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

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

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

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

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

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

Reprinted from Republicans For Fair Media; to support RFFM, go HERE

By Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director, Republicans For Fair Media; e-mail: dan@rffm.org

Social conservatives have noticed that FOX's Bill O'Reilly has tilted steadily further left on the homosexual issue.

As expected, during his first State of the Union address, Barack Obama called for the lifting of the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.  The only problem for Obama and the far left wing of the Democratic Party is this would take an act of Congress because the Uniform Code of Military Justice would have to be twisted to allow Obama’s plan to be implemented.

Most members of the U.S. Armed Forces, especially those in command positions, recognize that homosexuals openly serving in the military would have a negative impact on morale, esprit de corps and, subsequently, combat readiness.

Amazingly, those who participated in a Jan. 28 segment that Bill O’Reilly (FOX News Channel’s The O’Reilly Factor) refers to as “The Culture Warriors” made clear that they agreed with Obama’s proposal to rescind “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT).  The segment usually includes pro-family conservative Gretchen Carlson who tackles issues from a conservative perspective in contrast to Margaret Hoover who argues the liberal point of view concerning political and social issues.

But on Thursday, January 28th, FOX business anchor Cheryl Casone (who stepped in for Carlson) and FOX News analyst Margaret Hoover both agreed America was ready to have homosexuals openly serve in defense of our nation [Transcript available HERE].  It was a shocker for me to hear this on FOX News–the “fair and balanced” network.  Even O’Reilly fed into the liberal line which suggested it was time for this social experiment to take place.  It has become all too evident the network seems to be leaning to the left, in order to appease and attract more liberal viewers.  FOX would not want to offend this new demographic which has helped the FOX News Channel’s ratings go through the roof.

Mr. O’Reilly, the purpose of the United States Armed Forces is to defend America.  It is not a place for social experiments or political correctness.  Indeed, the  Constitution does not apply in many cases to the U.S. military and FOX News should not be advocating Barack Obama’s far-left policies.

Unfortunately, the tack to the left is evident, especially on O’Reilly’s highly popular primetime program.  But, as I wrote in a related column, FNC also seems to have a penchant for supporting moderate Republican candidates.  This was made clear in 2008 when Sean Hannity seemed to be shilling for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and eventual GOP presidential nominee John McCain.  At the same time, Hannity took every opportunity to ignore the highly effective and energized grassroots campaigns of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.  Is FOX News becoming MSNBC Light?  You  certainly couldn’t tell what network you were watching on Thursday evening during the Culture Warriors segment.  Very sad.

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

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

___________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

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

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

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

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and homosexual activist Dan Savage (right) ridicule FOX News' Brit Hume for saying that Tiger Woods needs Christ's forgiveness.

Well, we extolled Brit Hume and his sage advice to Tiger Woods, so now we have to give you some of the hyperventilating comments from America’s reactionary secular bigots, headquartered at MSNBC, of course. That includes the left-wing network’s chief blowhard, Keith Olbermann, who joined self-described “radical sex-advice columnist faggot,” Dan (“Three-Way”) Savage, in ridiculing Hume’s heartfelt Christian outreach to Woods.

Why on earth is Olbermann still a TV commentator for NFL games (for NBC Sports)? Seems that if the NFL cannot tolerate Rush Limbaugh as an owner, why does it allow a mean-spirited, Christian-bashing, hard-left talker to be connected to the league in any way? Let’s see if we can help to change that. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION: Please join us in urging the NFL and NBC to drop Olbermann from his NFL media duties.  Here is the NFL Comment Page and the NBC Sports Contact Page. E-mail NBC Sports directly at nbcsportshelp@nbcuni.com; or send a regular-mail letter to:

NBC Sports — Please Fire Keith Olbermann

c/o National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY

My good friend and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber writes:

______________________________

The Crucifixion of Brit Hume

By Matt Barber
Friday, January 08, 2010

During the Roman Empire’s secularist era those who acknowledged the deity of Christ were frequently fed to the lions to entertain – for lack of a better word – the “progressive” elites of the day. There’s little doubt that if many of today’s secular-“progressives” (more accurately: “moonbat liberals”) had their way, Caesar Obama would call out the lions once again.

Nothing makes the left lose its collective noodle like an open proclamation of Christian faith. You don’t see it when Muslims proselytize in government schools; the ACLU doesn’t sue when Wiccans share their witchy ways; militant “gay” activists don’t picket Buddhist temples with bullhorns while inhabitants grasp at Zen. No, there’s something about Christianity that just drives ‘em nuts. Always has. Always will.

Case in point: Recently, on two separate occasions, Fox News veteran Brit Hume both publicly pronounced his own faith in Jesus Christ and boldly suggested that Tiger Woods might find “forgiveness and redemption” for his serial philandering should he “turn to the Christian faith.”

Hume first offered Tiger the advice on “Fox News Sunday” and then reiterated his sage, though decidedly non-PC council on “The O’Reilly Factor” the following night. When asked by host Bill O’Reilly what kind of response he’d received for his comments, Hume replied, in part: “It’s always been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it. You speak the name Jesus Christ… and all hell breaks loose.”

Yes indeed.

After Hume made his comments, and as if on cue (Lord forgive them for not knowing what they do or why they do it) liberals went apoplectic. Here’s a small sampling:

As reported by CNSNews.com: “Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post , in a Tuesday column, demanded that Hume apologize and called his Christian remarks ‘even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year.’”

MSNBC’s reliably raspy Keith Olbermann accused Hume of attempting “to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity” and demanded that his Fox News ratings superior “keep religious advocacy out of public life” (back in the closet, Brit old boy).

Olblubberman then compared Hume to a terrorist, suggesting that “the worst example” of this kind of “proselytizing” are “jihadists.” Finally, he betrayed the left’s typical anti-Christian bigotry, suggesting that Jesus may have been a homosexual and wondering aloud: “WWJDIHS: What would Jesus do if he’s straight?” [Note: the conservative "Newsbusters" blog of Media Research Center interpreted Olbermann's remarks differently -- saying that WWJDIHS refers to "What would Jesus do if he strayed"; start watching at about 3:15 in the five-and-a-half-minute MSNBC video.]

While the mainstream media’s rage was clumsily managed (or masked), unbridled hate boiled over in the left-wing blogosphere. On the sexual anarchist site, “JoeMyGod,” poster “QScribe” suggested that Brit Hume’s deceased son had been “gay” and viciously accused Hume of being responsible for the young man’s suicide: “Brit Hume still hasn’t ‘repented’ for trashing his gay son and driving him to suicide. When I want moral guidance from a pig like that, I’ll be sure to ask. Until then, he really ought to STFU.” (Hume has publicly shared that his son’s heartbreaking suicide played a large role in his acceptance of Christ.)

The next commenter went so far as to cruelly imply that Hume had sexually molested his own child and further mocked the tragic suicide, writing: “Dead victims don’t tell on their molesters.”

Commenting on the Huffington Post, “Kandaher” bypassed Hume altogether and aimed his vitriol directly at his Creator: “anyone (sic) watched ‘The passion of Christ’? I thoruhgly (sic) enjoyed it. Nothing like watching this bloke getting beaten up! He deserved what he got and more!”

You get the idea.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I very much enjoy watching liberals go goofy when the light of truth pierces that shadowy void called moral relativism. When the left’s religion of choice – secular-humanism – is challenged through exposure to the gospel message, they almost universally and instinctively react with such visceral, knee-jerk spasms. You can set your clock to it.

But believe it or not, there’s actually something rather delightful about such hateful lashing about. These poor souls – to be pitied and prayed for – fail to realize that, manifest within their own unwittingly bizarre behavior, is certain affirmation of the very words of Christ on the subject.

Jesus addressed this peculiar and deeply spiritual phenomenon on more than one occasion over two thousand years ago. In John 15:18-20 (NIV), for instance, He reminds His followers: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

Now, I’m real sorry that most “progressives” and other non-believers feel that Christianity is deficiently “tolerant” or “inclusive” of various man-made religions and lifestyle choices. But it’s just not our call. Christ Himself reveals over and again that the pathway to heaven is a very narrow one, requiring membership in a rather “exclusive” club – a club wherein belief in Him and repentance from sin are the only membership requirements.

Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). Note that, rather conspicuously, He did not say: “…No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh, and – on Tuesdays – L. Ron Hubbard.”

But lest you have any doubt, consider John 3:36, which warns every man, woman and child on earth – past, present and future: “Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

So, Brit Hume had it right, didn’t he? I mean, it is kind of an all or nothing proposition, isn’t it?

As my favorite author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis famously pointed out in his blockbuster book “Mere Christianity,” Christ could only have been one of three things: A lunatic, a liar, or – as Jesus oft claimed and as billions have believed – the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe.

Noted Lewis:

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” – C.S. Lewis

So, what does this all mean? Well, and please take this in the spirit (little ‘s’) intended: Brit Hume’s woolly, wily, wandering critics really ought to just un-knot their knickers; mudra, mantra or something; and seriously reflect upon the man’s words and heart.

Perhaps they should – being all “tolerant,” “diverse” and whatnot – consider, if only for a moment, the very Spirit (big ‘S’) from which came those words and was formed that heart.

In the meantime, to Mr. Hume: “Well done good and faithful servant.”

__________________________

Matt Barber [e-mail: jmattbarber@comcast.net] is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Pastor Stephen Boissoin

By Tim Bloedow; reprinted from ECP Centre website, Dec. 4, 2009

The ECP Centre (Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre) is very encouraged to see that sanity prevailed in Alberta’s court system with the decision Thursday to overturn the abusive Human Rights Commission ruling against Stephen Boissoin. We are also grateful to have played an important part in the case, raising awareness of the case over the past several years and organizing three successful fundraising dinners in the spring of this year which helped to bring in over $25,000 from generous Canadians towards Mr. Boissoin’s substantial legal costs. We continue to receive donations designated to Mr. Boissoin’s legal defense and we are grateful for the Christians who take their faith seriously enough to be aware of these disturbing cases and who are able to donate to support fellow-Christians in today’s battles.

Those familiar with the case will know that seven years ago, a “human rights” complaint was filed against Stephen Boissoin due to his sharp criticism of homosexuality in a letter to the editor printed in the Red Deer Advocate. In December 2007, the Alberta Human Rights Commission issued a ruthless decision against Mr. Boissoin which itself was an expression of hatred against Christianity. The provincial HRC essentially became a tool for a homosexualist inquisition whereby Mr. Boissoin was ordered to give a false apology for the substance of his letter. He was banned from ever criticizing homosexuality again in public or private communications, and even from the pulpit. The implications of the decision were stunning in terms of the imposition of the state over the church and the restrictions on religious liberty. Mr. Boissoin was also fined $5,000.

Needless to say, Mr. Boissoin filed an appeal of the decision. His legal counsel Gerry Chipeur was very confident that they would win the appeal because the historic principles of fundamental justice were on Mr. Boissoin’s side so, in a real court where such rules applied, the absurd HRC decision wasn’t expected to stand. The plaintiff Darren Lund, however, is reported in the Calgary Herald as not having made up his mind whether to appeal the decision.

Stephen Boissoin vindicated

In his decision, Justice Earl Wilson said that whatever one thinks about Mr. Boissoin’s comments, they didn’t violate Alberta’s human rights legislation which is to say, as the Edmonton Sun reported, that “there was nothing in the letter to suggest it was exhorting Albertans to discriminate against homosexuals in areas of employment, tenancy or goods and services which fall under provincial jurisdiction.” Justice Wilson said, “”Inferring some sort of call for discriminatory practices prohibited by provincial law is an unreasonable interpretation of the letter’s message.”

Of course, that wasn’t really the issue. Mr. Lund, who does not acknowledge being homosexual himself, but who thinks he has enough sensitivity to represent homosexuals, wanted Mr. Boissoin’s comments to be judged a hate crime and outside of free speech protections. Justice Wilson’s decision also rejected this spin on Mr. Boissoin’s comments.

But the references to discrimination aren’t unimportant. As Colby Cosh noted in an analysis posted on Macleans.ca today, “a province, Wilson observed, isn’t allowed to duplicate the Criminal Code provisions against hate speech. It’s only allowed to suppress hateful speech that can also be shown to encourage discrimination in the specific areas that lie within provincial powers and are enumerated in the statute – i.e., housing, employment, access to goods and services.”

Following the announcement of the decision, Stephen Boissoin expressed great joy over this victory for “freedom of speech and religious expression in Canada,” adding: “I am overjoyed that this malicious and frivolous process is over. It’s been seven and a half years of my life being run through the mud. I’ve been called a bigot and a hate-monger. What a waste of time.”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation, Canada’s freedom fighting legal defense organization, was also pleased that Justice Wilson threw out the Commission’s decision, but they remain concerned that the anti-freedom provision which was exploited in the complaint against Mr. Boissoin remains on the books. “Unfortunately, the law that was used against Reverend Boissoin to subject him to a expensive and stressful legal proceedings for more than seven years is still on the books,” said executive director John Carpay. That law forbids anyone from publishing a statement that is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of several criteria including “sexual orientation.” “In spite of today’s court ruling, Albertans need to continue to exercise extreme caution when speaking about public policy issues, lest they offend someone who then files a human rights complaint,” said Mr. Carpay. “No citizen is safe from being subjected to a taxpayer-funded prosecution for having spoken or written something that a fellow citizen finds offensive.”

Canada’s hard-left media not interested

A stunning development from Thursday’s decision is the lack of development, which is to say, the total lack of interest in the ruling by Canada’s media. Alright, I admit it, I’m not stunned at all by this totally predictable result from Canada’s anti-Christian, pro-homosexual media.

Canada’s national media fawns over homosexuals, so any victories they receive in law, politics or the culture are widely reported. In a sharp shift from their traditional role, Canada’s news media almost universally despise the “little guy,” who today is often the Christian, especially when homosexualists are the aggressors.

Certainly when Alberta Christian Stephen Boissoin got strung up by the provincial HRC, acting on behalf of pro-homosexual Darren Lund, Canada’s passionately pro-homosexual media was on top of this story, providing lots of sympathetic coverage to the homosexualist agenda and the HRC.

But, today (Friday), following the announcement of the decision throwing out the anti-democratic HRC ruling, how much media coverage did the story receive across Canada? Who wants to guess?? Based on the results of two media search engines we used, we discovered that the Canadian Press dutifully wrote up the decision. And four Alberta papers reported on it: the Calgary Herald, the Lethbridge Herald, the Calgary Sun and the Edmonton Sun, but we could not find one single newspaper outside of Alberta which covered the story. Perhaps they were so amazed with the profundity of the decision that they wanted at least 24 hours to analyze it, so maybe on Saturday we’ll see the 35 or more cross-Canada media hits on the story that we would have seen today if the decision went against Mr. Boissoin. Even late this evening, a Google News search for “stephen boissoin” only produces 8 hits: One is Canoe which is the Sun Media article printed by the Edmonton and Calgary Sun papers, one is Xtra [a homosexual publication], another is the social conservative LifeSiteNews, one is CTV, another is Macleans.ca, another the Vancouver Sun and the last two are both from the Montreal Gazette.

Even if our media searches missed one or two articles, the point is still vivid in terms of how the media reflects a strong pro-homosexual advocacy agenda, working hard to self-censor any stories that undermine the march towards a homosexualist hegemony. They would deny it, but the evidence is before us for all to see. If it’s an unconscious bias, then that means that this anti-Christian bias is even more ingrained than many of us thought.

Ezra Levant has done a great deal of valuable work publicizing all the diverse people who have spoken out in defense of freedom and against the HRC agenda in the past few years. This includes many media outlets, journalists and editorial boards from across Canada. It’s great to emphasize and publicize these comments in the hope that it will pressure these media personnel to be consistent with their subsequent comments on liberty, but you don’t want to take these defenses of liberty too seriously or place too much hope in them. Most Canadian journalists are die-hard leftists and most of the rest are left-leaning, and leftists will only defend freedom on a case-by-case basis if they see it as in their own best interests to do so. And secularists never seem to see it as in their best interests to defend liberty when the case involves a Christian defendant and a homosexualist complainant.

Despite the fact that Canada’s liberty tradition is rooted in the Judeo-Christian worldview, Christians have very few friends in today’s Canada, especially in positions of influence. Most people, including all special interest groups, are fighting for power and control, not for liberty. If Mr. Lund appeals this recent decision, we may have to rally the troops again on behalf of Mr. Boissoin and the fundamental constitutional principles of liberty which are at stake with this case.

Justice Wilson slams the Alberta government

By implication, Justice Wilson’s decision is a damning indictment of Alberta’s anti-liberty Conservative government. Many patriotic Canadians were shocked when the Stelmach government chose to intervene in the Boissoin HRC case – AGAINST Stephen Boissoin. Even the national homosexual activist group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) spoke out against this case, arguing that Darren Lund’s complaint went over the top with its censorship agenda. Despite the number of responsible people and organizations which condemned this complaint, the Stelmach Conservative government, with no obligation to do so, chose to intervene against freedom of speech, against religious liberty, against freedom of conscience, against Christianity.

Justice Wilson was more direct in his repudiation of phony experts. Mr. Cosh reported in his Macleans article: “Wilson thus ended up throwing several witnesses who testified against Boissoin overboard: the ex-cop who thought Boissoin’s anti-gay babblings might make teens ‘act out’, for example, and the shrink who warned that the Reverend’s letter might provoke a second Columbine. … Wilson has thus made expert evidence in future tribunal proceedings a lot harder to come by: the logic of his decision suggests that complainants will no longer be able to round up every bleeding-heart social scientist or self-styled hate expert they can find, but will have to provide evidence of potential economic impacts from hate speech.”

Even the homosexual publication Xtra in an online article about the decision today declared: “Gays also stand to benefit from yesterday’s court decision. As we continue to face censorship — whether it be at the Canadian border or on major TV networks — it’s in our interest to promote free speech and expression. Censoring homophobes is an easy way to shut them up, but it does little to address the outrageousness of their arguments. Speech should be fought with speech.”

Justice Wilson’s decision to throw out the HRC decision against Mr. Boissoin by extension is also a decision against the Alberta government and its shockingly imprudent decision to intervene on the wrong side of that case. If the Stelmach government is not intelligent enough to realize this, the Wildrose Alliance is likely to benefit from such Conservative arrogance.

——-

We would be most grateful for any donations you would consider giving to the work of the ECP Centre in defending Christians facing persecution in Canada and as we confront hostile forces in our culture through NoApologies. Please send your donation to: ECP Centre, PO Box 7, Russell, ON K4R 1C7 or visit our website to make a donation online. Thank you very much for your support.

- 30 -

You can reach NoApologies/ECP Centre at ecpcentre@gmail.com or at 613-496-0091.

Millions of young Americans saw this simulated homosexual oral sex act on ABC thanks to Adam Lambert pushing his "queer" lifestyle choice on the rest of us. Lambert deliberately sought to be provocative and characterized criticism of his vulgar stage act as "discrimination."

Folks, we’ll have much more on Adam Lambert and his calculated use of his nationally broadcast American Music Awards stage act to advance homosexual immorality and sadistic perversions in the name of “nondiscrimination”:

Liberty Counsel Files Complaint with the FCC for Indecent Acts of Adam Lambert

November 24, 2009
From the Liberty Counsel website:

Liberty Counsel has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”) for airing an outrageously lewd and filthy performance by Adam Lambert on November 22, 2009 during the 2009 American Music Awards.

Prior to going on-air, Lambert explained that his motive went beyond performing. According to the Associated Press, Lambert “wanted to break down a double standard that existed where female performers are often sexually provocative while men don’t do it that often.”

When faced with the opportunity to edit the performance before airing it on the West Coast, ABC’s reaction was to promote Lambert’s indecent acts and actually tease and tout his actions as “what everyone will be talking about tomorrow.” This shows that ABC used Lambert’s obscene sexual conduct and not his vocal performance to promote its show.

Contact ABC about their indecent decision at 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521. You can also call ABC at 818-460-7477, or, you may contact ABC on the web through their Audience Relations Department.

Read Liberty Counsel’s FCC letter requiring decency in broadcasting here.

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

Newspapers reach end of story

Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 11/18/2009

Several homosexual newspapers have closed their doors.

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

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

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

Poly Boston is a big, informal group that hosts events for the polyamory community, and the poly-curious, in the Greater Boston area. We hold discussions, dinner, and socials. To get connected, sign up for our announcements and chat lists and say hi!

What is polyamory?

Polyamory (or “poly”) means having, or being able to have, honest, ethical, respectful romantic relationships with more than one person at a time, with the full knowledge and approval of all concerned. Somewhat similar terms are “open relationships” and “responsible non-monogamy.” …

Poly versus Swinging

Polyamory is sometimes confused with swinging. In fact the two cultures are different. In general, people who self-identify as “poly” are strongly focused on relationships and are willing to take on serious emotional processing. People in the swing world (“the Lifestyle”) typically focus on recreational sex — often as couples attending organized swing parties while maintaining emotional monogamy. there are, of course, exceptions on both sides, as well as people who plant themselves various placed in between.

Here’s a shocker: the media has been positive toward the “Poly” movement. Again, from the Poly Boston flier:

Polyamory in the News. The last few years have seen an upswing in mainstream coverage, often surprisingly positive. It’s all collected at polyinthemedia.blogspot.com. In particular, see the big article in the Washington Post about Loving More’s Poly Living Convention (in the site’s Feb. 2008 archive). By the way, in the whole collection of about 300 articles, the very dumbest one was in, wouldn’t you know, the Boston Herald.

Folks, we have been slow to comment on all the Harvey Milk hype in our liberal-dominated popular culture — hype that is driving this push for an outrageous California bill that would effectively force students to celebrate a man famous for … being the first “out and proud” practitioner of homosexuality to win public office. (Oh boy: another marker for America’s Moral Meltdown.) The more one reads about Milk (see Dan Flynn’s excellent City Journal piece HERE) and the real story about his murder at the hands of Dan White (see caption above), the more preposterous becomes the idea of heralding him as a “civil rights” martyr.

For the media, Hollywood and academic establishments, the fix is in on championing Milk as an American hero. For the rest of us (the silent majority), he was a just a man with a sexual problem who achieved a political first in a city — San Francisco — that devolved into a Mecca for others with the same sexual sin problem. Had he not practiced deviant and unhealthy sex, nobody would care about the name Harvey Milk. Incidentally, this epitomizes what is wrong with “gay” history: it’s mostly written by those with a vested interest in normalizing aberrant and immoral sexual lifestyles.

And now, if Arnold wimps out, California children will learn some more skewed history. They will be taught to associate heroism, nobility and justice with a politician who not only crusaded for a misguided cause — state-enfored “rights” based on homosexuality — but who lied to advance that cause and his career. See my friend Randy Thomasson’s Save California website for more background on Milk, and information on how to urge Schwarzenegger (916-445-2841) to do the right thing by vetoing this bill. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

The following is excerpted from Baptist Press (emphasis added); click HERE to sign up for BP alerts.

_______________________________

‘Harvey Milk Day’ heads to Calif. gov’s desk

Baptist Press, Sep 9, 2009

By Michael Foust

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)–A bill that would encourage California public schools to observe “Harvey Milk Day” and to remember the deceased homosexual leader with “commemorative exercises” passed the state Senate Tuesday and is heading to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who hasn’t taken a position on it.

Schwarzenegger actually vetoed a similar bill last year but is under more pressure this year in light of President Obama recently awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Milk, the nation’s first openly homosexual person elected to public office. Milk was a San Francisco city supervisor who was assassinated in 1978 by another supervisor. The fact that the biographical movie “Milk” was released last year only adds to the pressure on the governor.

The bill (S.B. 572) would commemorate Milk with what the state calendar calls a day of “significance.” The only other such days are the Day of the Teacher (second Wednesday of May), John Muir Day (April 21) and California Poppy Day (April 6). Harvey Milk Day would be his birthday, May 22.

Schwarzenegger actually referenced the bill on his Twitter account days ago, writing, “Give me your thoughts on the water package, Harvey Milk Day, and the prison reform bill.”

It passed the Senate, 22-14, and the House, 46-28, along party-line votes with Democrats in the majority….

Individual schools and teachers could decide on their own whether to mark the day, although many certainly would. The text of the bill says “all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe.” The bill says it would be appropriate to have “exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk, recognizing his accomplishments, and familiarizing pupils with the contributions he made to this state.”

State Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat and the bill’s sponsor, told The San Francisco Chronicle, “It should be kept in mind that he [Milk] literally gave his life so I and others can serve in public office and that every generation of LGBT Californians can pursue their every hope, dream and aspiration.”

But Randy Thomasson, an opponent of the bill and the president of SaveCalifornia.com, said Milk’s sexual escapades make him unfit to be pushed as a role model. For weeks, Thomasson’s press releases have quoted from “The Mayor of Castro Street,” a popular biography about Milk. Milk was 48 when he died but always had a desire for teen boys and men in their early 20s, the book says. He also advocated having multiple partners, it says….

Thomasson said in a [statement:] “Reputable biographies demonstrate that Milk was a sexual predator of teens, a homosexual sex addict who advocated polygamous relationships, and a public liar who justified his deceit. Harvey Milk was and is a terrible role model for kids, including kindergarteners who would be affected by this very bad bill.”

WARNING: Offensive Language (required to expose hateful “gay” extremism)

Lying Leatherman: homosexual atheist blogger Joe Jervis (left) didn’t appreciate that Americans For Truth called attention to the vicious comments posted by his online followers against Patricia Mauceri (below right) — the Christian soap actress who was dumped by ABC’s “One Life to Live” after objecting to a pro-homosexuality story line. And it looks like Mauceri is not the first soap actor to object to the faith-undermining requirements of pro-”gay” political correctness in the business. Blogs like Jervis’ “Joe. My. God.” give evidence that no activists are as mean and hateful as homosexual activists — who project their beef with the Creator (unacknowledged, in Joe’s case) on to His followers.

TAKE ACTION: contact ABC and tell them enough is enough with their promotion of the homosexual agenda and sexual immorality in general. Tell them you are outraged at the politically correct firing of Patricia Mauceri (right). And ask them to cast happy, contented “ex-gays” in major TV roles and sympathetic Christian/religious characters who remain faithful to their faith convictions — for the sake of diversity. 

________________________

Ah, I see that Joe Jervis (above), the non-average “Joe” behind the homosexual activist “Joe. My. God.” blog, has focused his intellectual energies (or should I say bigoted, emotional impulses) into crafting a response to AFTAH’s post about his blog yesterday. We were simply highlighting some of his buddies’ crude and very mean attacks on Patricia Mauceri, the Christian soap actress who says she was fired for objecting to a pro-homosexual story line.

Here is the essence of Jervis’ response:

1. I have a comb-over hair style (ouch — problem here is I have so little hair to comb over — if this were true it would really be an exercise in futility: see tragic evidence at right);
2. I’m really a gay-porn-obsessed homosexual (hence the nickname: “Porno Pete”: this smear term was actually invented by Wayne Besen, the truth-challenged professional homosexual zealot behind the “ex-gay”-bashing group “Truth Wins Out”; some “gay” activists have stopped using Porno Pete in favor of the much more mature “The Peter” — peter being a boyish slang term for the male sex organ);
3. I have a small penis (note the continuing theme: Jervis is a gay “leatherman,” so we’ll cut him some slack on this one since by definition he has an unhealthy interest in male genitalia);
4. I am one of the biggest homosexual “closet cases” on the Internet (here Joe is applying that strange and creepily self-hating homosexualist putdown: the more you criticize the homosexual agenda, the more you are likely to be a secret homosexual yourself. Applying this curious standard to other causes, right-wing Republicans covertly support Obama and can’t wait to have their taxes raised — and lurking inside every pro-life activist is a person yearning to kill unborn babies).

Let’s see. Am I forgetting anything? Well, Jervis has filed his response under these categories:

• assholism (I didn’t know that was a word);
• closet cases (lest you forget that I, Peter LaBarbera — father of five and happily married for 20 years — am a covert homosexual-wannabe; Joe wrote a previous piece on me entitled — this is not a joke – “Peter LaBarbera Wants To Have Sweaty Mansex With Every Single One Of You”; strangely, I couldn’t find the “mansex” post among the AFTAH-bashing pieces on Jervis’ site – don’t tell me you’re embarrassed about that one, Joe?);
• needledicks (see #3 above);
• Peter LaBarbera

Wow, you must be doing something right when your name is an actual category on several “queer” websites. (One nasty homosexualist website uses my last name as an “award” to put down other conservatives fighting the “gay” agenda.) Jervis ends with a swipe at me for not allowing reader comments on the AFTAH website, but frankly, it would require a full-time staffer just to monitor the infantile, crude and hate-filled posts that would end up as “comments” on Americans For Truth’s site. And that doesn’t even factor in the “gay” activists who would pose as “Christian fundamentalists” to post irrational, homosexual-bashing (even violent) comments to make conservatives look bad. (This is not to say that there are no wacky fundamentalists like Fred “God Hates Fags” Phelps out there, but AFTAH has denounced such extremism — as opposed to atheist Jervis, who stokes it on his website.)

Christians, pray for this New York City blogger Joe Jervis, a lost soul if there ever was one. The same “Jeebus” (Jesus) he and other Christian-bashers mock one day will judge them (2 Timothy 4:1 and 4:8). Homosexual activists like Jervis seem to project their own hatred — of God’s moral law — against the pro-family advocates who are only trying to defend it. (Jervis has a special animus against AFTAH because our actions put a damper on the disgusting leather orgies that he supports.) Thankfully, it’s never too late to cease the rebellion and come back to God; they didn’t call them “gays” but there were “homosexuals” and former homosexuals in Bible times (note emphasis):

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

___________________________________

TAKE ACTION: contact ABC and tell them enough is enough with their promotion of the homosexual agenda and sexual immorality in general. Ask them to cast happy, contented “ex-gays” in major TV roles and sympathetic Christian/religious character who remain faithful to their faith convictions — for the sake of diversity. 

FoxNews online reports:

Soap Actress Says She Was Fired Because of Religious Beliefs

Friday , September 04, 2009
By Lauren Green

If you tuned in to the soap “One Life to Live” this week, you may have noticed there’s been a change of character. One character in particular.

Actress Patricia Mauceri says she was fired and abruptly replaced for objecting to a gay storyline because of her religious beliefs.

Mauceri played the recurring role of Carlotta Vega on “OLTL” for the last 14 years. But when she objected to how the writers wanted her deeply religious character, a Latina mother, to handle a storyline involving homosexuality, she objected. And for that she claims she was fired.

Mauceri, 59, a devout Christian, told FOX News that character Vega’s gay-friendly dialogue was not in line with the character she helped create by drawing on her own faith.

“I did not object to being in a gay storyline. I objected to speaking the truth of what that person, how that person would live and breathe and act in that storyline,” she said. “And this goes against everything I am, my belief system, and what I know the character’s belief system is aligned to.”

Mauceri said she was replaced despite offering changes to the script and hoping for a compromise.

An ABC spokesperson said they were not aware of any such claims by Mauceri, adding such claims “would be frivolous.”

When asked why Mauceri is no longer playing Carlotta Vega, the spokesperson said the show does not comment on personnel matters. The scene in question was scheduled to air Friday afternoon.

Mauceri told FOX News she is exploring her legal options. AFTRA, the actors union that represents her, did not respond to a request for comment.

Folks, we hope that Rachel Maddow (left) — the lesbian MSNBC talker who is as “out” in her homosexuality promotion as in her left-wing activism — takes up the offer of my good friend Matt Barber and lets him appear as a guest on her show. That seems only fair after Maddow lied about Barber’s statement on Obama-care and “sex-change” operations.

We understand that liberals don’t want to talk (rationally, anyway) about Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual “sex-change” procedures as “health care.” That is why we must discuss these awful possibilities. (By the way, even before Barber’s column, below, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blog noted that President Obama’s favorite think tank, the liberal-left Center for American Progress, was beating the drums for adding “sex change operations to the list of medical procedures that all health insurance policies in the nation must cover.”) — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

BANQUET REMINDER:  Culture warrior and former professional boxer Matt Barber (right) is coming to Chicago on Saturday, Oct. 24 to keynote the AFTAH fundraising banquet. The dinner is being held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL, and tickets are $50 per person. You can prepay online (just note “AFTAH banquet” in the Paypal or Credit Card form) or mail your check (designate it “AFTAH Banquet”) to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Please spread the word and make plans to come! E-mail aftahangela@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.

_____________________________

Matt Barber writes:

Sex-Change-apalooza: ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex-Change’ Surgeries

By Matt Barber, August 5, 2009

I got a call a couple days ago from a producer with MSNBC. He wanted a hard copy of a press release I sent out entitled: “ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex-Change’ Surgeries.” In the release I addressed the likelihood that, under Obama’s monolithic socialized healthcare scheme, taxpayers may well end up funding elective and entirely cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries. I was happy to oblige and asked which program he produced. “Rachel Maddow,” he reluctantly divulged. I chuckled and joked, “Oh, I’m sure Rachel will give me a glowing review.”

I then suggested that it would be better still if Rachel actually had me on the show to defend and debate the substance of my release. He declined. Understandable, though. Ms. Maddow—a hard-left lesbian activist who plays a pseudo-journalist on TV—certainly wouldn’t want me confusing all 242 of her wide-eyed, spoon-fed, Kool-Aid swilling viewers with the facts. (By the way, Rachel, sweetheart, if you have the guts, the offer still stands.)

In what was apparently an awkward attempt at ridicule, Maddow then focused like a laser on the title of my release. True to form, she twisted and spun like the Michelle Kwan of yellow journalism. I was disappointed. Not because she transparently distorted my words. I counted on that. I was disappointed because I actually expected the allegedly clever, Oxford educated talking-head to pull it off with some degree of satirical dexterity.

She did not.

Did Maddow mock me for suggesting that ObamCare might provide taxpayer funded “sex-change” operations? No. Did she deride me for mean-spiritedness, insensitivity and “transphobia”? No. Instead, she just lied. She dishonestly suggested that I claimed the government was going to “mandate sex-change operations.” Get it? That, if ObamaCare becomes reality, healthcare officials will knock down your door, drag you away and force you to undergo a “gender reassignment” surgery. I know—Silly.

Still, what Maddow didn’t say speaks volumes. She didn’t refute any of the substance of my release. She didn’t deny the real likelihood that such cosmetic procedures will be covered at taxpayer expense. And she certainly didn’t give me the opportunity to respond to her propagandist obfuscation.

But it didn’t stop with Maddow. Those adorable, patchouli soaked little left-wing lemmings at the Daily Kos, Wonkette and elsewhere also picked up on my release. I was surprised to see that many of them, in fact, agreed with the substance of my argument. Quite a few opined that “sex-change” surgeries should be covered at taxpayer expense and a number of them conceded that they almost certainly will.

So what prompted me to break this story in the first place? Well, when Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) asked Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) whether President Obama’s proposed socialized healthcare plan will mandate taxpayer funded abortion, she admitted that it will require “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” It now appears that the plan’s “medically appropriate” umbrella is far more expansive than most Americans could have imagined.

In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that, in fact, cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) may indeed be provided—free of charge—courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.

Page 972 of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) provides for “standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care” based on “sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.” [Click HERE to read Peter Fleckenstein analysis of HR 3200 posted by Liberty Counsel.] The Senate draft indicates that the government will “detect and monitor trends in health disparities,” requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to “develop standards for the measurement of¬†gender.” (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined “transgender” or “transsexual” gender identities). It further mandates “participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from…different genders and sexual orientations.”

So, does ObamaCare expressly stipulate that taxpayer funded “sex-change” operations will be provided? No, but neither does it explicitly require coverage for heart bypass surgery. Don’t forget; we’re talking about what’s “medically appropriate” here, and look who gets to make that subjective determination: Your doctor? No, it’s “Rachel Maddow-minded” bureaucrats within the Democratic Party. It’s a liberal-Democrat appointed government “Health Benefits Advisory Committee.” And if you think they’re not itching to pay back the homosexual, transgender and pro-abortion pressure groups that helped get them elected, I’ve got a house at 1600 Pennsylvania I want to sell you.

Still, there’s a gulf of difference between what Obama and liberals in Congress, and the American people deem “medically appropriate;” especially when it’s “we the people” footing the bill. It’s unconscionable to force Americans, against their conscience, to fund abortion on demand and to facilitate gender confusion by subsidizing the elective practice of genital “sex-change” mutilation.

But don’t just take my word for it. After hearing Sen. Mikulski’s “any service deemed…medically appropriate” admission, I was prompted to dig a little deeper. I contacted the offices of Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Barney Frank and the House Subcommittee on Health. I asked, very simply, for “an assurance that the proposed healthcare plan will not allow taxpayer funded ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries or hormone therapies.” When faced with the bill’s relevant language, every staffer I spoke with either declined to answer or would neither confirm nor deny that such procedures would be covered.

Indeed it’s no wonder that—as Americans find out what’s hidden within this socialized ObamaCare monstrosity—support for the plan is plummeting faster than MSNBC’s ratings.

It’s time for the mainstream press—yes you too Rachel Maddow—to do its job and demand straight answers. Instead of prancing around like little ObamaCare cheerleaders, journalists need to ask the same questions I did and refuse to take “no answer” for an answer.

But don’t hold your breath.

Thankfully, we don’t have to. Wanna have a little fun? Contact your Congressional representative (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and ask the following question: “Will you personally guarantee that, under this plan, no taxpayer dollars will go to fund abortion or ‘sex-change’ operations?’”

Then sit back and watch them squirm.

Matt Barber is a Board Member of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Click HERE for information on Barber’s appearance as keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet on Saturday, Oct. 24. Send comments to Matt at: jmattbarber@comcast.net .

You know, it’s pretty hard to play the victim when propagandistic “gay” images and characters saturate the airwaves. But leave it to GLAAD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) to try. I wonder though: what about Hollywood and EX-”gays”? (GLAAD fails to see the hypocrisy of its ongoing “defamation” of them.) It took decades after Roe v. Wade for Hollywood to produce movies like Juno that are unapologetically pro-life. How long will it take for the entertainment industry to catch up with reality and cast a sympathetic former homosexual character who is content with his sexuality? — Peter LaBarbera

P.S. A reminder to Mr. Link: five percent exceeds the homosexual population in society.

——————————–

David Link writes for the Independent Gay Forum:

We’re Here, We’re Queer, We Were on Primetime Network TV 647 Hours Last Year (Not Counting Cable)

Posted on IGF: July 26, 2009

I’m really wondering whether we need GLAAD anymore.  They’ve just released their Network Responsibility Index for 2008-09 to “serve as a road map toward increasing fair, accurate and inclusive LGBT media representations.”  ABC led the pack among networks; of its 1,146.5 total hours of primetime programming, 269.5 hours (24%) included LGBT impressions.  The CW came in second with 138 LGBT-inclusive hours, or 20% of its primetime offerings.  CBS gave us the back of their hand, devoting only 60 hours — 5% of its schedule — to us.  For shame.

In 1985, when GLAAD was a startup, this kind of monitoring was not only valuable, but necessary.  Back then, the New York Times had a specific editorial policy against use of the word “gay,” to describe us.  GLAAD is the reason that changed, and they can claim credit for much more.  They’ve helped us change the world.

But now we are in the position where we can complain when one network only shows us five percent of the time — a number pretty close to our actual percentage in the population.  Anyone tuned only to ABC would have had to put up with 269.5 hours of us.  How helpful is it, really, that we know, to the decimal point, total network hours, percentages (subdivided by race, as well; Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives lose serious GLAAD-cred on that point) and year-over-year differentials of GLAAD-approved achievement?  Are we studying stuff now, not because we need to, but just because we can?

I don’t know how much it cost to do all this monitoring, and slicing and dicing of the data, nor how much was spent to produce the 39-page, very glossy report.  But in a world where we have some important and expensive political work to do in (for example) Maine, New York and possibly Washington (and let’s not forget California), is this really the best use of $11 million?  Do we really need GLAAD as an institution any more?  More important, if we ever decided we didn’t, would it be possible to get rid of them?

By Peter LaBarbera

I sent the note below to homosexual journalist Rex Wockner after reading his photo-story on the anti-Mormon “kiss-in” protest yesterday in San Diego. (See AFTAH’s report condemning the event HERE.) Turns out this is just one of many “kiss-ins” that have targeted the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) church after a male homosexual couple was arrested for trespassing on LDS church property in Salt Lake City after (if you believe LDS officials) flaunting their homosexuality. My goodness, that’s right up there with Jim Crow and anti-black segregation of the past — not. “Those big, bad churches won’t let us celebrate our deviant sexuality!” Oh, the heterosupremacy of it all!

Looking at Wockner’s photos of the over-indulged homosexual (and a few heterosexual) kisser-protesters, I suppose my characterization of this strange event as “Perversion Coercion” was a bit over-the-top — since it doesn’t appear as if the LDS church is going to be “coerced” anytime soon by this hapless lot mocking the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God outside those white temple fences. (But make no mistake: there is a long and sordid history of “queer” harassment of and attacks on churches and religious opponents.)

What is over-the-top, however, is the liberal (“mainstream”) media treating every “queer” protest and event as important news. (Meanwhile, Associated Press and all national media skipped our coalition press conference in Chicago against President Barack Obama’s “gay” agenda — held on the very day that Obama was capitulating to the “Gay” Lobby by signing an Executive Order supporting “domestic partners.”) If homosexual activists do succeed in destroying the influence of the church and ushering in the oxymoronic notion of government-supported homosexual “marriage,” the woefully biased American media will be able to claim major credit.

Here’s my note to Wockner:

Hey Rex, 25 media people at the anti-Mormon “kiss-in”? …

… according to your report. That’s almost more than the number of protesting kissers [30] themselves! Every pro-family leader I know would be shocked if half that many media showed up at one of their events. … So who’s got the power now?  The “gay victim” charade is getting a wee bit old given the media’s and Hollywood’s ubiquitous promotion of all things homosexual and transgender.

Hope you’re well. Here’s my take on Empowering Spirits’ silly call for “dialogue” at a protest designed to mock and defy Mormon values: http://americansfortruth.com/news/fk-the-mormons-homosexual-group-stages-another-kiss-in-at-a-mormon-temple.html#more-2957

– pl

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org

Go here to link directly to Adams’ “Frank Lombard’s Wish List” column on Townhall.

____________________________

Little Boy Blue Devil

By Mike Adams, Townhall.com, June 28, 2009

It looks like Duke University has another rape case on its hands. This one may hurt the university nearly as much as the one that rocked its campus back in 2006. Unlike the previous case, this one appears to involve a credible confession of sexual abuse. Like the previous case, crucial facts are already being filtered through the prism of identity politics.

Frank Lombard is the associate director of Duke’s Center for Health Policy. The university administrator was recently arrested by the FBI and charged with offering up his adopted 5-year-old son for sex. I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children. So far, he’s declined to comment.

University administrator Lombard is accused of logging on to a chat room online and describing himself as a “perv dad for fun.” The detective who wisely looked into the suspicious screen name says that Lombard admitted to molesting his own adopted son. All this was before allegedly inviting a stranger to travel to North Carolina from another state to statutorily rape his already-molested adopted son.

If Lombard is convicted, he faces a maximum of 20 years in prison. His arrest comes about a year after the Court decided that child rapists cannot be executed because “society” has “evolved” to the point where such executions would be “indecent.”

If this case goes to trial, it could be an interesting one to watch. But it will be just as interesting to watch the Duke faculty respond to these allegations. It didn’t take them long to respond when several white Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper. A whopping 88 professors signed a statement accusing the players of both racism and rape. Such was their regard for the presumption of innocence.

Perhaps even more stunning was the response of some professors after it became apparent that the white lacrosse players were innocent. After that became so obvious the school had to readmit the students, Professor Kate Holloway resigned her committee assignments in protest. By the way, the most common form of faculty protest these days is to refuse to work. Most people think this kind of protest is caused by arrogance. But the actual cause is a thing called “tenure.”

So it will be interesting to see how Duke faculty members respond to Frank Lombard. Because he is white, Lombard is fair game at Duke, isn’t he? But Lombard is also gay, so will that complicate things?

Unfortunately for Frank Lombard, the affidavit in support of his arrest warrant shows that this second Duke rape case will also have a strong racial component. According to a confidential source (CS) a man using the user name “cooper2” or “cooperse” logged onto an internet-based video chat room. CS saw him perform oral sex on an African-American child under the age of ten. He also performed other acts on the child, which are too obscene to be described in this column.

The user name “cooper2” has now been linked to Frank Lombard, the associate director Duke University’s Center for Health Policy. A second source has now alleged that “cooper2” has confessed to being “into incest” and that he has adopted two African American children.

The only good news coming out of this story is about Frank Lombard’s live-in homosexual partner. The affidavit in support of Lombard’s arrest warrant shows that he made special arrangements when molesting the child – sometimes even by drugging the child – to make sure his partner did not find out.

Records also indicate that Frank Lombard made a contribution to the Genesis Home in 2003. The Genesis Home is an organization that assists needy families in making a transition out of homelessness, in part by maintaining a child care center. The organization’s website features numerous photographs of African-American children under the age of ten.

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I wrote this column because I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin.

Where’s the media frenzy? Duke University official Frank Lombard is accused of raping his adopted 5-year-old son and attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with the boy. The same media and Duke professors who were all over the bogus 2006 Duke lacrosse “rape” case are not interested in this horrifying homosexual adoption-rape story.

_____________________
Folks, the jaundiced liberal media deserves much blame for the deterioration of American culture and the collective erosion of morality. Political correctness and identity politics destroy common sense by shielding favored classes and causes from criticism. Ask yourself: what logical reason is there that Matthew Shepard not Jesse Dirkhising is a household name in this country? (And don’t respond that Shepard was targeted “just because he was gay” because that is not true.)

This creep Frank Lombard and anyone — straight, “gay” or bisexual — convicted of the rape of a young child like this ought to be a candidate for automatic life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty, in my view. Homosexuals may not yet have achieved full “protected class” status in the law, but they sure have achieved it in the media. Kudos to WorldNetDaily and UNC professor-scribe Mike Adams for taking up the watchdog role to which journalists with integrity once aspired. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

_______________________

WorldNetDaily reports:

______________________________

News agencies gagging gay’ factor in boy rape

But coverage beyond bonkers or fake Duke lacrosse assault

By Joe Kovacs, WorldNetDaily, posted July1, 2009

Editor’s note: The content of this story is graphic in nature and may be objectionable to some readers.

News coverage of a Duke University official accused of raping his adopted 5-year-old son and offering the child to someone else is apparently lacking what some say is a key piece of information: the fact the alleged perpetrator is a homosexual who lives with another “gay” man.

Frank Lombard, associate director of the Health Inequalities Program at the university’s Center for Health Policy, was arrested last Wednesday in Raleigh, N.C., for attempting to induce someone to cross state lines to engage in sex with the child, who is black.

The arrest affidavit goes into graphic detail of Lombard’s alleged actions, including alleged performance of oral sex with the child in front of a webcam, and sodomizing the boy with his finger and tongue. It also prominently cites the fact that Lombard is a homosexual living with another “gay” man.

In his online profile, Lombard reportedly describes himself as “perv dad for fun.”

But days after the case broke, there have been few, if any, mentions in news stories that Lombard is part of a homosexual couple raising children.

In reports by the Associated Press, CNN and ABC News, for instance, the “gay” factor is never brought up.

A Lexis-Nexis news database search by WND using search terms “Frank Lombard” and “homosexual” or “gay” resulted in just four results, none of which were any major media.

Just today, Duke’s campus newspaper, the Chronicle, finally mentioned the affidavit where it was stated, “he lived in Durham, North Carolina with his live-in homosexual partner.”

An online comment in reaction to the ABC News story mentioned media hypocrisy with the high-profile case of Duke lacrosse players who were wrongly accused of a rape that never happened:

“The Duke lacrosse case was front page news everywhere, professors were signing statements of protest, another professor threatened to resign in protest when the students were readmitted to Duke when found innocent. Could it be the liberal media and professors are as afraid of the gay lobby as Obama is, since this could harm the gay adoption activists?”

Radio host Rush Limbaugh commented today on the apparent double standard, stating, “Did you hear there has been an actual rape at Duke University? An actual rape in Durham, North Carolina. It’s not a phony one. Not a false charge. An actual rape. A guy sold his adopted 5-year-old son to a sex practitioner. A 5-year-old kid, yeah. There’s a problem with this, too, because the guy is gay, a gay adoption.

“This is why you haven’t heard about it. This does not fit the template. A false charge of rape at Duke when you had the poor, black, down-on-her-luck dancer and the rich, white, lacrosse players, oh, that fit the template. They were guilty before any evidence. This you haven’t heard about because this doesn’t fit the template here of what we’re trying to accomplish.”

The silence is reminiscent of the 1999 homosexual rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising of Prairie Grove, Ark. Many news agencies across the nation ignored coverage.

Among those trying to shine the light on the homosexual aspect of the Lombard case is Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington.

“I tried to contact Frank Lombard over the weekend to probe his expertise regarding the health benefits of raping small children,” wrote Adams. “So far, he’s declined to comment.”

Lombard faces a maximum of 20 years in prison if convicted.

______________________

Joe Kovacs is author of “Shocked by the Bible: the Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told.”

Conservative Capitulation Cometh? Homosexual activist Mike Signorile tells FOX’s Laura Ingraham that she and everyone who opposes same-sex “marriage” will be supporting it in five years because “the world is changing.” Some influential conservatives like talk show host Mike Gallagher are selling out on the homosexual agenda by embracing “civil unions.”  Americans For Truth rejects such false compromises. We know that the more you give in to homosexual activists, the more they demand. Signorile himself has championed legalized homosexual “marriage” as a “a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture … [and]  the final tool with which to …  get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools.”

_________________________________________

 Help Americans For Truth … and Get a Free Book

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

A Special Appeal from AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera:

Dear Readers,

I am writing to ask your help to lift Americans For Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) out of a financial crisis, but also to you to do your part to lift America out of her moral crisis.  If you support Americans For Truth, it’s probably because you appreciate our direct approach to the problem of homosexual activism.  We at AFTAH don’t play politically correct games by trying so hard not to offend anyone that we water down Truth.  No, we just tell it like it is, and the homosexual activists hate us for it.

Every day, I receive vicious letters like this from an e-mail containing the name Seth Yatovitz (who gave his e-mail name as “Jesus”) [WARNING: VULGAR]:

Thank You ….For letting me know who you are so I can ream you in your ass even though I am straight. Burn in Hell Father [F--ker]! God loves everyone, even gay people like Jesus! I will be saying prayers for your enlightenment even though you disgust me more than any deviant sexual act ever could. Gays are NOT child molesters, they are the children of God.

Day in, day out, Americans For Truth gets bashed by hate-filled bloggers who strangely see themselves as “tolerant.”  Of course, there is the childish name-calling (“Porno Pete”) and the lies (I’m a self-loathing, secret homosexual, you know).  One godless “leatherman” was so angered by AFTAH’s role in exposing and closing down a homosexual “pig sex” orgy in a Washington, D.C. hotel that he posted a piece titled, “Peter LaBarbera Wants to Have Sweaty Mansex with Every One of You”:

Petey…honey….give it up. Just come out already. Yes, yes…you may be hideously unattractive to the vast majority of sighted gay men, but if we can put a man on the moon, we can put a man on you. Yes, even you. If it comes to it, I’ll even kick in for a hooker. But I get to take pictures.

Yes, this is a very ugly business, and homosexual activists routinely resort to mean and dirty tactics in their crusade for sodomy-based “rights.”  But we press on because what is at stake is the very soul of this great nation.  You see, most Americans have no clue that such organized evil as “pig sex” hotel parties and nudity- and orgy-filled “street fairs” like Folsom Street in San Francisco (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district) even exist.  And many Americans don’t want to know – just as they choose to remain ignorant of the escalating threat to freedom posed by fanatical “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender”) activists, who selfishly put their newfangled “gay rights” above our historic, religious First Amendment freedoms.  (Just ask the beleaguered Boy Scouts, or New Mexico Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin, whose company was fined $6,638 by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for “discrimination” because she declined to shoot a lesbian “commitment ceremony.”)

We hear a lot these days about the country’s financial crisis, but the USA has been in a moral meltdown for decades – and perversion movements thrive amidst moral anarchy.  Now self-styled “queer” activists – who for years scolded us for “imposing our morality” – are aggressively pressing the federal government to impose their immorality and preaching at us – as if WE are sinning for standing up for a sex as ordained by God, in marriage!  (Watch “queer” writer Mike Signorile in the YouTube below.)

They who have no shame are scolding us for resisting their sin-based movement.  To paraphrase the Prophet Isaiah, “Good is evil and evil is good” in modern, “tolerant,” post-Christian America.

Some naively thought the homosexual lobby would be appeased by “tolerance” – but they manipulated tolerance to advance an aggressive legal agenda that now seeks to use the government – including public schools – to promote homosexuality as normal and to force people to accept homosexual and transsexual behaviors.  This is public-policy madness and societal suicide, and anybody who purports to defend America’s Judeo-Christian heritage should have no part of such state-sponsored social re-engineering.

Conservatives Capitulating?

But instead of confronting the insanity, the appeasing calls for “compromise” only get louder.  If you want a good indicator of how severe America’s moral meltdown is, just listen to some “conservatives” talk about homosexuality-related issues.  Have you noticed how some key opinion-makers on the Right are now espousing (or willing to consider) “civil unions” as an acceptable compromise on the homosexual “marriage” issue?  (“Civil unions” would grant government recognition to immoral relationships based on homosexuality –– a revolutionary idea that perverts the biblically-informed purpose of government envisioned by our Founding Fathers, i.e., to dissuade and punish sin, by instead rewarding it.)

I recently had the opportunity to confront radio talk show host Mike Gallagher (left) on this issue in person; he seems like a great guy, and I love his brand of “pitchfork” conservatism.  So I was shocked to learn that the likable Gallagher is now  calling for the embrace of “civil unions” as the solution to the “same-sex marriage” debate [contact Gallagher HERE].  And Gallagher is not alone: the list of “conservatives” abandoning principle on this issue grows longer every day: Bill O’Reilly, Dennis Prager, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, and political pundit Michael Barone (who says the GOP should abandoned the “gay marriage” issue to become a more “upscale” party), to name a few.

Why is it that conservatives who despise compromise on foundational moral issues like abortion – and bedrock issues like guns, taxes and government spending – are willing to sell out on homosexuality? And why have “conservative” opinion-leaders been so reluctant to fight the “gay” activist agenda in general?

Because this is the issue where all the forces of the Left and the media are united and focused, and – as a public leader — it’s hard to stay committed to truth and principle knowing that a tiny but powerful army of homosexual militants will target you as a “homophobe” and a “bigot” — and try to destroy your career — if you publicly disagree with them.  This is precisely what they did to Rick Warren (who appears to be caving), Dr. Laura Schlessinger, and – back in the 1970’s – a brave Christian woman named Anita Bryant.

But selling out is not the answer. It is the farthest thing from “conservative” — and it only encourages the radical bullies to demand more concessions.  Look at how the Homosexuality Lobby has responded to Chamberlain-esque offers of “compromise” in the form of “civil unions.”  GLBT activists are only stepping up their demands for “same-sex marriage” in the name of “equality” – as if two men in a sodomitic relationship (engaging in outside homosexual sex, of course), or two lesbians in a household that is intentionally fatherless could ever come close to God’s natural design of marriage and family.

To my fellow conservatives I plead: get a backbone and start “conserving” God-given sexuality in marriage as a foundational truth that cannot be compromised without destroying societies and undermining God’s moral order.  If you are a Christian, please join me in taking this pledge before God:

“God, I agree with You that homosexual behavior is always sinful.  Any government that promotes homosexual relationships ceases being a government that honors You by rewarding virtue (in marriage).  I pledge to You today that just as I would never abandon truth on the issue of human life and the evil of abortion, I will never make a worldly accommodation with advocates of homosexuality.

“Thank you for helping countless men and women leave the homosexual lifestyle.  Forgive me for not treating the sin of homosexuality as seriously as You do, and also for not reaching out to homosexuals with the hope of the Gospel of Christ – and for not loving them enough to tell them the truth, that they cannot please You while remaining proudly “gay.”  Help me to stand for Truth always on this issue even if it means being attacked by misguided activists who promote human wrongs (sin) in the name of ‘civil rights.’”

If you are not a Christian, try this:

“I pledge to remain principled on the homosexual issue just as I would in defending innocent human life (opposing abortion) or any other moral issue.  I recognize that state-sponsored homosexuality — including ‘civil unions’ — is a radical social experiment that will only lead to pro-homosexuality indoctrination in schools, undermine and cheapen real marriage by rewarding extra-marital behavior, and destroy cherished American liberties by forcing citizens to override their moral conscience.”

_________________________________________

Help Americans For Truth … and Get a Free Book

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

Signorile’s Brazen Prediction

From a spiritual and philosophical perspective, I am fascinated by the out-of-control arrogance of homosexual activists.  Watch the end of the YouTube video below of Michelangelo Signorile’s interview with Laura Ingraham, subbing for Bill O’Reilly. Signorile brazenly predicts that Ingraham, a committed Catholic, and indeed everyone who opposes homosexualized “marriage,” will abandon their opposition to it because “the world is changing.”

Few people watching the FOX TV debate would know what we at AFTAH know well: that a revolutionary was hiding underneath Signorile’s conservative-looking suit.  The veteran “queer” activist once wrote that winning legalized homosexual “marriage” would allow “gay” activists to “redefine the institution of marriage completely,” and “radically alter an archaic institution.”

In 1996, Signorile wrote in the homosexual magazine OUT:

“[Legalizing “same-sex marriage”] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us.”

You see, homosexuality-based “civil rights” — enforced by government — is one of the greatest scams perpetrated on the American people.  Homosexual militants like Signorile are in the vanguard of aggressively undermining America’s Judeo-Christian moral belief system, but even as they demonize Christians, re-write the Word of God, and try to destroy noble groups like the Boy Scouts, they’ve got half the country convinced that they’re the “victims” (thanks to their lackeys in the liberal media and Hollywood).  The truth is, Mike Signorile and fellow GLBT activists are the aggressors, they pose a grave threat to Americans’ liberties, and they are guilty before God and man for helping to “mainstream” behavior which is immoral, unhealthy, unnatural and changeable.

Conservatives should know better than to try to make an accommodation with Big Homosexuality.  That would be like cutting a deal with the Abortion Lobby — say, to ban only partial-birth infanticide — while defending the rest of the abortion agenda as a “woman’s right to choose.”  Conservatives must not limit their goals to defending just “the word” marriage — while ushering in willy nilly the rest of the “gay” agenda.  We must avoid the temptation of promoting one evil (government endorsement of homosexual relationships) as the necessary price to pay for preventing another (same-sex “marriage”).

I cringe every time I hear a “conservative” spokesman talking favorably about homosexual relationships or cavalierly about how homosexuals in this state or that “already have all the benefits of marriage” (due to pro-homosexual laws).  (Some, like FOX’s Margaret Hoover — Bill O”Reilly’s fake “conservative” culture warrior –  now openly embrace full “gay marriage.”)  So often we gladly engage on the homosexual activist playing field, speaking with words lifted from the Gay Dictionary, not understanding that this ensures long-term (and sometimes short-term) defeat.  Besides, every state high court decision imposing “gay marriage” has regarded “civil unions” and other pro-homosexual legislation in that state as the logical antecedent to “same-sex marriage,” not a valid reason to deny it.

We at AFTAH understand that our opponents may be gaining political and cultural momentum — thanks in large part to their media, educational and cultural allies.  But morality is not a popularity contest and their continued ascendancy is not assured.  At one time, pro-abortion feminists thought the battle was largely over and they had won — now look at who’s got the Big Mo’!  Like abortion, the battle over homosexuality in America is a titanic moral struggle, and Americans For Truth will be fighting aggressively and non-apologetically on the side of good until the end.  You have my word on that.  Thank you for helping us with your gifts and prayers.

Sincerely,

Peter LaBarbera

President

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (www.aftah.com)

_________________________________________

 Help Americans For Truth … and Get a Free Book

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

_________________________________

WorldNetDaily.com reports today:

‘Gay’ gene claim suddenly vanishes

American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

——————————————————————————–

Posted: May 12, 2009    9:30 pm Eastern    By Bob Unruh    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).

A. Dean Byrd, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”

“Although there is no mention of the research that influenced this new position statement, it is clear that efforts to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is simply a biological fait accompli have failed,” Byrd wrote. “The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.”

Byrd said the APA’s documents both new and old “have strong activist overtones,” but the newer document “is more reflective of science and more consistent with the ethicality of psychological care.”

“On the question of whether or not therapy can change sexual orientation, the former document offered a resounding ‘no,’” Byrd wrote. “However, the current document is much more nuanced and contains the following statement: ‘To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.’”

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE WND STORY:  “‘Gay’ Gene Claim Suddenly Vanishes”

Will Obama Nominate a “Gay” Supreme Court Justice? Liberal opinion-makers like Mark Halperin of MSNBC (left) now treat homosexuality as an element of “diversity” that should be celebrated by society. See YouTube video and interview transcript below. TAKE ACTION: Urge Sen. Sessions (202-224-4124) to oppose the confirmation of pro-homosexuality (activist) justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courts.

By Peter LaBarbera

Welcome to the new “Sexual Diversity” landscape created by decades of homosexual activism — with its essentially anti-Christian, anti-Biblical ethos. Liberal opinion-making elites like MSNBC’s Mark Halperin below now treat homosexual perversion (oops, sorry, “sexual orientation”) as part of America’s “minority” tapestry — eligible for all the “diversity” demands — read: quotas — of other (genuine) minority groups. Identity politics and affirmative action are bad enough with real minorities; they will become unbearable once expanded to include advocates and practitioners of changeable sexual sin — which is what an open and proudly “gay” Supreme Court justice would be.

Please watch the YouTube video clip below of an interview yesterday morning (May 7) between Halperin and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the new highest ranking Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee following the party switch of Sen. Arlen Specter. Note how Halperin eagerly pushes the “homosexuality-as-diversity” line — which Sen. Sessions attempts to fend off with his “gay tendencies” remark. With all due respect to the senator, if that’s the best that conservatives can do, we will be squashed by liberal and libertarian advocates of proud homosexuality in this debate.

Imagine: what Senator is going to have the guts to challenge the idea that it is “wrong for a justice to be disqualified because of ‘who he is’” — to quote the now widely accepted but biblically false homosexual-activist cliché? There is a deeply personal and emotional level of activism in anyone who self-identifies as “openly gay” — as opposed to one who struggles against the unwanted pull of homosexuality — because that person flips timeless morality on its head. The unapologetic “gay” person has his or her whole life and, indeed, eternal destiny invested in the idea that Judeo-Christian teachings against homosexual behavior as sinful should be discarded. An openly homosexual judge “not promoting any agenda personal, religious or moral” — how absurd and naive!  A transcript of the MSNBC exchange between Halperin and Sessions follows the video:

Transcript of MSNBC “Morning Joe” interview between Mark Halperin and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), May 7, 2009:

MARK HALPERIN: Senator, big opportunity for you here in the national spotlight coming up when these hearings get underway.  You told Neil Cavuto — we just saw just now — that you could vote for a pro-choice nominee, in theory. A couple of people at least supposedly under consideration are openly gay. Could you vote for an openly gay justice, which we’ve never had before?

SEN. SESSIONS:  Well, … it depends on their personal ethics and standards, and their legal skill and ability. I don’t think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se [from] the job. We’ll just have to see–

HALPERIN: Would you welcome that as a diverse thing that we haven’t had in American history?

SESSIONS: Well, I don’t think that we should be thinking like that for the United States Supreme Court. We need to be looking for a person that can gain full respect of the American people, who can apply the law fairly, when they put on that robe will be non-partisan and non-biased — not promoting any agenda personal, religious or moral, and follow the law faithfully. Those are critical components in this magnificent rule of law we have in the Supreme Court.

By Peter LaBarbera

OK, where do we start with the Perez Hilton-Carrie Prejean Miss USA controversy? Earlier today I was a guest on the Bob Dutko Show on WMUZ in Detroit, and observed that Hilton epitomizes the spoiled-brat aspect of “queer” activism. It’s bad enough that this obnoxious and rude “gay celebrity blogger” calls Miss California a “dumb bitch,” and then stands behind his ugly remark after initially apologizing for it. I want to know why this nasty fellow is then treated so deferentially by the media — first by this MSNBC anchor Norah O’Donnell and then NBC’s Matt Lauer? Are the liberal media — like those irresponsible parents who let themselves be manipulated by their spoiled children — now so indulgent toward homosexuals that they can’t even call out an angry activist whose vicious and juvenile conduct is obvious to most everyone else? Would NBC have accorded similar respect to a right-wing blogger who blasted a homosexual contestant as a “dumb fag”? Of course not (but they would have made an example of him as a hateful bigot, which is precisely what Mr. Hilton is). Watch this YouTube of this morning’s NBC Today Show, followed by more commentary after the jump:

… The reflexively pro-”gay” media have become the enablers of creeps like Perez Hilton because they allow themselves to be used and intimidated by them. (See Hilton’s penis-humor doctored photo of Carrie posted at bottom.) And when you give in to the bully, the bully steps up his abuse of others. In fact, Hilton with his absurd rationalizations for his misbehavior is himself the product of a media/Hollywood culture that rewards homosexual militants while demonizing sincere Christians. The good news is that the gay/liberal media overreach is starting to backfire: everyone can see that Hilton, and not Prejean, is the real hater here — just as most TV viewers who are not hardened liberal ideologues saw that MSNBC and CNN’s Anderson Cooper with their crude sex jokes about “Tea Party” rallies nationwide were the true extremists — while the ralliers themselves were mostly just good Americans with a beef against Big Government.

Check out his MSNBC clip (caption: “Miss California Stirs Controversy”! — in which O’Donnell is disturbingly solicitous of Hilton — how strange that she and the feminists aren’t coming to Prejean’s defense?:

Beyond the intimidation factor, many morally-challenged media professionals agree with Perez Hilton’s basic premise (minus the rudeness–except for potty-mouth MSNBC): they, too, barely acknowledge the anti-homosexual-”marriage” position as legitimate, as they stoke the “gay” story line that “same-sex marriage is inevitable” (despite 30 states passing anti-gay-”marriage” amendments). Here again note Hilton’s mindset, also representative of the GLBT movement: he is angry, stunned and horrified at Prejean’s answer — not because she disagrees with him on “gay marriage” (or so he says) — but because Miss California took sides and hence was “divisive.” This despite the fact that Prejean went out of her way not to alienate those who feel differently about this issue. Surely, the crazed Hilton would not have found Prejean “divisive” had she made an impassioned plea FOR “gay marriage.”

You see, it’s all about holding the “right” position — that is, the “gay” position — and shutting up or overriding your beliefs, or risk being smeared as a hateful “homophobe” if you dare to disagree. This is the emboldened Queer Lobby’s and their Amen Corner’s M.O. — whether it’s forcing a New Mexico Christian photographer to shoot a lesbian “wedding” against her convictions; trying to get Prop 8 thrown out and declared “unconstitutional” because you lost at the ballot box; equating opposition to “gay marriage” with rank bigotry, or moral opposition to homosexual behavior with “bullying gays”; or pressuring the media into rejecting ads featuring successful ex-”gays” (as GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, has done).

God bless you, Carrie Prejean, for being, as you said, “Biblically Correct” and not “Politically Correct” when it came to sticking up for natural marriage — and for pleasing God rather than man in this defining moment of your young life. Yes, it’s sad that one state’s legislature has chosen to legalize homosexual marriage, but even if sizeable majorities of Americans turn against God and support these counterfeit, genderless “marriages,” that won’t make them right. Corrupt politicians can’t negate moral truth by a vote.

And as for you Perez, you need to ask this woman for forgiveness, but more importantly, you need to repent to a holy God for not only embracing sin in your own life, but shoving it down the throats of the rest of us with such callous arrogance.

One more request for Miss California: since you’re in the area, why don’t you pay a visit to Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren, or stop by the headquarters of eHarmony.com: they could use some of your courage and Biblical Correctness.

DOCTORED PHOTO FROM PEREZ HILTON’S WEBSITE: How Low Can You Go? — On his website, homosexual activist and celebrity blogger Perez Hilton doctors a photo of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, answering a reporter’s question, by drawing a penis ejaculating into the mouth of Carrie Prejean over the microphone. How dare the media treat the hateful Hilton as a serious commentator!

Send To Phone