitulating to pro-”gay” ideology and semantics;
• The connection of homosexuality and sexual deviance to the Nazi Party in Germany. (See Lively’s book, The Pink Swastika);
• The very real threat to religious liberty posed by the tremendous rise of homosexual (“gay”) power in the United States.

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

12-3-11, Scott Lively, Part Five

RIMMING: Section on "Rimming" from flier produced for the California HIV/AIDS Hotline. "Rimming" is a slang term for oral-anal sexual stimulation, as depicted by the drawing above. The text reads: "You cannot get HIV from rimming. You can get Hepatitis A (but you can get vaccinated against it), shigella, herpes, and intestinal parasites. To reduce your chances of getting sick, clean ass before you eat it, or use a dental dam as a barrier between your mouth and your partner's ass."

TAKE ACTION: Share this disturbing information with your adult friends, family and co-workers — as well as your U.S. Senators and Congressman [Senate 202-224-3121; House: 202-225-3121; www.congress.org].  Urge your representatives in Congress to put the safety of Americans — and a pristine blood supply — ahead of the demands of the selfish Homosexuality Lobby.  Also urge your representatives to launch a Congressional investigation into the health hazards of homosexual behaviors (just as the government studied the dangers of smoking).  We need the government to regulate the commercialized “gay” sex industry (e.g. bathhouses) – which fosters anonymous perversions and a reckless culture of promiscuity that spreads diseases and ultimately endangers innocents.

________________________________

“Infection with these parasites was a likely effect of anal intercourse, which was apt to put a man in contact with his partner’s fecal matter, and was virtually a certainty through the then-popular practice of rimming, which medical journals politely call anal-oral intercourse.” – Homosexual reporter Randy Shilts, who died of AIDS at 42,writing in his book, And the Band Played On, pp. 18-19.

By Peter LaBarbera

Here we reproduce portions of a flier produced by the Asian Health Services and funded by the California AIDS Clearinghouse — as AFTAH launches its “Keep the Gay Blood Ban” (KGB²) campaign against renewed lobby efforts to open up the U.S. blood supply to homosexuality-practicing men. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), one-time Democratic candidate for president, has stepped up his efforts to overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) current ban on blood donations from any ‘man who has had sex with a man’ (MSM) since 1977 (and any woman who has had sex with such a man).

In the House, Sen. Kerry is being aided by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Chicago), who represents the homosexual Boystown neighborhood in Chicago, and the two recently applauded Obama’s HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) for taking steps toward lifting the homosexual blood ban.

Sadly, Sen. Kerry and others crusading against the homosexual blood ban do so on the basis that the ban is mainly about ”anti-gay discrimination” rather than preserving public health. Kerry previously cited the advent of legalized homosexual “marriage” as mitigating against the lifetime homosexual blood ban. Yet few seem interested in investigating — much less restricting — the actual high-risk homosexual practices and deviant behaviors depicted and described in this (pro-”gay’) flier, which crassly helps explain the immense heath risks of male homosexuality. We excerpt this flier — vulgar slang references and all — to help educate the public as to how this lifestyle is so dangerous that men who practice it must be kept from the nation’s blood supply.

The politically incorrect reality is that male-on-male sex and the “gay” sexual culture are extremely high-risk due directly to the dangerously perverse and unsanitary acts – and unprecedented promiscuity — practiced by “men who have sex with men.” Such behaviors fueled the AIDS crisis in the first place, as documented by homosexual reporter Randy Shilts in his book “And the Band Played On” (1987) [Click HERE to see excerpt from Shilts at bottom.]

AFTAH will present raw homosexual reality

As part of our “Keep the Gay Blood Ban” (KGB²) campaign, AFTAH will present the reality of homosexual BEHAVIOR  – using “gay” and pro-homosexual sources (largely uncensored). Much of it — like this California AIDS flier – will be shocking to the uninitiated, but we hope to provide an alternative to the dominant pro-homosexual political culture narrative that invariably excludes the single-most important factor in this debate — and any discussion surrounding homosexuality: homosexual behavior.

RISKS OF ANAL SEX. Click on graphic to enlarge. California AIDS flier discusses risks of anal sex. TOP PANEL READS, in part: "Can I get HIV as a top? It's less likely but, yes, it's possible to get HIV by topping, especially if you regularly f**k without a condom. Studies show that men with foreskins -- ED. NOTE - READ: uncircumcised men -- are more likely to contract HIV than men without." BOTTOM PANEL READS, in part: "Anal sex is the riskiest sexual activity for getting/spreading HIV. That risk goes up if you have more sex partners, if you f**k without a condom, or if you have sex with someone who has HIV. Of course, you can't always know if your partners have HIV. That's why some men choose to assume that all their sex partners are HIV-positive....If you're using drugs like poppers or meth, you should know that f**cking while high can increase the likelihood of anal tearing, which also puts you at higher risk for HIV and other STDs."

Why aren’t teenage boys being warned?

One other point: this flier and similarly frank homosexual literature conveys the harsh, shocking realities of homosexual sexual behavior. When teenage and even pre-teen boys idealistically embrace “being gay” as “who they are” — encouraged by pro-homosexual adults and the ubiquitous pro-”gay” messages in pop culture – do they have any inkling of the serious and even deadly health repercussions of this lifestyle choice?

When Hollywood elites glamorize homosexual teen male romances on programs like “Glee,” [see Glee's infamous teenage boy homosexual kiss HERE] shouldn’t they include warnings about the far less glamorous side of same-sex conduct? Shouldn’t boys embracing homosexuality be forewarned about the disproportionate risk of HIV, hepatitis, anal warts, herpes, etc., — all linked to unnatural homosexual behaviors?

Also, although many homosexual activists surely will object to this report on the basis that not all homosexual men are promiscuous or practice dangerous behaviors like sodomy and rimming — what is curious is that the United States government – even when led by Republicans — has taken precious little action against the “gay” sex industry and LGBT activism that facilitate the very promiscuity that has a long history of causing and spreading disease. Concerned more with decrying “homophobia” than encouraging public-health-promoting action against homosexual sex clubs, the the federal CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has left the “gay” bathhouse and sex-club industry untouched, and so it flourishes. Indeed, even in the CDC’s home city of Atlanta, three anonymous homosexual sex establishments operate without fear. Some ‘control and prevention.’…

FDA explains homosexual blood ban

The following are excerpts from an FDA fact sheet explaining the homosexual male blood donation ban (emphasis added):

• Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.
• A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA’s policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.
• 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). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

What will Obama’s HHS do?

ANAL SEX AND BLEEDING. Panel reads: "Is it normal to bleed after anal sex? Bleeding immediately after anal sex is common for many men. Blood may come from hemorrhoids, a tear in the anal lining, polyps or tumors in the colon, or some type of infection. The seriousness of anal bleeding can only be assessed by a doctor. If you continue to bleed for more than a few days after anal sex, contact a clinic."

Sen.  Kerry plans to work closely with the Administration on repealing the “gay” blook donation ban. In his statement against what he calls the “outdated” homosexual blood ban, Kerry states: “It’s a very positive step that HHS is meeting this week to reconsider the lifetime ban on gay Americans donating blood.  The medical and scientific communities have been crystal clear that there is no longer any scientific evidence to warrant this policy…I’ve been working closely with members from both chambers, and we look forward to hearing HHS’s recommendations and working with the Administration to ensure that an outdated policy is brought into line with the world we live in today.”

The FDA contradicts Kerry’s claim that there is “no longer any scientific evidence” supporting the ban. It continues:

• Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.
• 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.
• 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.
• Collection of blood from persons with an increased risk of HIV infection also presents an added risk if blood were to be accidentally given to a patient in error either before testing is completed or following a positive test. Such medical errors occur very rarely, but given that there are over 20 million transfusions every year, in the USA, they can occur. That is one more reason why FDA and other regulatory authorities work to assure that there are multiple safeguards, not just testing.
• Several scientific models show there would be a small but definite increased risk to people who receive blood transfusions if FDA’s MSM policy were changed and that preventable transfusion transmission of HIV could occur as a result.
• No alternate set of donor eligibility criteria (even including practice of safe sex or a low number of lifetime partners) has yet been found to reliably identify MSM who are not at increased risk for HIV or certain other transfusion transmissible infections.
• Today, the risk of getting HIV from a transfusion or a blood product has been nearly eliminated in the United States. Improved procedures, donor screening for risk of infection and laboratory testing for evidence of HIV infection have made the United States blood supply safer than ever. While appreciative and supportive of the desire of potential blood donors to contribute to the health of others, FDA’s first obligation is to assure the safety of the blood supply and protect the health of blood recipients.
• Men who have sex with 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 men who have sex with other men than in the general population. Additionally, men who have sex with men have an increased incidence and prevalence of Human Herpes Virus-8 (HHV-8). HHV-8 causes a cancer called Kaposi’s sarcoma in immunocompromised individuals.

The past is prologue

ANAL WARTS, HPV and ANAL CANCER. Click on graphic to enlarge. Panel reads, in part: "What are anal warts? They're fleshy, painless growths that can appear in and around the anus. Warts are caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). It's estimated that the majority of sexually-active gay men have already been exposed to HPV. You can't get tested for HPV, but there are a few things you can do. If you have warts, get them treated -- you'll be more comfortable, and you'll be less likely to spread the virus to your partners. HPV has also been found to be associated with anal cancer. Even if you don't have warts, you can still care a strain of HPV that causes cancer. If you bottom -- ED. NOTE: this means serving as the recipient "bottom" in anal sodomy -- ask your doctor for an anal Pap smear every few years to check for early signs of cancer (yes, men can get Paps too!)...."

The connection between disease and unnatural — and bizarrely perverse — homosexual acts goes back to the roots of the “gay revolution” in America. Randy Shilts, who himself died of AIDS at 42, wrote of pre-1980 “gay-liberated” San Francisco in his book, And the Band Played On:

The fight against venereal diseases was proving a Sisyphean task….In San Francisco, two-thirds of gay men had suffered the debilitating disease [hepatitis B]. It was now proven statistically that a gay man had one chance in five of being infected with the hepatitis B virus within twelve months of stepping off the bus into a typical urban gay scene. Within five years, infection was a virtual certainty.

Another problem was enteric diseases, like amebiasis and giardiasis, caused by organisms that lodged themselves in the intestinal tracts of gay men with alarming frequency. At the New York Gay Men’s Health Project…30 percent of the patients suffered from gastrointestinal parasites. In San Francisco, incidence of the “Gay Bowel Syndrome,” as it was called in medical journals, had increased by 8,000 percent after 1973. Infection with these parasites was a likely effect of anal intercourse, which was apt to put a man in contact with his partner’s fecal matter, and was virtually a certainty through the then-popular practice of rimming, which medical journals politely call anal-oral intercourse.

What was troubling was that nobody in the gay community seemed to care about these waves of infection…

[The] commercialization of gay sex was all part of the scene, an aspect of the homosexual life-style in which the epidemics of venereal disease, hepatitis, and enteric disorders thrived. The gay liberation movement of the 1970s had spawned a business of bathhouses and sex clubs…[S]ex was part and parcel of political liberation. The popular bestseller The Joy of Gay Sex, for example, called rimming the “prime taste treat in sex,” while a leftist Toronto newspaper published a story on “rimming as a revolutionary act.” – Shilts, “And the Band Played On,” pp. 18-19

Revolutionary, indeed. And as you can see from this current AIDS flier, the revolution lives on.

]]> http://americansfortruth.com/2011/08/05/keep-the-gay-blood-ban-california-aids-flier-exposes-extreme-risks-of-homosexual-sex/feed/ 0 http://americansfortruth.com/2011/07/05/aftah-dinner-lecture-former-lesbian-linda-jernigan/ http://americansfortruth.com/2011/07/05/aftah-dinner-lecture-former-lesbian-linda-jernigan/#comments Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:57:53 +0000 Peterlab http://americansfortruth.com/?p=9522

Linda Jernigan speaks at AFTAH.

Rather than the usual interview, we offer portions of ex-lesbian Linda Jernigan’s dinner-lecture presentation at Americans For Truth headquarters in Carol Stream, Illinois, June 17th [click HERE to listen]. Linda, who left the lesbian lifestyle, is founder of the Chicago-based Rescuing Ministries (www.RescuingHomosexuals.net; e-mail her at: RescueMeNowLord@aol.com). Here she describes how she lived nearly two decades as a lesbian, noting how the ”torment and the pain” she experienced contrasts with the glamorized version of homosexuality offered up at annual “Gay Pride” festivals. To hear our previous AFTAH interview with Jernigan, go HERE for Part One and HERE for Part Two.   

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

6-25-11, Linda Jernigan

Dr. Michael Brown, author of "A Queer Thing Happened to America," and one of the world's leading Jewish Christian scholars.

Here is Part One of my interview with Mike Brown [click HERE to listen], perhaps one of the most politically incorrect leaders on the planet. This was pre-recorded and aired April 23rd. Brown, the director of the Coalition of Conscience, based in Charlotte, N.C.,  is author of “A Queer Thing Happened to America,” a new book about the amazing rise in power of organized homosexuality in the United States. Brown, as a Jewish man who believes in Jesus Christ, is also one of the world’s leading authorities on Jewish Christianity. He has engaged in numerous debates with rabbis about the divinity of Jesus, and authored many books on the subject. In this first segment of our in-depth interview, Brown discusses how he came to faith in Jesus Christ after rebelling as a teenager and getting into very heavy drug use. It is a fascinating testimony and a witness to the awesome, redemptive power of God. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

4-23-11, Michael Brown

Dear Readers, below is a YouTube video of President Obama’s Dec. 22, 2010 signing of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”  — ie., the ban on open homosexuality in the military. Republicans currently are struggling to respond to the rapid pro-homosexual changes in our military — which have their root in a campaign promise by Obama to his homosexual activist supporters. Take note at how everything in this White House celebration presumes that homosexuality be understood as an innocuous or positive identity, and the advancement of the “rights” of a minority (“gays and lesbians”). What is alien to this celebration of the “GLBT” Lobby’s greatest political victory to date is the conception of homosexuality as immoral (sinful), unnatural and/or destructive behavior.

The public’s embrace of this zeitgeist exchange of identity/group-civil rights for anti-social misbehavior is the single greatest achievement of the modern homosexual activist movement. However — just as the popularization of “pro-choice” rhetoric has no bearing on the ethics of killing innocent, unborn babies in the womb – this highly strategic, pro-”gay” cultural transformation has no bearing on the morality of homosexual practice. Nor does it negate the massive health risks and other pitfalls associated with homosexuality, including the emerging reality that homosexuality-based “rights’ destroy religious freedom (to oppose same-sex conduct). These matters obviously are of little concern to liberals, who are now so wedded to the “gay civil rights” paradigm that they see any attempt to view homosexuality through the (religious) lens of wrong-yet-changeable behavior as itself an act of “prejudice,” to quote our Commander-in-Chief.  — Peter LaBarbera, www. aftah.org

The SPLC's Mark Potok oversees the organization's de facto "campaign of defamation" painting groups like AFTAH that oppose homosexuality as "hate groups." Potok admits that the SPLC has never identified a single "gay" group as hateful even though militant homosexual organizations like ACT UP and Bash Back! have targeted churches with vicious attacks.

TAKE ACTION: Contact the Senate Judiciary Committee (members listed HERE; Senate Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121) — and the House Committee on Homeland Security (202-226-2616; members listed HERE; House Switchboard: 202-225-3121) and urge them to investigate the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) working relationship with the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. The leftist SPLC is now slandering conservative, Christian and Tea Party groups by mislabeling them as “hate groups” on a par with genuine, fringe hate groups like the KKK.  American taxpayers should insist that the federal government have no role in legitimizing the SPLC, which has politicized “hate” and turned it into a fund-raising business to demonize conservatives – including mainstream pro-family groups that oppose homosexual activism. To read an in-depth report exposing the SPLC’s unethical practices, go HERE.

_______________________________________________

Below is a useful article by Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute — on the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) preposterous smear-job against mainstream pro-family groups (including AFTAH, IFI, Family Research Council, and AFA) as “hate groups” because we oppose homosexuality and LGBT (“gay”) activism. Technically, the SPLC would argue that AFTAH and the other groups opposed homosexuality in the wrong way, but let’s be honest: ideologically speaking, the SPLC is so deeply committed to pro-”gay” advocacy that it considers suspect any organization that opposes pro-LGBT activism. Predictably, the left-wing, pro-homosexual echo chamber is using the SPLC’s “findings” to discredit pro-family groups.

Indicative of the SPLC”s tendentious and polemical “hate reporting” is its description of this writer as a “longtime gay-basher.” Using such semantics, that would make SPLC staffers like Mark Potok “longtime Christian bashers.” To read an excellent set of reports on the SPLC’s escalating “campaign of defamation” against conservatives and traditionalists, read this special Social Contract Journal edition.

As Barb Anderson of the (potential future “hate” group?) Minnesota Family Council and I discussed in Part One of our AFTAH Radio Hour interview [click HERE to listen], the SPLC’s cynical “hate” dragnet is growing so wide that we have almost reached the point where if a pro-family group is NOT INCLUDED on the SPLC’s “hate” list, it must be slacking off in resisting the destructive homosexual agenda. I write “almost” because some of our good friends such as Liberty Counsel and Campaign for California Families have not yet officially been designated “haters”; their time will come. Of course, the truth is, nobody “hates” like the American Left — especially militant homosexual activists.

I like Laurie’s reference to the “Morality Police”; how ironic that the Left has become the mirror of what it hates:  the societal “moral” scold. Remember that the dogmatists on the Left once screamed against the “Religious Right”: “Don’t impose your morality on the rest of us!” Now it’s the pro-”queer” Left that works diligently to “impose its immorality” on America using every dirty tactic ever conceived by Saul Alinsky (e.g., “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it”; see this piece). I half expect Potok or SPLC co-founder Morris Dees to show up in Wheeling, West Virginia, claiming to “have in my hand the names of 57 newly designated anti-gay hate groups….”

Prior to Americans for Truth About Homosexuality’s “graduation” to full-fledged SPLC “hate” group, we were labeled a “hate” website by the SPLC — after a very… well, bigoted and hateful Marxist homosexual organization, the Gay Liberation Network (GLN), “reported” us to the Alabama-based SPLC. (You know those Communists are all about love, tolerance and honesty … one GLN leader, Bob Schwartz, a self-described Trotskyite, told me at a Chicago protest that he’d push me into oncoming traffic if it weren’t for the cops standing nearby; Schwartz has never denied making the threatening remark. I hereby report the GLN to the SPLC as a “hate” group for targeting sincere Christians with its slanderous and bigoted vilifications and protests.)

No hateful homosexuals?

You will recall that earlier this year SPLC Intelligence Project director Mark Potok confirmed to me via e-mail that no “gay” advocacy group has ever made the SPLC’s “hate” list — despite the fact that miltant homosexual organizations like ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) have engaged in numerous planned assaults against churches and other political opponents. (In 1989, as part of a huge protest againset then-Cardinal John O’Connor, ACT UP members stormed St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City during a Sunday mass; it was a particularly ugly, anti-Catholic attack in which protesters screamed and tossed condoms in the air, and even stomped on a consecrated wafer believed by Catholics to be the Body of Christ. More recently, in 2008, the homosexual activist group Bash Back! staged an invasion of a large evangelical church in Lansing, Michigan; the church was specifically targeted for its outspoken belief that homosexual practice is sinful and that “gays” can leave that lifestyle through faith in Jesus Christ. [Regarding that point and the SPLC's #10 "myth" below, we must ask: does the Southern Poverty Law Center "hate" former homosexuals?] A thorough investigation into the pro-homosexual “hatred” unleashed against Prop 8 supporters in California – especially churches — is in order.)

In the ensuing months since I corresponded with Potok, the SPLC appears not to have made even a token move to identify homosexual activist hate groups and websites (gay activist Dan Savage’s shockingly evil “Santorum.com” comes to mind [Warning: highly offensive content] — while it greatly expanded its list of alleged pro-family alleged “hate groups.” This contradiction alone demonstrates the SPLC’s extreme bias and the folly of taking seriously its self-appointed role as an objective, impartial hate-monitoring organization.

Higgins deftly exposes the shoddy “research”  of the SPLC (as we at AFTAH have personally experienced; the incompetent researchers for SPLC’s “Intelligence Report” initially confused me with Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute). All this would be comical except that the SPLC is taken seriously by the liberal media and is used as an informational resource by the federal government’s Department of Homeland Security, so please take the action steps above.

Always remember: defending biblical morality is not ”bigotry” and disagreeing with homosexual activists is not “hate.” Thanks for standing with AFTAH for truth amidst all the politically correct lies. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org; write us at americansfortruth@gmail.com

Laurie Higgins writes:
_____________________________________________________

The Morality Police at the Southern Poverty Law Center

Evelyn Schlatter, Southern Poverty Law Center author of "hate groups" article

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute

Oh, for the good old days when the term “hate group” referred to groups that actually hated someone. Now the term “hate group” refers to any group that expresses political, philosophical, moral, or theological beliefs with which the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) disagrees.

Last week, the SPLC released the winter issue of Mark Potok’s ironically named “Intelligence Report.” The article, “18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda,” by Evelyn Schlatter lists 18 organizations as “anti-gay” groups with 13 of those to be added to their formal list of “hate groups.” The American Family Association, Family Research Council, and the Illinois Family Institute are three of the 13 that will be included on a list with neo-Nazi organizations.

Schlatter explains that the “propagation” of “known falsehoods” about homosexuality will result in organizations being included on the SPLC’s “anti-gay” list and perhaps also their “hate groups” list. Here are the “known falsehoods” that she and co-author Robert Steinback cite in the companion article “10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked”:

1. If an organization claims that homosexuals “molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
2. If an organization says that “same-sex parents harm children,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
3. If an organization claims that “people become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
4. If an organization claims that “homosexuals don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
5. If an organization claims that “homosexuals controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate-groups” list.
6. If an organization claims that “hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
7. If an organization claims that “allowing homosexuals to serve openly would damage the armed forces,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
8. If an organization claims that homosexuals “are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
9. If an organization claims that “no one is born a homosexual,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.
10. If an organization claims “Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality,” it goes on the SPLC’s “hate groups” list.

Under each of these “myths,” Schlatter and Steinback offer analyses and evidence of such poor quality that their arguments wouldn’t pass muster in many high school English classes in which there are actual standards for logic and use of evidence. I will examine just a few of the many problems in their analyses, which in turn will reveal the intellectual and ethical vacuity that pervades the SPLC.

Same sex parents harm children

The SPLC thinks that the belief that same sex parents harm children constitutes hatred. The first problem is that Schlatter and Steinback fail to define harm. If one believes that homosexuality is morally flawed, then a household centered on a morally flawed relationship cannot be beneficial.

It is entirely possible that a brother and sister in an incestuous relationship or that polyamorist parents could raise children, providing for their physical needs, comforting them, and teaching them their ABCs. But most of society believes that such relationships would harm children because they would teach children that incest or polyamory are morally permissible. Would Schlatter and Steinback include organizations on their “hate groups” list that propagate the belief that incestuous parents or poly-parents harm children?

The SPLC and many homosexuals are outraged over any comparison of homosexuality to adult consensual incest or polyamory because they view homosexuality as moral and incest and polyamory as immoral. But no one is obligated to accept the SPLC’s flawed comparison of homosexuality to race or to accept their moral assumptions. After all, who is the SPLC to impose their moral views on all of society? Why are IFI’s moral beliefs about homosexual acts hateful and the views of those who oppose incest or polyamory legitimate? Why do IFI’s moral beliefs about volitional homosexual acts land us on the “hate groups” list, while the moral beliefs of those who oppose incestuous parents or poly-parents do not land them on the “hate groups” list?

Homosexual parents teach their children that gender is irrelevant to marriage and to parenting. They teach them that homosexual acts are inherently moral. And they deliberately deprive children of either a mother or a father. Those corruptions of truth and essential human relationships harm children.

Childhood molestation, innateness (“born that way”) and homosexuality

The one point about which many on both sides of the homosexuality debate agree is that the causes of same-sex attraction are not known. Many believe that same-sex attractions result from a complex interaction of biologically shaped predispositions and environmental factors. If we do notknow the causes of same-sex attraction, and if some of the factors that contribute to it are environmental experiences, how can anyone declare that childhood molestation never contributes to the development of same-sex attraction? And if childhood molestation may contribute in some cases to the development of same-sex attraction, how can it constitute hatred to say so?

Oprah, an inveterate promoter of all things homosexual, recently did two powerful programs about men who were molested as children. One of her guests was a therapist who has treated hundreds of men who were molested as children. He stated that one result of the sexual molestation of boys is “sexual orientation confusion.”

Schlatter and Steinback also assert that it’s hateful, false, and mythical to say “no one is born homosexual,” and then virtually their entire analysis reveals that there is no research proving that people are “born homosexual.” Schlatter and Steinback write, “a great many studies suggest that it is the result of biological and environmental forces.”

Following their repeated assertions that there is no proof that homosexuality is congenital, Schlatter and Steinback suggest the false dichotomy that if people do not choose their same-sex attraction, they must be “born that way,” completely ignoring two essential truths. First, the fact that people do not choose their feelings does not mean that such feelings are biologically determined. Second, freely chosen behaviors that emerge from feelings shaped by biological influences are not automatically moral.

IFI has consistently said that although no one chooses their feelings, people do choose how to respond to them. Saying that people ought not to act upon same-sex attraction is no more hateful than saying that people ought not to act upon unchosen, powerful, persistent attractions to pornography, multiple people, or their siblings. All moral beings have to decide which of their unchosen, powerful feelings are morally legitimate to act upon.

Homosexual men and shortened life spans

Under the “myth” about the shortened life spans of homosexual men, Schlatter and Steinback made the following statement:

Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

Either because of Schlatter’s and Steinback’s poor research or lack of ethics, they failed to include the fact that exactly one week after making the error regarding the DSM, writer Kathy Valente posted a correction which is still on our website. It reads as follows:

In the article entitled “Hate Crimes Bill Moves to Senate” (5/5/09), we mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association’s actual definition of “sexual orientation” includes paraphilias. The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies “sexual orientation” as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called paraphilias specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error.

I hope and assume that Schlatter and Steinback will demonstrate the integrity and professionalism that Ms. Valente did by publishing a correction and apology.

In their argument that talking about the shorter life spans of homosexual men constitutes an act of hatred, Schlatter and Steinback focused on research by Paul Cameron, while completely ignoring research by the well-respected International Journal of Epidemiology that found the following:

[W]e demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871.

The authors of this article, upset that conservative groups disseminated this troubling fact, issued an update that said, “if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996.”

Though mortality rates have dropped due to improved treatment protocols, HIV infection rates for “men who have sex with men” (MSM) are soaring. According to the CDC, “While CDC estimates that MSM account for just 4 percent of the U.S. male population aged 13 and older, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM in the U.S. is more than 44 times that of other men.”

I wonder if Schlatter and Steinback are planning on publishing an addendum to their article in which they address HIV infection rates for homosexual men, or perhaps they’re going to include the CDC on their “hate groups” list.

Nazism

Schlatter claimed erroneously that I “compared homosexuality to Nazism,” which makes me wonder if she even bothered to read the articles in which I referred to Nazism. Here’s an excerpt from one:

Although genocide and homosexual acts are both sins, in man’s economy–and my own belief system–genocide is a far greater sin. And although I believe that all sin represents rebellion against God, I believe that homosexuality and genocide are by nature distinct….I never posited that homosexuals were the moral equivalents of Nazis. Rather, I compared the rationalizations church leaders offered for the silence of the church in the face of the evil of Nazism to the rationalizations church leaders offer for the silence of the church in the face of the evil of using public schools to promulgate destructive, erroneous views of homosexuality….The feckless or deceitful claim that I said homosexuals are equivalent to Nazis makes no more sense than claiming that someone who says the church should address both the sin of murder and the sin of gossip are saying that murderers and gossips are morally equivalent.

Sin in the closet

The SPLC believes it’s an act of hate to say that homosexuality should remain in the “in the closet.” Ms. Schlatter quoted an article in which I said, “There was something profoundly good for society about the prior stigmatization of homosexual practice…. [W]hen homosexuals were ‘in the closet,’ (along with fornicators, polyamorists, cross-dressers, and ‘transsexuals’), they weren’t acquiring and raising children.”

Many people believe that immoral behavior should be concealed from the public rather than paraded about or publicly celebrated. For example, many people–perhaps most–do not want polyamorists’ or cross-dressers’ behavior to be public where children can see it. Does the SPLC view those who don’t want their children to see manifestations of polyamory or cross-dressing as haters?

And many people believe that children have a fundamental right to be raised by the biological parents who procreated them. Many people, including Roman Catholics, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and Protestants as well as people who follow no faith tradition, believe it is immoral for homosexuals to adopt or use in vitro fertilization and surrogacy to acquire children. Do they all deserve to be labeled “haters”?

My belief that it would be better for society if homosexuality were not publicly affirmed, normalized, or celebrated no more constitutes hatred of homosexuals than does other people’s belief that polyamory should not be publicly affirmed, celebrated, or normalized constitute hatred of polyamorists.

Ex-gays

The SPLC states that saying people can choose not to act on same-sex attraction or that they can leave a homosexual lifestyle constitutes hatred of homosexuals. Following that logic, what does it mean when someone says people can leave a polyamorous lifestyle or that they can choose not to act on their powerful attractions to multiple people? And what does it say to the hundreds of men and women who have abandoned their homosexual lives that the SPLC says discussing such a path is an act of hatred?

Conclusion

No longer is hate defined as, well, hatred. Anyone who finds the SPLC’s analogies faulty; their research selective; their concealing of inconvenient facts troubling; or their unproven, non-factual moral beliefs wrong, is now guilty of hatred.

The SPLC holds the unproven, non-factual belief that homosexuality is moral and arrogantly demands that all of society agree, or be silent, or be labeled a “hate group.” That strikes me as a strange manifestation of tolerance or respect for speech rights and diversity. Ironically, the SPLC has become the oppressor.

The SPLC hopes that their smear campaign will silence conservatives so that only the SPLC’s moral views will be heard in the public square. No one should allow the unprincipled bullying tactics and specious reasoning of the SPLC to intimidate them into silence. The SPLC’s ontological and moral beliefs about homosexuality are not facts, and dissent from the ethically impoverished SPLC’s beliefs does not constitute hatred.

Please take time to read this comprehensive indictment of the SPLC from the Social Contract Journal, which dedicated its spring 2010 issue to exposing the SPLC.

And if that’s not enough, click HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

The late British neo-Nazi skinhead Nicky Crane was just one of many fascists in Europe who lead a secret double life as a practicing homosexual. Click to enlarge.

By Peter LaBarbera

Warning: offensive language

To nobody’s surprise, homosexual activist Evan Hurst of ‘Truth’ Wins Out supported fellow “gay” blogger Joe Jervis’ sophomoric hit-piece against AFTAH – which draws a crude link between this writer and the KKK.

Jervis was just “stating fact,” protests Hurst, in writing that since the Klan opposed discrimination against a Christian student at Augusta State, and AFTAH also opposes this injustice, then the KKK and I are ”on the same side.” (Juvenile, I know….). [Click HERE to read AFTAH's story on Jennifer Keeton, a victim of homosexualist anti-Christian discrimination.]

OK, Evan, here’s another fact: Jervis, Lambda Legal, you and practically the entire “gay” activist movement are on the same side as NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, with regard to the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on homosexual scoutmasters. (NAMBLA opposes the ban — for obvious reasons.) To paraphrase Hurst:

Eh, again, Evan, all I said was that you, Joe Jervis and NAMBLA (which advocates legalizing man-boy sex) are on the same hateful and child-endangering side.  This is true.

Perhaps this would be a good time for you and Joe, writers for two homosexual hate websites, to reflect on why you find yourselves in such strong agreement with the most notorious pedophile group in American history.

Obviously, such argumentation says nothing about Jervis’ and Hurst’s real attitudes toward NAMBLA (I’m assuming they both oppose the vile outfit), so pointing out that Evan, Joe and NAMBLA are on the same side on the Boy Scouts would be a cheap shot. But since these two homosexual writers attempted to make a connection between AFTAH and odious racists, perhaps they can help us understand why so many homosexuals actually have found their home in the fascist movement. British homosexual writer Johann Hari’s 2008 piece, “The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay Fascists” in the liberal Huffington Post is quite an eye-opener in that regard.

As Hari writes (emphasis added):

This is a taboo topic for a gay left-wing man like me to touch, but there has always been a weird, disproportionate overlap between homosexuality and fascism….

[T]he idea of a gay fascist seems ridiculous. Yet when the British National Party – our own home-grown Holocaust-denying bigots – announced it was fielding an openly gay candidate in the European elections this June, dedicated followers of fascism didn’t blink. The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was — including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay. It’s time to admit something. Fascism isn’t something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is — in part, at least — a gay thing, and it’s time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music.

Just look at our own continent over the past decade. Dutch fascist Pim Fortuyn ran on blatantly racist anti-immigrant platform, describing Islam as “a cancer” and “the biggest threat to Western civilisation today.” Yet with two little fluffy dogs and a Mamma complex, he was openly, flamboyantly gay. When accused by a political opponent of hating Arabs, he replied, “How can I hate Arabs? I sucked one off last night.” …

Flagrant homosexual Ernst Rohm discovered Adolf Hitler.

Hari doesn’t ask but we must: what kind of politician engages in such vulgar and perverse speech? Answer: a sexually deviant one contemptuous of societal norms; yet Fortuyn, who was assassinated in 2002, considered himself a Catholic.

Hari cannot avoid the case of the notorious homosexual Nazi Ernst Rohm, a flagrant homosexual and head of the Nazi storm-troopers who actually “discovered” Hitler (years later, after gaining power, Hitler would have Rohm assassinated). I doubt many American schoolchildren will learn this in their World War II lessons (emphasis and link added):

Along with Adolf Hitler, Rohm was the founding father of Nazism. Born to conservative Bavarian civil servants in 1887, Ernst Rohm’s life began – in his view – in the “heroic” trenches of the First World War. Like so many of the generation who formed the Nazi Party, he was nurtured by and obsessed with the homoerotic myth of the trenches – heroic, beautiful boys prepared to die for their brothers and their country….

It was Rohm who first spotted the potential of a soap-box ranter called Adolf Hitler. He saw him as the demagogue he needed to mobilize support for his plan to overthrow democracy and establish a “soldier’s state” where the army ruled untrammelled. He introduced the young fascist to local politicians and military leaders; they knew him for many years as “Rohm’s boy.” Gay historian Frank Rector notes, “Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Rohm’s protégé.” Rohm integrated Hitler into his underground movement to overthrow the Weimar Republic.

Rohm’s blatant, out homosexuality seems bizarre now, given the gay genocide that was to follow. He talked openly about his fondness for gay bars and Turkish baths, and was known for his virility. He believed that gay people were superior to straights, and saw homosexuality as a key principle of his proposed Brave New Fascist Order. As historian Louis Snyder explains, Rohm “projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high repute… He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do the same. He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in the SA [Sturmabteilung (Nazi Stormtroopers)]“ They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of homosexuality, condemning “hysterical women of both sexes,” in reference to feminine gay men.

This belief in the superiority of homosexuality had a strong German tradition that grew up at the turn of the twentieth century around Adolf Brand, publisher of the country’s first gay magazine. You could call it ‘Queer as Volk’: they preached that gay men were the foundation of all nation-states and represented an elite, warrior caste that should rule. They venerated the ancient warrior cults of Sparta, Thebes and Athens.

Rohm often referred to the ancient Greek tradition of sending gay solider couples into battle, because they were believed to be the most ferocious fighters. The famous pass of Thermopylae, for example was held by 300 soldiers – who consisted of 150 gay couples. In its early years, the SA - Hitler and Rohm’s underground army – was seen as predominantly gay. Rohm assigned prominent posts to his lovers, making Edmund Heines his deputy and Karl Ernst the SA commander in Berlin. The organisation would sometimes meet in gay bars. The gay art historian Christian Isermayer said in an interview, “I got to know people in the SA. They used to throw riotous parties even in 1933… I once attended one. It was quite well-behaved but thoroughly gay. But then, in those days, the SA was ultra-gay.”

Gay Nazis Missing from ‘Gay History Month’?

This is not new information. Long before Christian pro-family advocate Scott Lively wrote about it in his book The Pink Swastika, the late historian and former war correspondent William Shirer, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, documented that “sexual perverts” flocked to the National Socialist Party. Hitler himself was potentially a sexual deviant (see Shirer, p. 132, and Lothar Machten’s book Hidden Hitler) – but you won’t see der Führer (or Ernst Rohm) listed in the annual Gay History Month listings of famous homosexuals. Nevertheless, the same outfit that publishes this dubious homosexual list lays claim to others like Cary Grant and George Washington Carver (a committed Christian) — asserting rumor as fact without offering definitive proof that they were practicing homosexuals.

(Grant was married five times and denied the homosexual rumors, which rehash the standard “gay” conflation of male friendship with homoeroticism; former wife Dyan Cannon condemns the gay rumors HERE, saying, “I can tell you there isn’t an iota of truth to those ugly rumors…They would never have written that drivel when Cary was alive. He’d have sued the pants off those cowards…Cary can’t defend himself from the grave but I will go to mine insisting he was every ounce a straight man.” Moral of the story: don’t trust pro-homosexual historians with an agenda.)

One thing I’ve noticed about British homosexual activists: they are more willing to write honestly about homosexuality, including its downsides, than their American counterparts. Hari even alludes to the fascist roots of the pseudo-masculine, homosexual sadomasochistic (“leather”) subculture (the same subculture that rears its hideous head in major cities across the country):

So it’s fairly easy to establish that gay people are not inoculated from fascism. They have often been at its heart. This begs the bigger question: why? How did gay people — so often victims of oppression and hate — become integral to the most hateful and evil political movement of all? …

Gay pornographer and film-maker Bruce LaBruce has one explanation. He claims that “all gay porn today is implicitly fascist. Fascism is in our bones, because it’s all about glorifying white male supremacy and fetishizing domination, cruelty, power and monstrous authority figures.”

Hari takes an obligatory shot at Lively as a “homophobe” — but Lively merely has sought to educate Americans on this same Nazi-homosexuality factor that remains buried in Politically Correct history. It also should be noted that there are plenty of attempts to blame the Nazi-homosexual link — and some male homosexuals’ distorted and exaggerated attempts to act “masculine” — on their repressed, “internalized homophobia.” The implicit, and sometimes explicit, message: like every other “gay” problem, it’s OUR fault.

Extremism and ‘gay’ politics go hand-in-hand

Homosexual radicals’ deranged attempts to link pro-family conservatives to racist fringe groups are part of their larger goal of demonizing and marginalizing “homophobic” Christians and social conservatives. This begs the question: where does extremism find its natural home? In America, sexual extremism and its accompanying intolerance of moral dissent is found mainly on the Left — not the Right — especially in urban, homosexual bastions like San Francisco, and on college campuses, where “hate speech codes” proliferate.

(Moreover, on the racial front, African-American pro-family Christians like Pastor Ken Hutcherson have been the target of racist epithets by (white) homosexual activists — and there has been much discussion of racism within the LGBT movement and efforts to eradicate it. Of course, racism also exists in all other sectors of U.S. society.)

There is something profoundly “queer” about a social movement rooted in an ancient vice attempting to paint defenders of Judeo-Christian civilization and normalcy – marriage, the natural family, and religion — as extreme and hateful. Or even worse, as causing violence against homosexuals, and “gay” suicides. Yet this is the modus operandi of homosexual activists and powerful “gay” lobby groups — who have gone so far as to equate pro-family Christian organizations with the Klan, slavery advocates and the Taliban. The LGBT lobby’s ambitious smear campaign painting Christians and historic Bible passages proscribing same-sex behavior as extreme comes at a cost: it exposes homosexualists’ out-of-the-closet hatred for religious expression.

Meanwhile, there is the factor of the “gay” movement’s tolerance and promotion of an ever-expanding array of perversions and a “sexual freedom” agenda that borders on sexual anarchy. (The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom — an ally of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — “aims to advance the rights of, and advocate for consenting adults in the BDSM-Leather-Fetish, Swing, and Polyamory Communities.”) If the media were even close to being impartial on this issue, Americans would have a much clearer picture of the radicalism of homosexual and transsexual activists working to use laws to legitimize their lifestyles and oppress religious critics.

Tolerating homosexual pedophilia advocacy?

Perhaps most observers will agree that it doesn’t get more extreme than pedophile advocacy — yet even ideologues in favor of adult-child sex find a voice on the “gay”-affirming Left. Witness the book review in the Marxist publication Monthly Review by David Thorstad, founding member of NAMBLA and former president of the Gay Activist Alliance in New York. In his review of Sexual and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation, by Sherry Wolf, Thorstad complains that Wolf is too tough on adult-child sex:

But by inserting “seduction” into her novel definition of pederasty (a sexual relationship between a man and an adolescent youth), [Wolf] repeats the foolish notion that a boy under the magical age of consent (whatever it happens to be) is by definition incapable of consenting to sex with a man.

How instructive that despite the best efforts of LGBT activists to shed their past tolerance for pedophilia (NAMBLA used to march in “gay pride” parades), pro-pederasty and truly extreme sexual activists and professors — like radical pro-abortion zealots — continue to have intellectual sway with the Left. The same cannot be said of the KKK and neo-Nazis (or sexual perversion activists) vis-a-vis religious conservatives.

Radical Gay ‘Founding Fathers’

Then there are those extremist ”gay” ”founding fathers,” among them:

• Harry Hay, one-time Communist and then “Radical Faerie,” who defended NAMBLA until his dying day (see Thorstad: “Harry Hay on Man/Boy Love”);
• Frank Kameny, a professed atheist who nevertheless claims “gay is godly,” evidently spoke at a NAMBLA meeting (but can’t remember what he said), rails against “Christianofascists” and opines that bestiality is OK “as long as the animal doesn’t mind”; and
• Larry Kramer, founder of the militant protest group ACT UP, who labeled the U.S. Government’s response to AIDS a “Holocaust,” called Ronald Reagan “a monster” who “was responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler,” and says he has the proof that Abraham Lincoln was a “totally gay man.”

Reading “gay” iconic history is like reading a (pre-Political Correctness) psychological textbook on the outworking of dysfunction — mixed with a peculiar form of hatred derived from rebelling against God and the Church. Throw in a nearly pathological quest to justify the unjustifiable (embracing deviance and sin as the basis for one’s identity) and what emerges is a powerful personal motive to both hate religious opponents of homosexuality and (for those who do not reject the Creator altogether) to posit that God created and accepts homosexuals as “gays.”

(The resentment toward God and religion theme is pervasive in homosexual writings: see Page 2 of Peter Sprigg’s Family Research Council paper on homosexual activist and Obama Education Department appointee Kevin Jennings, who is “viciously hostile to religion,” writes Sprigg. He quotes Jennings, writing in his autobiography Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, recollecting his thoughts as a younger man: “God . . . had done nothing but cause me pain and anguish through His inaction and malevolence throughout my childhood… What had he done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt?” Jennings told God: “Screw you, buddy.”)

Pity the poor schoolchildren who one day could be forced to study sanitized versions of these men’s lives during school-sanctioned ”Gay History Month,” if current trends continue. (Note regarding American icons who practiced or struggled with homosexuality: there is a big difference between recognizing them for their accomplishments and contributions to American culture — and politicizing their contribution by making it part of an official celebration of homosexuality. We can appreciate Martina Navratilova’s skill on the tennis court without celebrating her lesbian lifestyle choice.)

Deviance begets deviance

The Sexual Left continues to push the envelope in the name of aberrant “rights” and “sexual freedom” — demonstrating precisely where “gay” tolerance leads. Just last week the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sponsored a “Poly Pride” conference in New York City. (“Polyamory” is defined by Urban Dictionary as: “The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.”) A “Queer Sexual Liberation” workshop at the conference was set to “explore many aspects of sexual liberation including: BDSM [bondage & discisplne, dominance & submission, sadism & masochism], Leather, Polyamory, Non-monogomy, sex work [prostitution], and more.”

The Task Force, founded in 1973, is hardly a “fringe” homosexual group but the “oldest national LGBT rights organization in the United States,” according to Wikipedia. It is involved in politics and legislative lobbying across the country. The same dominant media that monitored the Christian Coalition has little interest in the actual record of LGBT groups like the Task Force.

"Fisting Parties" were part of recent "Leather Week" celebrations in San Franciso. Extreme and dangerous practices are not just tolerated under the LGBT umbrella, they are celebrated. Deviance finds its home in Left-dominated urban enclaves.

Deviance begets deviance. Just as the sadistic Nazi Party was a magnet for sexual perverts – wherever government-protected homosexuality flourishes, political and culural radicalism follows. That includes: forcing businesses to subsidize homosexual unions; radicalizing schools to promote “gay” ideology and gender confusion; making ever-increasingly extreme political demands such as taxpayer- and corporate-funded transsexual “sex change” operations; “tolerance” of public nudity (San Francisco) and ”multi-partner unions”; allowing anonymous sex clubs and gay bathhouses catering to the hyper-promiscuous; and government promotion of homosexuality as normal to youth. And let’s not forget the growth of official anti-Christian intolerance — criminalizing Christianity as applied to the issue of homosexuality. Each finds its place under the LGBT umbrella, because revolutionaries bent on destroying and redefining social norms hard a hard time saying no to the latest “progressive” social experiment.

Perhaps the extremism that comes naturally to homosexual militants explains their presence on both the hard, Marxist left and fascist right of the political spectrum. Where they come together is in their abiding contempt for biblical morality and America’s God-fearing, Judeo-Christian heritage — which laid the foundation for our liberties.

To be sure, liberterians of all stripes, sexualities and ideologies often cheer on the ”gays” in supporting a live-and-let-live attitude toward sex, and marriage- and family structures. Libertarians abhor the use of government and laws to uphold “traditional moral values.” However, it is strident pro-homosexual organizations and activists — not libertarians — who are in the vanguard of mobilizing toward a new secular ideology that grants superior legal rights, as it were, to homosexuals. The homosexual legal agenda criminalizes the expression of biblical morality – e.g., a Christian professional photographer’s right not to take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony – as merely another form of “anti-gay discrimination” that must be eradicated. Few in the secular media have seriously examined this very real, zero-sum conflict between homosexual activism and religious freedom — and the trampling of Christians’ freedom of conscience and Americans’ civil rights in the name of ‘Gay Tolerance.’

Homo-fascism through the law?

Could the American State become a national, homo-fascist agent? America is not Europe. Due to our much larger population of committed Christians and religious people — and our stronger, First Amendment commitment to individual religious freedom — it is hard to see America going down the road of Canada or Great Britain. These are emerging pro-homosexual, quasi-”police states” where Christians can be arrested (Britain) or sued in rigged state ”human rights tribunals” (Canada) merely for speaking against homosexuality.

Nevertheless, factoring in today’s secular environment and the escalating and extraordinary attacks by U.S. “gay” militants against churches, historic biblical morality and people of faith – including the vilification of Christians [see comments on Jervis' über-hate site HERE] — and it becomes clearer each day that fanatical homosexual militants are serious about creating a government tyranny that enforces their egalitarian agenda of treating homosexuality like normalcy in all spheres of life.  (Legalized homosexual “marriage” accomplishes much of this agenda: e.g., in a “gay marriage” state like Massachusetts, privately-owned businesses and institutions are not allowed to treat homosexual “marrieds” any differently than normal marrieds. This forced Catholic Charities out of the adoption business because church officials could not countenance placing children in homosexual-led households.)

Much as they talk a good game about “respecting” religion, homosexual activists are working towards a government and legal paradigm that crushes religious and moral dissent – all in the name of tolerance, equality, and anti-discrimination. (All oppressive agendas use soft, innocuous-sounding euphemisms.) Their task will become much easier if acceptance of homosexuality becomes widespread in society — even among self-professed biblical Christians — leaving a smaller number of principled, counter-cultural ”holdouts” to target for persecution.

Where will pursuit of this homosexual activist vision lead? Will the courts codify a “soft tyranny” (isn’t that an oxymoron?) in which rights based on homosexuality (“sexual orientation”) — with some religious exemptions – negate Americans’ freedom to live out their faith in their everday lives? Who can know? But we do know that few Germans in the 20′s and 30′s could have envisioned the oppression and evil that was to come only a few years later. We must remain true to the Bible — and vigilant to preserve our genuine God-given freedoms at all costs.

For more on the European homosexual-fascism link, go to Hari’s piece, “The Strange Story of the Gay Fascists.”

Ryan Sorba addressing AFTAH Truth Academy in early August. Sorba is taking a lead in refuting the commonly held notion that people are "born gay." Click on photo to enlarge.

Americans For Truth President Peter LaBarbera interviews young conservative activist Ryan Sorba for this AFTAH Hour program that aired August 21, 2010 [Click HERE to play]. Sorba was an instructor at the AFTAH Truth Academy August 5-7. In this, Part One, interview, he discusses the “born gay hoax” (the title of his unpublished book about the myth of genetic homosexuality) — and how pro-homosexual researchers like Dean Hamer have tried to prove inborn homosexuality have never been able to replicate their research.

LaBarbera relates a bizarre incident about Hamer — who divorced his wife to become a practicing homosexual, and then released his media-celebrated “gay gene” study just in time to affect the Clinton-era ”gays in the military” debate. As LaBarbera tells it, Hamer spoke at a Maryland PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) meeting, which LaBarbera attended (as a critic and reporter for The Lambda Report, the forerunner to Americans For Truth). After the speech, and with a few parents still present, LaBarbera went up to introduce himself to Hamer — who, learning who he was, immediately flew into a screaming rage in which he ridiculously accused LaBarbera of crusading to stalk and “kill” homosexuals.

Dean Hamer

The very weird spectacle revealed Hamer’s unprofessionalism and a fanatical commitment to radical “gay” politics that certainly called into question his objectivity as a researcher. (No major media, in reporting Hamer’s genetic study, had reported that he was homosexual, much less an unstable ”gay” activist.) Ultimately, Hamer’s “genetic homosexuality” study — which received millions of dollars’ worth of free media publicity and greatly influenced the idea of inborn homosexuality in the public’s mind – could not be replicated. Hamer and his homosexual lover are now activist documentary filmmakers.

Sorba discusses how today’s young people are susceptible to the ubiquitous pro-homosexuality propaganda that now soaks the culture, and how ignorant they are about information that contradicts homosexual activist myths. He expands on natural moral law approaches that undergird biblical morality, and urges a return toward thinking and talking about homosexuality in terms of unnatural behavior rather than LGBT identity.

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.

8-21-10, Ryan Sorba, All

The Gay Liberation Network's Bob Schwartz celebrated U. of Illinois' firing of Catholic professor Kenneth Howell (above) -- strange behavior for a group that crusades against "discrimination."

The homosexual hate group Gay Liberation Network (GLN) — whose co-leader Bob Schwartz celebrated the University of Illinois’ recent firing of Catholic professor Kenneth Howell — has announced that it will protest the AFTAH Truth Academy, which will be held Aug. 5-7 at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

GLN is a Marxist-oriented street protest group that attempts to equate Judeo-Christian opposition to homosexuality with “hate” — and which uses its protests to intimidate businesses from hosting pro-family events. For its extreme anti–Christian bigotry and hateful rhetoric — including vicious ad hominem attacks against pro-family critics (e.g., calling AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera “Satan’s Lover”)  – we label GLN a homosexual hate organization.

GLN, formerly the Chicago Anti-Bashing Network, once smeared the historic Moody Church in Chicago as a “House of Hate” because Moody’s revered pastor, Erwin Lutzer, wrote a book critical of “same-sex marriage.” GLN has repeatedly pilloried Chicago’s Catholic leaker Cardinal Francis George with similar accusations because George defends Catholic teachings on sex and marriage.

Beyond that, Schwartz once told LaBarbera — who was protesting a “gay youth” rally in downtown Chicago as then-executive director of Illinois Family Institute – that if it weren’t for the police standing nearby, he would push him into the busy street. (Schwartz has never denied making this comment after it was reported by IFI.) LaBarbera maintains that had such a veiled violent threat been made against a homosexual by a conservative or Christian, it could have been the basis for a criminal charge under Chicago’s ”hate crime” law.

Thus it is a great irony that the nasty GLN played a proud role in lobbying the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center to label AFTAH a “hate site.”

Here is an excerpt of GLN’s ludicrous attempt to distort the Truth Academny’s true purpose:

Youth should not be taught to hate their peers and thus fuel the cycle of self-loathing, depression and suicide which too many LGBTQ youth experience. Bigotry must be vocally and publicly opposed, especially when haters try to recruit young people.

Gay Liberation Network activists specialize in name-calling. Ironically, the Marxist-oriented, Christian-bashing hate group played a role in lobbying the Southern Poverty Law Center to label AFTAH a "hate" website.

Defending historic Judeo-Christian moral truths and the natural family is not “hate.” Teaching young people to revere biblical teachings and God’s natural design for the family — and how to answer GLBT misinformation in the public sphere – is not “bigotry.” However, GLN’s vicious name-calling and ugly condemnations of traditionalists as “haters” — and its regular lies about religious leaders who oppose homosexual practice – is a form of secular, anti-Christian bigotry. This neo-intolerance must be resisted at every turn by the avid participation of pro-family Americans at events like the Truth Academy.

Homosexual icon Frank Kameny coined the slogan "Gay Is Good." Now he says bestiality -- sex with animals -- is OK ("as long as the animal doesn't mind"). Kameny, who says the God of the Bible is a "sinful , homophobic bigot" who needs to repent, has denounced AFTAH's "Truth Academy," to be held outside Chicago Aug. 5-7, 2010.

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Our upcoming Truth Academy to teach young people how to counter “gay” activist misinformation is not proving to be very popular with GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) activists. In a letter to AFTAH, Frank Kameny, the world’s oldest and most respected (by GLBTs) homosexual activist, has denounced the Truth Academy, which will be held August 5-7 at AFTAH’s office in Carol Stream, Illinois [click HERE for more info].

Kameny is the fellow who can’t recall if he spoke at a 1981 meeting held by NAMBLA (the notorious North American Man/Boy Love Association; NAMBLA reported that he had attended). Kameny also wrote AFTAH to assert that bestiality is OK “as long as the animal doesn’t mind (and the animal rarely does).”

If Kameny is correct that we non-homosexuals have to learn only from homosexuals themselves when it comes to this culture-war issue, then I would ask him: please, teach us about the ethics of declaring the God of the Bible a “sinful, homophobic bigot” and committed Christians “Christianofascists”; or addressing a group that advocates sex between men and young boys (we might understand if you came to scold NAMBLA, but apparently you did not); and teach us about the ethics of bestiality. With regard to the latter, how exactly can a human being be sure that an animal is consenting to be his or her “sex partner”? Also, teach us why we should accept your (a)moral view that “Gay is good” and “Gay is Godly” (he wrote the latter as an admitted atheist) when that flies in the face of historic, Judeo-Christian teachings on sex and marriage.

It is a sobering thought that given his celebrated status as an icon of the proud homosexualist movement, Frank Kameny could one day be lifted up to students as an American hero and role model whose life should be studied — especially if an annual “Gay History Month” becomes a reality in schools (a perverse copy of Black History Month). As with another “gay” activist, Harvey Milk, students will learn only glamorized lessons about these LBGT icons and nothing that would undermine the homosexual activist movement.

Lastly, there was a time not too long ago when most Americans would be dumbfounded at the idea of the President of the United States proclaiming June Homosexual (“Gay”) “Pride Month.” And yet now it is expected, at least of Democratic presidents. Perhaps some day in the future — when more men and women throw off the shackles of “speciesism” and come to accept Frank Kameny’s tolerant defense of sex with animals — an American president like Obama might proclaim and celebrate “Bestiality Pride Month” (or maybe “Leather Pride Month,” or “Sexual Freedom Month,” incorporating the unrestricted sexual “liberation” symbolized by these slogans).

Cautionary warning to pro-homosexuality activists: don’t try arguing that this will never happen because these behaviors are unnatural or  “immoral.” Homosexual militants using the euphemistic “gay” label led the way in destroying commonly accepted notions of normality — and any idea of a transcendent, absolute (divine) moral code that should guide people’s sexual conduct and inform American law. They least of anybody should attempt to lecture others about what is moral and what is not.  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________________________

The following e-mail was sent to Americans For Truth via our website:

—–Original Message—–
From: [------] (Franklin E Kameny)
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:24:59
To: Americans For Truth americansfortruth@gmail.com;
Cc: <[Frank Kameny]>
Subject: Re: AFTAH Academy: Training Youth How to Answer “Gay” Misinformation

You do not have any “experts” on homosexuality.

We gays, and we gays ALONE, are THE authorities and experts — the SOLE
experts and authorities— on ourselves as gay people, and on our
homosexuality.  You non-gays have nothing of use, value, or worth to
offer on these subjects.

So if you are wise (and clearly you are not), on these subjects you will
close your mouths, open your ears, switch on such brains as you may
have, and listen to us and learn.

Franklin E. Kameny, Ph.D.

[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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________________________

MassResistance writes:

VICTORY: Draconian language removed from bill in Mass. Senate

Posted by MassResistance, March 14, 2010

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

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

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

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

The section near the end of S2283 bill read:

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

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

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

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

The new version, S2313 with amendments, is HERE.

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

Interest across the country regarding freedom of speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual groups (and ADL) angry at outcome!

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

Here’s what the Bay Windows article said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frank Kameny (center) holding one of his original "gay" protest signs, as he was being honored by Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in 2007. President Obama has hailed Kameny as a "civil rights pioneer" and thanked the homosexual activist for his "leadership."

Folks, there is no shortage of sinful pride and presumption among “gay” activists and their allies, that’s for sure.  How appropriate is this coming from the hero of a movement that redefines changeable sexual sin as a “civil right”? — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

P.S.  If you wish to write Frank Kameny, send your letter to me at americansfortruth@comcast.net, and I will pass it on to him.  May the living, holy, omnipotent, omniscient — and merciful — God bless you in 2010!

________________________

Frank Kameny, a “pioneering” homosexual activist celebrated by fellow homosexuals the world over — and honored by President Obama and his administration — says the God of the Bible is a “sinful homophobic bigot” who needs to “repent of his sinful homophobia.”

The octogenarian Kameny (born in 1925) made the assertions about the Judeo-Christian God in a letter to Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, October 13, 2009:

“Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot.  He should repent of his sinful homophobia.  He should atone for that sin,  And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4000 years.” wrote Kameny to LaBarbera. “It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful.   It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful.  And so your god is a sinner….”

An astronomer who was fired from his federal government job in 1957 due to his homosexuality, Kameny led the first public homosexual protest in America (over his firing), in 1965. Kameny, who gained notoriety with his aggressive, counter-cultural slogan “Gay is Good,” was a leader of the organized homosexual activist campaign to pressure the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders (which succeeded when the APA capitulated in 1973). He says that he is an atheist but curiously also claims that “Gay is Godly”; he now adds “for those who so believe” to the latter slogan after being questioned as to how someone who rejects God could make definitive statements about Him.

On June 17, 2009, Kameny received the official White House pen from President Obama in a White House signing ceremony enacting Obama’s executive order providing domestic partner benefits for certain federal employees. The ceremony was intended to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots in New York City that homosexual and transgender activists claim were the catalyst for the modern “gay rights” movement.

Later, at a June 29 White House speech honoring “gay pride month,” President Obama praised Kameny with the following words:

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

Kameny was also honored by John Berry, Obama’s openly homosexual Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in a special ceremony June 24, 2009 sponsored by the OPM “gay” employees organization. There, Kameny received the Theodore Roosevelt Award, the OPM’s highest honor, “For More Than a Half-Century of Leadership in the Struggle for Civil Rights.” Berry also issued a formal U.S. government apology to Kameny for his firing over 50 years ago.

Responding to Kameny’s letter asserting that God needs to repent, AFTAH’s LaBarbera said:

“Of course Frank Kameny’s outrageous statements about God are completely backwards: it is Frank who is the stubborn sinner who needs to repent. Thankfully, it is never too late for sinners to turn away from their sins and humbly accept God’s forgiveness through Jesus Christ. However, in one sense at least Kameny is forthright about how his homosexuality-celebrating ideology stands diametrically opposed to God’s plan for mankind, as revealed in the Bible. Unfortunately for Frank, he has no authority to judge sin and morality; that is the province of Almighty God alone.”

The following e-mail letter was sent by Kameny to Americans For Truth on October 13, 2009. Various typos in the original letter have been corrected:

Peter [LaBarbera]

You have the whole issue of sin, vis a vis homosexuality, “on the wrong foot”.  It is your homophobic God of Leviticus (and of the Bible as a whole)  himself (herself? itself? themselves?) who is the sinner because of that homophobia.

Bigotry is sinful, whether it be racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia.

Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot.  He should repent of his sinful homophobia.  He should atone for that sin,  And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4,000 years.

It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful.   It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful.  And so your god is a sinner, on this account (I deal with no other issue here)..

Your claim that advancement of the gay agenda would deprive you people of your religious and other rights is flatly untrue.  If you disapprove of homosexuality, you will remain free to abstain from involvement with it.  That is the proper limit of your freedoms.  You do not have a valid right to impose your disapproval upon those of us who disagree with you, as you people endlessly seek to do.  Those whose beliefs in a round earth prevail do not in the least deprive the Flat Earthers of their rights to believe and speak as they wish.  So with gay rights and you homophobes.  You can continue freely to make intellectual and rational fools of yourselves, just as the Flat Earthers continue to do. — and, in your case, un-American and anti-American ones as well.

Gay is Good, Godly (for those who so believe), and American.  You homophobes are not.

Franklin E. Kameny
Washington, DC

More AFTAH stories on Kameny:

• ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Says Bestiality OK ‘as Long as the Animal Doesn’t Mind’;
• ‘Gay Rights’ Icon Frank Kameny Spoke at NAMBLA Meeting in 1981;
• Your Tax Money at Work: Preserving Homosexual Activist Frank Kameny’s Papers;
• Frank Kameny Responds to AFTAH Report that He Spoke at NAMBLA Event in 1981;
• Will PETA Respond to Frank Kameny’s Endorsement of Sex with Animals?;
• ‘Gay’ Hero Frank Kameny Calls Believers “Christianofascists”; Library of Congress Honors “Gay Is Godly” Atheist;
• WATCH IT: Video and Transcript of Obama’s White House Speech Celebrating ‘Gay Pride’ Month: (President Obama heralds Kameny as a “civil rights pioneer” and thanks him for his leadership; see full quote above)

WARNING: OFFENSIVE DESCRIPTIONS

In the GLSEN-recommended book "Queer 13," a 13-year-old boy graphically describes sexual "tricking" (prostitution) with adult men.

Folks, as one who has worked for more than 15 years with other pro-family groups to expose the insidious and child-corrupting agenda of Kevin Jennings and GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), I’m overjoyed that conservatives and right-leaning media are finally helping to expose this organization’s truly radical and evil agenda to millions of outraged Americans.

Here’s one point of clarification, though, for the record: my good friend Linda Harvey of Mission America, a Christian pro-family organization, broke the story about GLSEN’s twisted “Reading Recommendations” way back in 2002, yet few people are citing her work today even as they borrow heavily from it. I stood with Linda as a speaker at a Concerned Women for America conference that year when she began her speech, “I’m here to tell you what I did on my summer vacation.” We chuckled as she began holding up book after GLSEN-recommended book that she had read, while describing–as delicately as possible before a Christian audience–their perverse contents.

Linda Harvey (www.missionamerica.com) spent a whole summer reading perverse books on GLSEN's Recommended Reading list in 2002.

If only the media and mainline conservatives had paid attention and helped expose GLSEN’s dangerous agenda and reading list back when Linda did seven years ago! Turns out the much-maligned “Religious Right” was right after all about the LGBT movement’s sinister agenda to push perversion on children in the name of tolerance. Religious-Right-bashing “conservatives”: take note.

One more point: it is now common for conservatives — especially non-religiously-affiliated media leaders like Sean Hannity (who should be applauded for his yeoman’s work exposing Jennings) — to make the odd disclaimer that the GLSEN/Jennings controversy (or whatever “gay”-related culture-war story they are discussing) “is not about homosexuality.” Baloney. This is all about homosexuality and the “gay” activist agenda whose singular goal is to normalize homosexuality as a “civil right.”

Jennings’ role in the wider GLBT movement is to promote homosexuality and gender confusion (transgenderism: cross-dressing, etc.) to impressionable youth through the schools (public and private). It is absurd and intellectually dishonest to claim that this highly organized and well-funded campaign is somehow not about … homosexuality! (Which is not to deny that some or even many homosexuals agree with us that Jennings’ “gay-youth” agenda is reckless.)

Only a Homosexual Movement unified by a morality- and normality-rejecting ideology that aims to mainstream sinful, deviant, and once-taboo behaviors could produce such perverse ‘Recommended Readings’ for students as GLSEN — complete with fictional, “non-judgmental” accounts of man-boy sex. Only a movement that defiantly calls itself “queer” could produce “Fistgate” — a GLSEN-sponsored youth conference at Tufts University in 2000, at which underage children were verbally guided by homosexual adults on how to engage in the vile, sadomasochistic act of ‘fisting’ — hand-anal penetration (yes, truth is stranger than fiction).

The politically correct “not-about-gays” caveat is about as illogical as claiming that the effort to expose systematic human rights abuses in China and North Korea “has nothing to with Communism.” Anyone who calls himself “conservative” should know better. Besides, true conservatives should not be ashamed of enthusiastically conserving the age-old Judeo-Christian sexual/marriage ethic — which has served mankind well and which rejects all efforts to approve of unnatural and destructive sexual behaviors condemned by God. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

[See Wikipedia entry on "buggery" HERE.]

____________________________

Links were added to the following Washington Times editorial:

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Buggery Czar

Jennings’ group made sex between children and adults look normal

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Dec. 8, 2009

The media is trying to keep this story in the closet, but it’s important not to wink at all the serious problems surrounding President Obama’s controversial “safe schools czar,” Kevin Jennings.

Mr. Jennings is the moral malefactor who gave a speech about how he merely advised a 15-year-old high-school sophomore who was having sex with an older man that, “I hope you knew to use a condom.” He knew the boy had met the adult in a bus-station restroom. Mr. Jennings also expressed admiration for Harry Hay, a notorious and extremely prominent supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association. “One of the people that’s always inspired me is Harry Hay,” he said. Despite numerous requests to the Obama administration and Mr. Jennings, we have not received any answers to inquiries about these troubling issues.

Now revelations have surfaced that Mr. Jennings not only thought there was nothing wrong with boys having sex with older men (or girls having sex with older women), but he also played a role in promoting such relationships.

In 1990, Mr. Jennings founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network, which later became the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). He was the group’s first full-time staffer and executive director, a position he held until August 2008. One of GLSEN’s tasks was to put together lists of suggested readings for K-through-12 students and their teachers. The reading lists categorize books by the ages for which they purportedly are appropriate. The organization Web site reassures us, “All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.”

Some of these shocking readings clearly promote homosexuality and promiscuity. Consider what GLSEN put forward as appropriate for children 13 years or older. Eleven of the recommended books were examined by Scott Baker from Breitbart.tv and re-examined by The Washington Times. Numerous passages discuss kids having sex with adults. Many of the sexual discussions and scenes are too explicit for us to publish, so what follows are greatly sanitized versions.

In “Queer 13,” the book describes a 13-year-old boy who has sexual encounters with older men. His experience caused him to desperately want sex. “While my classmates wondered what sex was like, content to masturbate over pinups, I was out there having my [explicit descriptions of having oral sex and being sodomized]. These were grown men I was tricking with. Some were nice, grateful for a young boy to have their way with. Some were harsh and mean. … That feeling of doing it to them and them doing the same for me was just too damn good.”

In “Passages of Pride,” a 15-year-old boy has sex with a much older man. The boy says, “It wasn’t a bad thing. I didn’t necessarily know it would turn into sex. But I knew what I was doing.” The boy claims that he was “not intimidated by the discrepancy in their ages.” … [editorial continues at Washington Times website]

Click HERE to read the rest of the Washington Times editorial: “Obama’s Buggery Czar”

Then there are the targets of more crass homosexual extremism such as Maggie Gallagher, Greg Quinlan, AFTAH, Mike Heath, and pretty much every pro-family leader who still resists the “queer” activist agenda — and even churches that stick to the Word of God on sexual morality or that dare advance the redemptive truth that men and women can overcome homosexuality through Christ.

A relatively new person on the victim list is Julea Ward,  a graduate student at Eastern Michigan University’s (EMU) School of Counseling who was expelled from the program because she said that as a counselor she could not affirm a client’s homosexual relationship due to her belief in Jesus Christ and biblical morality. Ward is being helped by Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian legal defense group. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org. This is an ADF video:

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

By Peter LaBarbera

Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s appointee to head up the “Safe and Drug-Free Schools” agency at the Department of Education, gives speeches on “gay history” but can’t seem to get his own straight (no pun intended).

At Americans For Truth, we have long observed that Jennings has a flair for the dramatic — and a penchant for anti-Christian bigotry (see his vulgar church condemnation of the “religious right” HERE).  But there are contradictions and obvious exaggerations in the various tellings of his life story — and self-serving memory lapses, such as when Jennings — who preaches “Respect for All” — told an NPR reporter that he couldn’t remember using the F-word in a church to tell Christian conservatives to “Drop dead!“

Also, given Jennings’ professional history of distorting the Bible’s clear teachings against homosexual behavior, and his skewed take on other facets of the debate over homosexuality — e.g., denying the reality that many people have left the homosexual lifestyle — it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he plays loose with the facts, as this decade-old AFTAH article demonstrates.

The following is reprinted from Americans For Truth’s flagship publication, Lambda Report (April-May 2000). An online GLSEN article provided in the first version (“Mom Too Sick to March”), but today the same link connects only to the organization’s current articles and not the story cited]. However, that first version is closest to the one Jennings used in his third book, a memoir titled Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son. We have added the 2006 book version at bottom for sake of comparison. Note the bold portions:

_____________________________

Kevin Jennings’ Dual Histories

Lambda Report, April-May 2000

Kevin Jennings, the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network [GLSEN; after a name change from the original Gay, Lesbian, Straight Teachers' Network (GLSTN)], gives speeches on “gay” history and taught history at two private academies. But he seems to give out contradictory information about his own past, as the following accounts — from his own [GLSEN's] and another “gay” publication (quoting him) — attest:

VERSION ONE:

Mom Too Sick to March:

“…For the first time, my hometown of Winston-Salem was going to have a Gay Pride March, and I was invited home to speak at it. I called Mom to let her know…without missing a beat, Mom replied, ‘I’ve been reading about this march and I figured you were coming, so I’ve already made plans to march with you.’

“June came and my Mom didn’t actually march. Now on oxygen full-time, she was only able to come to the workshop I gave the day before the March. But, for the first time, she heard me speak in public about what has become my life’s work — helping lesbian/gay kids escape the bigotry with which I grew up….”

–Kevin Jennings, “Home for the Holidays,” GLSEN Blackboard Online, Dec. 1996, see [this link now links to a different, current article:] http://www.glsen.org/pages/sections/people/citizens/005.aricle

_____________________________

VERSION TWO:

Brave Mom Marched:

“In 1996, Jennings was invited…to speak on the occasion of Winston-Salem’s first ever GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) Pride Parade … [H]e phoned his mother to make sure that she was OK with this. She had a surprise for him: she planned to be marching side-by-side with him. When the day came, ‘There she was in 90 degree heat and 100 percent humidity, my mother, at age 74 — my mother with emphysema and lung cancer — out there with her portable oxygen tank she must take wherever she goes. And she marched down the streets of her town, in a city where everyone knows her as REV. Jennings’ widow. And, I say, if my mother can come that far, surely we all can come that far, too…Our victory is inevitable.’”

– John Quinlan quoting Kevin Jennings, reporting for Alternative Family Magazine, “Leadership profile” on Jennings, Summer 1999, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 38. [Note: we could not find this article online -- the magazine appears to be defunct. It's former web domain is inoperative and we could not locate an online archive. However, Quinlan's AFM piece is cited as a source HERE.]

 _____________________________

ADDENDUM: Jennings’ mom apparently does NOT march in 2006 version of story in his autobiographical book, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son:

The following is the version of the story found in Jennings’ 2006 autobiography. Note that there is no mention of his mother “marching down” the street for “gay pride,” although she apparently lugged her oxygen tank to her son’s talk. Jennings writes:

In 1996, the North Carolina Gay Pride celebration was to held in Winston-Salem for the first time and, as perhaps the most famous homosexual from Winston-Salem, I was asked if I would speak at it. This was taking things to a new level: Mom lived there and everybody would now know, if they had somehow missed me on national news. I decided I had to call her and ask how she felt about it. If she was profoundly uncomfortable, I wasn’t going to do it.

The phone call was a bizarre experience… I began to explain about the march and Mom interrupted. “Oh, Kevin, I know about the march and I figured you were coming,” she began. “I have already made plans to do with you.” Now it was my turn to be struck silent. “So, what were you calling about, Kevin?”

… A few weeks before the march, Mom was diagnosed with emphysema (three packs a day for fifty years will do that to you). She was just put on oxygen to help with her increasingly labored breathing and given a portable oxygen tank to toke with her when she left the house. Now my concern shifted: should she be coming out to an event in the middle of a June North Carolina day, which means ninety-degree heat and 100 percent humidity? I said maybe it wasn’t such a good idea after all. She brushed aside my concerns, saying she wasn’t going to stop living just because she had to lug around some dumb oxygen thing.

So there we were at the Pride Festival, where I focused my talk on gay history. Mom loved it (after all, she was the one who had dragged me to the public library and the Civil War battlefields and taught me to love history in the first place) and said she learned a lot. She was delighted to meet so many people who thought so highly of her son, and she would brag about my Harvard degree and the organization I started and my books. I bragged about her for starting the PFLAG chapter in Winston-Salem, and people hugged her for doing it. A good time, indeed, was had by all. …

– Jennings, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir of Growing Up, Coming Out, and Changing America’s Schools, pp. 237-238.

Folks, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and every Republican who covers up for Schwarzenegger’s liberal follies are helping to destroy the GOP’s “pro-family” brand. Corrupting children’s minds and souls through manipulative school exercises like “Harvey Milk Day” is anti-family and anti-child to the core. You simply cannot be pro-sexual sin and pro-family at the same time.

Thanks to California’s moral weakling of a governor, millions of schoolchildren will be subjected to propaganda extolling San Francisco homosexual crusader Milk — who, as my friend Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com rightly says — is hardly an appropriate role model for children. Kudos to Randy and other pro-family Californians for working so hard trying to stop this public policy madness. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

TAKE ACTION: Contact Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele (chairman@gop.com; 202-863-8700 or -8500) and also your local/state GOP representatives (in office and out) and tell them how offended you are at Republican California Gov. Schwarzenegger’s latest capitulations to the Homosexual Lobby. Tell Steele that moral issues are an important plank of the Republican Party and that “going gay” will sap the strength out of the conservative grassroots. If you are a Democrat, call or write Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and urge the party to STOP pandering to homosexual activists and undermining traditional marriage. (Kaine is the current Governor of Virginia.)

_____________________________________

SaveCalifornia.com News Release, October 12, 2009

SaveCalifornia.com Appalled at Signing of ‘Harvey Milk Gay Day’

SB 572, opposed by overwhelming majority, signed by “People’s Governor”

CLICK HERE FOR MILK DOCUMENTATION AND BILL FACTS

Sacramento – SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization, is appalled that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Day,” into law.

“Harvey Milk* was a sexual predator of teens, an advocate of polygamous relationships, a public liar, and is in no way a good role model for impressionable schoolchildren,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. “Sadly, children in public schools will now have even more in-your-face, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination. This provides the strongest impetus yet for loving parents to remove their children from anti-family public schools.”

“’Harvey Milk Day’ teaches children as young as five years old to admire the life and values of the notorious homosexual activist Harvey Milk” said Thomasson. “The ‘suitable commemorative exercises’ that are part of ‘Harvey Milk Day’ can easily result in cross-dressing exercises, ‘LGBT pride’ parades and mock gay weddings on school campuses — everything Harvey Milk supported.”

Schwarzenegger vetoed ‘Harvey Milk Day” last year; he signed it this year. The Governor also previously claimed to oppose same-sex “marriage,” but now supports destroying the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, in court, and by his signing of SB 54, to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages” in violation of Proposition 8.

For several months, SaveCalifornia.com has been leading parents and grandparents to call, email, fax, and petition Governor Schwarzenegger to veto “Harvey Milk Day.” The clear majority of correspondence to the Governor was opposed to SB 572. As a whole, Californians are 4 to 1 against the notion of statewide day of significance honoring the San Francisco gay activist.

For documentation of Harvey Milk’s values and further analysis of “Harvey Milk Day,” see SaveCalifornia.com’s SB 572 veto request letter.

* Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (1982)

– end –

Related link: Get more perspective on this issue on Randy Thomasson’s blog

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

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

At the President’s Pleasure…

‘Safe school czar’ encouraged child sex with an older man

A teacher was told by a 15-year-old high school sophomore that he was having homosexual sex with an “older man.” At the very least, statutory rape occurred. Fox News reported that the teacher violated a state law requiring that he report the abuse. That former teacher, Kevin Jennings [right], is President Obama’s “safe school czar.” It’s getting hard to keep track of all of this president’s problematic appointments. Clearly, the process for vetting White House employees has broken down.

In this one case in which Mr. Jennings had a real chance to protect a young boy from a sexual predator, he not only failed to do what the law required but actually encouraged the relationship.

According to Mr. Jennings’ own description in a new audiotape discovered by Fox News, the 15-year-old boy met the “older man” in a “bus station bathroom” and was taken to the older man’s home that night. When some details about the case became public, Mr. Jennings threatened to sue another teacher who called his failure to report the statutory rape “unethical.” Mr. Jennings’ defenders asserted that there was no evidence that he was aware the student had sex with the older man.

However, the new audiotape contradicts this claim. In 2000, Mr. Jennings gave a talk to the Iowa chapter of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an advocacy group that promotes homosexuality in schools. On the tape, Mr. Jennings recollected that he told the student to make sure “to use a condom” when he was with the older man. That he actively encouraged the relationship is reinforced by Mr. Jennings’ own description in his 1994 book, “One Teacher in 10.” In that account, the teacher boasts how he allayed the student’s concerns about the relationship to such a degree that the 15-year-old “left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

Mr. Jennings’ denials about these events reveal a lack of remorse….

[Click HERE to read the rest of the Washington Times editorial.]