Amy Contrada of MassResistance has exposed the radical pro-homosexual agenda of Elena Kagan (shown above) as Dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan is President Obama's second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is AFTAH’s July 3, 2010 interview with Amy Contrada, Research Director for MassResistance and main author of the MR report, “How Elena Kagan Helped ‘Queer’ Harvard Law School.” Contrada — who has degrees from Tufts and Brown Universities and who once worked as an administrator at Harvard — writes for the MassResistance blog. Working with MR founder Brian Camenker (see AFTAH Camenker interviews Part One HERE and Part Two HERE), Contrada has written extensively on the “gay” activist movement in Boston and has authored an extensive report on radical transsexual rights bill under consideration in Massachusetts.  Both Amy and Brian have joined the faculty of the ongoing Americans For Truth Academy.

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

7-3-10, Amy Contrada, All

For the last few weeks I’ve been working with Mass Resistance’s Amy Contrada, who has pulled together a wealth of information about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s time at Harvard University, where she served as Dean of the Law School. Many will be shocked at just how extreme Harvard has become — and the radical sexual/gender policies advanced by Kagan. Kudos to Contrada and our friends at Mass Resistance for doing the reporting that most in the liberal media refuse to do (because too many agree with Kagan’s left-wing social agenda). And thanks to Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt of the Pray in Jesus Name Project for supporting this work. Please read the full report, which ends with questions that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should be asking Kagan.

TAKE ACTION: Fax and e-mail the Kagan report to Judiciary Committee members and request that they question Kagan on her full record at Harvard, which is way out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. Click on the names of the individual Committee members HERE and fax to their MULTIPLE offices (D.C. and local); request that the Senator ask Kagan the questions at the end of the report (reprinted below). Do the same to your own two U.S. Senators. (Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121.) – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Read our Mass Resistance report, “How Elena Kagan Helped “Queer” Harvard Law School (Will she now help “queer” the US Supreme Court’s decisions?)”

Read our Mass Resistance report, “How Elena Kagan Helped “Queer” Harvard Law School (Will she now help “queer” the US Supreme Court’s decisions?)”

“It is important to say that under Rehoboth law this was not against the law … In this case, they had male genitalia; therefore, they are not guilty of a crime.” - Rehoboth, Del., Police Chief Keith Banks

If transgender 'she-males' go topless, is it public nudity? Cops in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, say "No." Above, a male-to-female transsexual bares his presumably hormone-induced breasts while riding atop a float at the 2007 Chicago Gay Pride parade. The "she-male" rode for blocks in the parade as police took no action against him. Covered photo: Americans For Truth.

God help us. We have become a sick and very weird culture. In the good old days (before “she-males” existed), they would just call such people “perverts.” America was better off then. Check out in the piece below the anger of the local homosexual activist at the end of this story: no, Steve, what is truly “horrific” is that men are pretending to be woman, growing hormone-induced “breasts,” demanding “rights” based on their twisted gender choices, and then making even a bigger circus out of it all by going “topless” in public.

Can you see the misogyny in action here? In many ways, male transsexuals create in their reconstructed image a crude and deviant caricature of women (what they imagine being a woman is all about). I suppose in this case (and that of the “gay pride” photo above), we see men attempting to “live out” their fantasy — or delusion — of “being” slutty women. Too weird. Besides, in our depraved culture, aren’t there enough slutty women out there already that we don’t need men to “create” some more?

Only a nation that has kicked God to the curb would be on the verge of creating federally-guaranteed employment “rights” based on such unbelievable gender confusion. (That’s what ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would do.) Imagine all the trouble that activist “trannies” could cause for employers once they figure out the special treatment they can get merely by crying “discrimination!” Heck, they might show up at the company picnic in a low-cut halter top with lots of (fake) “cleavage” showing — just for the fun of it. The rest of us will have to bite our tongues or risk a Lambda Legal lawsuit. Don’t tell me this is what Martin Luther King died for! – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Big surprise: Rehoboth is a popular “gay” destination.

____________________________________

WUSA9.com reports:

Transgendered Men Go Topless In Rehoboth

(delawareonline.com) June 3, 2010– Rehoboth Beach and the local Internet have been buzzing for days after a few transgendered men caused a stir on the beach over the holiday weekend by removing their tops and revealing their enhanced breasts.

Police there were called to the beach after lifeguards requested that the sunbathers replace their tops.

“Passers-by came up to the lifeguard and said they were alarmed and unhappy with the females showing their breasts,” Police Chief Keith Banks said. “The lifeguard responded and saw that they were males.”

Banks said police were called because the men originally refused to put their tops back on, but had consented before police arrived. Officers made sure the situation was under control, and no citations were issued.

Banks said it could have been difficult to issue a citation because Rehoboth law defines indecent exposure two ways:

“A male is guilty of indecent exposure if he exposes his genitals or buttocks under circumstances which he knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person.

“A female is guilty of indecent exposure if she exposes her genitals, breasts or buttocks under circumstances which she knows her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person.”

So the men’s behavior may have been upsetting, but it was not illegal.

“It is important to say that under Rehoboth law this was not against the law,” Banks said. “In this case, they had male genitalia; therefore, they are not guilty of a crime.”

Banks said police only enforce the laws and want to make sure that people who visit the beach are comfortable. Police have not had previous problems with this kind of behavior, and there is no need for a specific law to address it, Banks said.

Not all are so sure.

“We’ll see if we need to address it,” said Kathy McGuiness, one of Rehoboth’s commissioners. McGuiness said this will be a topic at a town hall meeting next week.

“I can’t speak for the mayor or anyone else. I can speak for myself because I am a commissioner. I hardly see us reversing the topless law. I don’t think we are going to repeal it and allow women to go topless. Now if someone is going to go through the process of having implants, then they probably should think about following the laws of the person they would like to become,” McGuiness said.

Steve Elkins, executive director of CAMP Rehoboth, a nonprofit based in Rehoboth that aims to promote a positive environment for the gay and lesbian community, essentially agreed.

“Technically it wasn’t against the law. However, there are situations where people who — because of feelings about their birth, because of who they are — perceive themselves as females. I think we have to respect that, but on the other hand since they chose to identify themselves as females, they have to respect the law.”

Elkins said he also thinks that it is horrific that some people who voiced outrage through radio talk shows and the Internet only have a problem because they were transgendered.

“Whoever called and complained [initially] complained about a woman having her top off,” he said. “The people now trying to make something about the fact that they were also men, they are trying to have it both ways. You can’t have it both ways.”

Linda Harvey, founder of Mission America (www.MissionAmerica.com).

We apologize for the delay in bringing you Part Two of our May 29, 2010 interview with Linda Harvey, founder of Mission America. (Go HERE for Part One.) But we are delighted to report that AFTAH will be reloading ALL of our interviews (available on the AFTAH Hour web page) — starting with this one — in a more user-friendly format. As you can see below, you can listen to the entire Linda Harvey interview on a single link. After we retool all the shows, you will no longer have to listen to four separate portions of the show (on four separate links) to hear the whole interview.

In Part Two of my interview with Linda, we discussed:

• the insidious promotion of homosexuality as an acceptable identity and lifestyle to young people — even preteens.
• the “gay” community centers that help expose young people to adult homosexual behaviors and promiscuity — one of the most troubling results of the proud, homosexualist movement;
• pro-homosexual youth literature (including a book by a Christian author) that advances the talking points of “gay” activism;
• the sellout theology of some politically correct “Emergent” church leaders.

Thanks to Linda for all she has done to bring truth to the culture. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

Linda Harvey, 5-29-10, All

Ellen DeGeneres' Hollywood star has risen since her famous "coming out" in 1997, but her worldly fame does not make her a wholesome role model for American girls.

American Idol judge Ellen DeGeneres picked a love song written to be sung by a man to a woman for contestant Crystal Bowersox–a single mom with a boyfriend–to perform on the show’s semifinal program on Tuesday night.

The song, “Maybe I’m Amazed,” written by Paul McCartney and dedicated to his now-deceased wife Linda McCartney, includes the repeated lyric “baby, I’m a man” in the chorus. — CNSNews.com

More gender confusion from Ellen DeGeneres. It is so tiresome to see Ellen mega-hyped as a pop icon despite her immoral and chosen lifestyle as a practicing lesbian and pro-homosexuality activist. The very funny Ellen (who gets very serious when it comes to her public mission of promoting this immoral behavior) is getting more worldly fame than most humans could ever hope to have, but that means nothing before our holy God. She needs to humble herself and repent of her wrong and very changeable lifestyle, as other former “out and proud lesbians” have (e.g., Yvette Schneider and Charlene Cothran; see Charlene’s website HERE).

Pray that Ellen would find reconciliation with God through Jesus Christ and join the ranks of ex-lesbians. Her worldly, Hollywood star would surely fall following such a godly transformation, but she could then become a truly wholesome role model for American girls, which she is not now, despite her many talents. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.

Following the Eyeblast.TV video is An excerpt of the CNSNews.com article after the jump (see full CNS article HERE):

_______________________________________

American Idol Judge Ellen DeGeneres Asks Female Contestant to Sing Love Song to a Woman on Idol Semifinal

By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) – American Idol judge Ellen DeGeneres picked a love song written to be sung by a man to a woman for contestant Crystal Bowersox–a single mom with a boyfriend–to perform on the show’s semifinal program on Tuesday night.

The song, “Maybe I’m Amazed,” written by Paul McCartney and dedicated to his now-deceased wife Linda McCartney, includes the repeated lyric “baby, I’m a man” in the chorus.

There were only three contestants left for the semifinal of the popular Fox television program and each was required to sing two songs, one they picked for themselves and another picked for them by one of the judges or a pair of judges.

Judges Randy Jackson and Kara DioGuardi picked “Daughters” by John Mayer for contestant Casey James to perform. Simon Cowell picked “Hallelujah” by Leonard Cohen for contestant Lee DeWyze to perform. And DeGeneres picked McCartney’s “Maybe I’m Amazed” for contestant Crystal Bowersox.

The other judges and host Ryan Seacrest appeared to express a higher level of curiosity about DeGeneres’s song pick for Bowersox than they did for the other judges’ choices for the program.

“All right, Ellen, so why did you pick this one for Crystal?” Seacrest asked DeGeneres before Bowersox performed the tune.

“Well, I love the song,” DeGeneres said. “I think the song is amazing, and I think she’s amazing. And I just wanted her to surprise people. Everybody knows what she does, and I thought let’s show some range and let her just tear this thing apart. And I think she will.” … [Full CNS story continues HERE.]

Why should you spend your hard-earned consumer dollars on the products of a company like Progressive Insurance that promotes "pride" in immoral homosexual behavior? Progressive lists the various big-city "gay pride" parade dates on its special, pro-homosexual "Faces of Pride" website.

[The following message was sent out to AFTAH e-subscribers May 20, 2010:]

Folks, Jamil Adair of Horizon City, Texas, has given us permission to reprint his excellent letter to Progressive Insurance, which he sent after reading our article, “Progressive Insurance Co. Promotes Homosexuality.” (And Jamil approved the printing of his full address: here is one American who does not cower in fear of homosexual activist bullies.) Click HERE to read Jamil’s letter.

This is how we regain our culture: taking one principled stance at a time, and using our considerable power as consumers to defend morality and truth.  In the last decade or so, the corporate world was essentially ceded to the “gay” lobby without much of a fight — while pro-family advocates were busy opposing the homosexual activist political agenda in Washington, D.C.  Now look at the tragic result: major corporations are using their immense resources to promote sexual immorality and gender confusion throughout society.  And the agenda they are financing wars against Biblical values and directly threatens YOUR religious freedom.

One wonders: what have the Christian employees been doing all these years at companies like Progressive?   Why haven’t more people of faith spoken up in their place of employment — urging their superiors not to waste valuable corporate resources to fund and promote the homosexual and transsexual agenda?  And why aren’t more Christians and moral advocates demanding true corporate “diversity” — which includes respecting those employees who support real (man-woman) marriage and who oppose homosexual practice and gender confusion?

It’s time to stop whining and making excuses about the past and to start sending this very clear message to “gay”-pandering corporate execs: We’re not going to just sit back and take it while you use OUR consumer dollars to promote immorality to the public.  Jamil shows us the way with his letter to Progressive.

TAKE ACTION: Go HERE to read a short AFTAH piece about how the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign uses its rigged “Corporate Equality Index” to pressure corporations like Progressive Insurance into ever greater advocacy and financing of the homosexualist agenda.

Find other sellout corporations: you can also go directly to HRC’s website to view their complete corporate “Gay Index” and see for yourself which other major U.S. companies have sold out to HRC’s anti-Christian agenda.  Here’s the HRC link: http://issuu.com/hrcworkplace/docs/hrc_corporate_equality_index_2010.

Call Progressive (even if you don’t do business with them) at 1-800-PROGRESSIVE (800-776-4737); or fax your own letter to 800-229-1590.  (A Progressive phone/e-mail contact page is HERE.)   And work with AFTAH to contact other “100-percent-pro-homosexual” corporations and avoid spending your hard-earned $$$ on their products.

Thanks in advance for taking a stand for God’s truth in a culture that has bought into many lies of the Sexual Revolution.  God bless you. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S.  Write us at americansfortruth@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net, and if you can, send a tax-deductible donation to support AFTAH’s work at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/.  And please pray for us.

Related AFTAH articles:

• “Human Rights Campaign’s Pro-Gay ‘Corporate Equality Index’ Rating System”
• “Texas Man Cancels Progressive Insurance Policy over Promotion of Homosexuality”
• “Ex-Gay Greg Quinlan of PFOX Challenges Pro-Gay PepsiCo Execs on Lack of Diversity”
• “Progressive Insurance Co. Promotes Homosexuality”

This gender-confused man who identifies as a "woman" ("Donna") deserves our pity, but does he also deserve special job protections based on his extreme gender confusion? Should he be given the "right" to be your child's teacher? See his YouTube interview below.

TAKE ACTION: contact your U.S. Representative and Senators to OPPOSE ENDA (“Employment Non-Discrimination Act”; HR 3017; SB 1584) — which would put the United States government behind the reckless idea of granting special employment “rights” and protections based on extreme gender confusion, as well as homosexuality and bisexuality. Contact Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or through www.congress.org. Pass on this e-mail to your network of friends and co-workers; ask them to watch the short (1:21) YouTube video below and to contact Congress on ENDA. Also ask them to oppose the homosexualization of our Armed Forces (through the repeal of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”), another goal of liberals and President Obama.

Dear Readers,

The homosexual-bisexual-transsexual push for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is in “full-court press” mode. Homosexual groups are furiously pushing the House Democratic leadership to bring ENDA to the floor for a vote — and one “queer” website (Queerty) quotes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as promising that ENDA will be called very soon, followed by an attempt to homosexualize the U.S. military with a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual pressure group, 38 states do not protect employment “rights” based on “gender identity” (read: gender confusion). So the question is: if you live in one of the 38 states that does NOT grant special  “‘transgender” protections, should you be forced by the federal government to hire this severely confused man…

• as a child care worker?
• as a “hostess” at a restaurant?
• as a teacher at your public grade school?

Here is the definition of “gender identity” under ENDA:

GENDER IDENTITY- The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.

ENDA represents the most radical departure from a traditional understanding of “civil rights” that this nation has ever seen. Help stop this misguided transformation of America’s employment landscape by contacting Congress today 202-225-3121; 202-224-3121; www.congress.org.

To view the above video on the YouTube website, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGW8ngJ6qIU&feature=player_embedded#!

Funding Homosexual "Pride": One of the criteria by which a corporation gets a perfect "100 percent" pro-"gay" HRC rating is by either funding homosexual events or organizations, or buying positive ads in homosexual publications. Thus, funding "gay pride" parades like the one shown above -- with all their attendant perversions -- is one way for a company to get a perfect HRC score. Scantily clad go-go boys like the above, riding atop a "gay pride" float, can be found at any big-city "pride" parade. We added the box to accentuate that to gain a perfect "gay" rating, corporations are required to finance the celebration of immoral conduct and lifestyles.

By Peter LaBarbera

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) begins its project of regularly informing readers about “100-percent” pro-homosexual corporations, according to the rating system set up by the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign (HRC). We will be updating this page with further details about the system, through which HRC is effectively pressuring companies to go along with — and subsidize — its radical pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual agenda.

To earn a perfect 100-percent ranking by HRC and its “Corporate Equality Index” for 2010, a corporation must meet five sets of “positive-behavior” criteria and avoid one set of “negative” behaviors. The bulk of HRC scorecard’s involves getting points for implementing “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” nondiscrimination policies and providing corporate benefits to homosexual/transgender employees and their same-sex partners. To see the HRC requirements, go to page 5 on this online PDF document.

1. Criterion 1 requires that the corporation establish a “sexual orientation” corporate nondiscrimination policy and engage in “diversity training” to implement it. (AFTAH readers will be well aware that such “training” usually propagates only a homosexualist ideology and makes no room for teaching respect for and understanding of moral or religious opponents of homosexual behavior.)
2. Criterion 2 requires the same nondiscrimination policy and diversity training based on “gender identity and expression.” To get 5 points and the full credit in this category (of the 15 points possible), HRC stipulates that: “2c)
   Offers transgender-inclusive insurance coverage for at least one type of benefit: At least one: Counseling by a mental health professional; pharmacy benefits covering hormone therapy and other associated lab procedures; medically necessary surgical procedures such as hysterectomy; or short-term leave for surgical procedures.”;
3. Criterion 3 requires provision of various domestic-partner health insurance and other benefits (providing “adoption assistance” helps fulfill one part of this section);
4. Criterion 4 requires the corporation to support a homosexual employees resource group or “diversity council.”

Criteria 5 and 6 essentially lock an aspiring “100-percent pro-homosexual” corporation to aggressively affirm homosexuality with company dollars AND not do anything that could be construed as “anti-gay”:

• Criterion 5: “Engages in appropriate and respectful advertising and marketing or sponsors LGBT community events or organizations”
• Criterion 6: Employer exhibits responsible behavior toward the LGBT community; does not engage in action that would undermine LGBT equality

Robert Knight

In Part Two of our interview with pro-family veteran Robert Knight, he discusses the reality of “sexual orientation” and the law — specifically, the potential of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) to destroy freedom. Knight is a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of, among other works, “Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism.”

Also in this interview (go HERE to listen to Part One), Knight discusses now-discredited sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, Obama’s effort to allow open homosexuals in the U.S. military, and Obama’s radical new appointee to the EEOC, lesbian Chai Feldblum.

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

5-1-10, Robert Knight, All

Transgender activist "Autumn" Sandeen (the man dressed in a woman's Navy uniform at left) and homosexual activist Lt. Dan Choi (second from left) join others in chaining themselves to the White House gate Wednesday. The Obama administration has delayed responding to a request by Choi's National Guard commanders to discharge him.

Lt. Dan Choi (second from left)– homosexual activist, Iraq war veteran, West Point graduate and New York National Guardsman — continues to engage in illegal activism in ratcheting up his pressure campaign to homosexualize the  military in the name of “civil rights.” Choi’s latest protest Wednesday was another violation of the longstanding military policy of disallowing political actions in uniform (see earlier actions in the YouTube videos below).

We talked with Maj. Kathy Oliver, a spokesman for Choi’s National Guard unit in New York, who relayed that his commanders — having already moved to discharge him last summer but awaiting the Defense Department’s delayed decision on the case — are not taking further actions against Choi for his ongoing public “civil disobedience” against the military. This appears to free up Choi — who remains in the Guard — to engage in more political stunts (in uniform) without additional cost.

Lt. Choi is caught up in a media-approved crusade, which he sees as a quest for “integrity” but which in reality is nothing but sexual deviancy activism. Homosexual behavior is immoral and degrading to the soul of those who practice it and to any institution — including the Armed Forces — that “tolerates” it (or worse, celebrates it). Imagine what our military will become if — under Obama’s leadership — it capitulates to “queer” militancy and opens itself up to the full promotion of homosexuality at every level. This will surely lead to a mass exodus of tradition-minded soldiers and sailors who did not sign up for military service to have their religious and moral values abused.

Lt. Choi, a bright but confused and over-indulged young man, should be dishonorably discharged from the National Guard post haste. Failure to do so will only chip away at the morale of servicemen who might rightly wonder which other military codes will go unenforced due to Obama’s leftist political considerations. Matt Barber’s statement follows. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Please pray for this young man, Dan Choi, that he will accept the Bible’s truth about homosexuality as a sin habit that can be overcome, and that he will one day join the growing ranks of former homosexuals. To learn more about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, see www.NeedHim.com or call 1-888-NEED-HIM.

__________________________________

Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member and Cultural Affairs Director for Liberty Counsel, who served 12 years in the Armed Forces, issued the following regarding the protest Wednesday at the White House. We’ll have more on Lt. Choi in upcoming posts:

“Don’t these one-trick ponies have any new material? America’s response: a collective eye-roll. We get it: you’re starved for attention. Seeing these overly pampered radicals hand-cuffed to the White House fence – wearing and dishonoring the military uniform in such a way – I was reminded of the Village People. (My apologies to the Village People.)

“Choi has now compounded the reasons for discharge from the Armed Services. Not only is he in open violation of federal law, which holds that homosexuality is incompatible with military service; he continues to disobey orders through his public activism — mocking, embarrassing and undermining his Commander-in-Chief. (Such protests are prohibited for active-duty servicemen under the UCMJ.) Yet Obama, rather than having the guts to toss out this insubordinate, media-hungry troublemaker, continues to pander to the militant Homosexual Lobby — effectively ensuring with his promised repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell that the ranks of the Armed Services will overflow with equally obnoxious, San Francisco-style militants.”

_____________________________

Below is Choi speaking at a D.C. rally in March protesting the “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” policy against open homosexuals in the Armed Forces:

Here is Choi’s first White House protest. Skip ahead on the YouTube video to 4:50 to hear his speech:

Here’s a short video of Sandeen, a man and Navy veteran who left his wife and family to become a “transgender” activist, commenting on the April 20th protest (he is pictured at left in the photo at the top of this page, dressed in a woman’s Navy uniform). Ultimately, homosexual activists hope to make the military “transgender-friendly,” but to crusade for that now would complicate their plans to push the Armed Forces to accept people openly practicing homosexuality:

TAKE ACTION: Urge your U.S. Congressman and Senators to oppose ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House): 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org.

By J. Matt Barber

Still suffering indigestion from an Obamacare forced feeding, America may yet have to choke down some bitter dessert. Democrats’ characteristically mislabeled Employment Non-Discrimination Act or ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House) apparently will be under consideration relatively soon.

Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, ENDA co-sponsor and one of two openly homosexual members of Congress, recently signaled to Boston’s Edge Web site that ENDA will be on the plate sometime after lawmakers return from Easter recess. “The fact is there was no chance of getting [Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi] to focus on this until health care was done. Health care is now done,” he said.

According to its leftist proponents, ENDA would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment intolerance. In truth, however, this legislation effectively would codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

ENDA would force – under penalty of law – Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to adopt a secular-humanist viewpoint, ignoring all matters surrounding sexual morality while making hiring and firing decisions. Unlike race or sex, homosexual and cross-dressing behaviors are both volitional and mutable. Nonetheless, and despite the reality that such conduct is in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology, ENDA would compel business owners with 15 or more employees to leave sincerely held religious beliefs at the workplace door and submit to the demands of the homosexual activist lobby.

This is government-sanctioned viewpoint discrimination. It is no different from forcing a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an “out and proud” adulterous “swinger.” It directly alienates the unalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.

During his second term, President George W. Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, highlighting its unconstitutionality: “[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

President Obama, however, has publicly endorsed the bill and promises to sign it into law should it pass. This is in perfect keeping with his demonstrated belief that the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers are more of a suggestion than a requirement. Mr. Obama has appointed at least one like-minded ENDA heavy. Chai R. Feldblum is a lesbian activist and sexual nihilist lawyer who in the past has publicly supported legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory.

One of Mr. Obama’s recent 15 controversial recess appointments, Ms. Feldblum was sworn in on April 7 as a commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As ENDA’s chief framer, Ms. Feldblum would be charged with its primary enforcement. This is the classic fox-guarding-the-henhouse scenario.

In the past, Ms. Feldblum has repeatedly and candidly summed up the mindset behind the bill. She has publicly stated that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka homosexual “rights”) is a “zero-sum game,” meaning the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. It’s a “winner takes all” approach.

When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Ms. Feldblum snapped: “Gays win, Christians lose.” And where Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of homosexual “rights,” Ms. Feldblum has admitted having “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

Of course, her analysis is entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable constitutional interpretation or federal precedent. But to Ms. Feldblum, Comrade Obama and his kooky cadre of revolutionary advisers, little things like the U.S. Constitution and federal precedent are but obnoxious speed bumps on the fast track to a brave new world.

J. Matt Barber is director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” (Freedom Press Canada Inc., 2009).

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

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

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

From the Crosstalk website:

ENDA and Religious Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Information: http://americansfortruth.com/

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

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

Online: Use this link

By mail:

Crosstalk
3434 W. Kilbourn Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53208

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

From WVCY about Crosstalk:

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

By Peter LaBarbera

Truth is often stranger than fiction these days in Politically Correct America, thanks to the Anti-Christian, Libertine Left:

Every Easter Sunday in San Francisco, the twisted drag queen group "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" hosts a blasphemous "Hunky Jesus" contest mocking the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In three days, in what has become a sick, blasphemous Easter Sunday ritual in San Francisco, America’s “gay” Mecca, a group of homosexual drag queens — posing as mock nuns and calling themselves the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” — will sponsor the “Hunky Jesus” contest in a city park. Scantily-clad homosexual men and cross-dressing, queer “Sisters” with gaudy, painted faces will mock the Resurrection of Christ on an outdoor stage, as crude “homoerotic” jokes fly and the crowd roars with laughter. Last year’s winner: “Brokeback Jesus.” … I wish this were an April Fool’s Day joke…but it’s not. [To watch a "Hunky Jesus" contest on YouTube, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4fyiucdHyA&feature=related#]

An Episcopal Bishop, V. Gene Robinson — “V” stands for Vicky; his parents wanted a girl — travels the country using his once-respected church office to promote the sin of homosexuality. He does this in the name of “Christianity,” of course. Yes, Vicky Gene – who left his wife and family to pursue a “gay” lifestyle with another man — knows better than God. He believes “monogamous gay relationships” are a good thing and argues that poor Apostle Paul just didn’t understand all that we sophisticated, modern-day Westerners know about “sexual orientation.” The Episcopal Church has also approved its first avowedly lesbian bishop, “Rev.” Mary Glasspool — Chapter One of the New Testament Book of Romans be damned. … I wish this were an April Fool’s Day joke…but it’s not.

The state of Maine is on the verge of implementing “rights” for “transgender” students to use opposite-sex restrooms in schools — following the passage of a homosexual/transgender law. Grade school boys who think they’re “girls” would be able to use the girls’ restrooms…. I wish this were an April Fool’s Day joke (and so do Maine’s parents)…but it’s not.

Chai Feldblum

President Obama made a recess appointment of lesbian activist and Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with enforcing employment anti-”discrimination” laws. Prof. Feldblum has determined that homosexual sex is “moral” and signed on to an extremist document called “Beyond Marriage” — which advocates government recognition of “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” Feldblum now says it was a mistake to sign the manifesto — which also states that “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households” – should be recognized as “families” and treated like traditional marriages. Can you spell S-e-x-u-a-l A-n-a-r-c-h-y?

Moreover, Feldblum has written that in employment, newfangled “gay rights” almost always should trump Americans’ religious freedoms — whenever the advancement of “gay equality” collides with the moral freedom of those who disagree with homosexuality (think: Boy Scouts). Thus, in the “zero-sum game” (Feldblum’s words) between homosexuals’ demands that their lifestyle be accommodated — and the liberty of religious people NOT to do so — the Christians lose. … I wish this were an April Fool’s Day joke…but it’s not.

Army Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon: rebuked for opposing Obama's plan to homosexualize the U.S. military.

A decorated general, Lt. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander, U.S. Army Pacific, was strongly rebuked by Defense Sec. Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to homosexualize the U.S. military. Gates is making it harder to report (and thus expel) open homosexuals in the Armed Forces — a clear violation of existing U.S. law banning homosexual servicemen. (Obama is above the law.) Meanwhile, Marine General James Conway, leery of Obama’s plan, has proposed homosexual-only housing for “gay” Marines — to protect the privacy of normal Marines. … I wish this were an April Fool’s Day joke (and so do many in our military) … but it’s not.

The proposed federal “Employment Nondiscrimination Act” (ENDA) [S. 1584/ H.R. 3017] would create nationwide job “rights” based on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality – enforced by Feldblum’s EEOC. The bill would expand “civil rights” to include protection based on “gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.” (No joke – don’t you just love Washington?) That means when Johnny’s 2nd-grade teacher, Mr. Paul Parker, decides he wants to “transition” to become “Ms. Paulette Parker,” the school must accommodate his/her deviant “gender” choice. Parents who don’t approve of cross-dressing teachers as classroom role models for their impressionable children would be told that under ENDA, the school cannot “discriminate.” Hence parents would be forced to either pull their child from the school or subject him or her to a teacher who daily models deviant, destructive conduct…. I wish this were an April Fool’s Day joke…but it’s not.

Cultural degradation, the war against Christianity, and the corruption of children are no laughing matters. It’s now or never for conservatives, Christians and moral-minded citizens to fight back to preserve our nation and its Judeo-Christian heritage. Otherwise, due to the relentless push to radically transform our society by the pro-homosexual, secular Left and its liberal media cheerleaders, the idea of America actually being a nation “under God” will become … well … a very bad joke.

_____________________________

Peter LaBarbera is founder and president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (www.aftah.org) and Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org), based outside Chicago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

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

Dear Admiral Mullen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With due respect,

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

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

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

TAKE ACTION: Contact the Maine Human Rights Commission HERE (Commissioners’ names are at bottom). The Civic League writes:

___________________________________

Private and Public Schools Subject to Transgendered Guidelines
By Staff of the Christian Civic League of Maine
Feb 19, 2010

The Record wishes to share news of urgent importance to all Christians in Maine. The Maine Human Rights Commission is preparing educational guidelines which will apply to schools across Maine, both private and public. The guidelines will require schools to allow transgendered students access to facilities of the opposite sex, including bathrooms and locker rooms. The  guidelines will be discussed at a public hearing in Augusta on Monday, March 1st.

The Maine Human Rights Commission has reassured the public that the guidelines are merely intended to give guidance to schools. But a document recently obtained by the Christian Civic League of Maine reveals that the Commission is being less than candid.   The new document shows that the Commission has already promised homosexual rights advocates that the guidelines will eventually be re-issued as regulations with the force of law. In an April 1, 2009 memo to Mary Bonauto of the organization GLAD, and other homosexual rights activists, the  attorney for the Commission, John P. Gause, writes,

“We will now move forward with submitting the Guidance to the Commissioners….If there is anything else you would like us to consider before that, please email or send that to me…On the regulations front Pat (Pat Ryan, Executive Director of the Commission) and I have decided to give the Guidance some time before moving in that direction. We do plan to promulgate, together with the Department of Education, further regulations in education (perhaps addressing more than just sexual orientation), but we want to give the Guidance some time before doing that. Of course, because that process is going to take some time when we do start it, it is never too early to be thinking about what the regulations will include. We would welcome your thoughts and suggestions on that at any time.”

A second memo by Gause states that the Commission is “in the beginning stages of promulgating regulations in education” similar to those regulations which cover sexual orientation in employment.

The League has also learned the startling news that the effort to introduce the new guidelines fell through in an August 2009 meeting because of resistance from the Commissioners themselves.  An August 10, 2009 memo from Gause to various homosexual rights leaders shows that the Commission put off a vote on the proposed guidelines until representatives from schools and colleges could speak on the issue.  The memo reveals that the March 1st meeting is the result of opposition from Commission members who wanted to hear more on the issue of requiring boys to play on girls’ sports teams.

The guidelines are based on Maine’s “Sexual Orientation Law” passed in 2005. The Christian Civic League vigorously opposed the law in a hard-fought referendum campaign. At the time, Mike Heath, the former Executive Director of the League, warned that the law would eventually require schools to grant transgendered children access to facilities of the opposite sex. Despite the best efforts of the League, the referendum was rejected, setting the stage for the eventual application of the law to public and private schools.

The Maine Human Rights Commission first applied the Sexual Orientation Law to schools in a case involving a transgendered student at Asa Adams Elementary School in Orono. The case arose when the parents of a transgendered boy demanded that their son  be allowed to use the girls’ bathroom. The school offered the boy the use of the teachers’ unisex bathroom, a compromise the boy’s parents rejected. The MHRC ruled in favor of the boy’s parents, who then sued the school in Penobscot Superior Court.

In early February, the League learned information about the proposed new guidelines which up until now has not been disclosed to the public. This new information reveals that the guidelines will apply to all schools in Maine, with the exception of Christian and parochial schools, and will have the force of law. Schools which violate the guidelines will receive a summons to appear before the Commission. The procedure for bringing a charge of discrimination against a school consists of filling out a simple one-page document. If the Commission rules in favor of the Complainant, the case can be used to bring a lawsuit against the school for monetary damages.

The League has also learned that the Boston-based homosexual rights organization GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) was given a major role in writing the proposed guidelines, which are based in part on existing guidelines used by schools in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The Maine Principals’ Association, the Maine School Management Association, and a representative of the University of Maine at Orono have already opposed the guidelines.  They have expressed their concern that schools will be forced to allow boys to participate in girls’ sports, giving an unfair advantage to teams with transgendered players. The League has also learned that GLAD is still vigorously advocating sending transgendered boys to girls’ teams, saying that to fail to do so is discriminatory.

The public hearing will be held at the Senator Inn in Augusta on Monday March 1st. The League urges all concerned citizens to attend the meeting to express their opposition to the proposed guidelines. If you are not able to attend the meeting, we urge you to write the Commissioners and submit your written testimony in advance. The names of the Commissioners and the contact information for the Commission is listed below. The mailing address of the Commission is 51 State House Station – Augusta, Maine 04333-0051.

Commission Members

Patricia Ryan, Executive Director

Paul K. Vestal, Jr.

Sallie Chandler

Joseph Perry

Kenneth Fredette

A. Mavourneen Thompson

Contact the Maine Human Rights Commission by clicking HERE.

“Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.” –  Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary 

“St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts.  It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.  So it did seem like against their nature to be doing so.” – Homosexual Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson, interview with CNSNews.com

TAKE ACTION AND LEARN: Educate yourself about the Bible’s clear teaching against homosexual conduct and relationships. Begin by reading the article below, taken from Prof. Robert Gagnon’s paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues, and sharing it with your Christian friends, especially those bending to pro-”gay” advocacy. And please support Prof. Gagnon by ordering his excellent 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). As Christians, it is our duty to respond intelligently to false ”gay” theology, which is gaining a foothold in the Church and in the culture. And for those who are not Christian, you need to understand the bogus history that activists like (Vicky) Gene Robinson are using to advance their pro-homosexuality agenda.

_______________________________________

Dear Readers,

Please watch this short video interview of homosexual activist and Episcopal Bishop V. (Vicky) Gene Robinson’s latest attempt  to discredit the biblical (Romans 1) prohibition against homosexual practice (courtesy Eyeblast TV and CNSNews.com):

You can read a transcript of Bishop Robinson’s CNS interview HERE. It is extraordinary to behold a major denominational “Christian” leader dedicate a sizable part of his professional life to undermining the clear witness of the Bible and tradition against a particular sexual sin  — which just so happens to be the one with which he identifies. Unfortunately for Robinson, his rehashed “gay” theology does not square with history, as Prof. Robert Gagnon — the world’s leading orthodox authority on the Bible and homosexuality — reveals below.

Note Robinson’s assumption that homosexuals are ”born.” Despite the existence of a small cottage industry of pro-homosexual researchers — e.g., geneticist-turned-”gay”-activist Dean Hamer — seeking to prove inborn homosexuality, they have not succeeded in doing so. (Hamer’s media-hyped 1993 male “genetic homosexuality” study in the journal Science could not be replicated in the same journal.)

Also note that despite Robinson’s claim about innate homosexuals, the peculiar and obviously dysfunctional circumstances of his own life — starting at his birth — support a “nurture” rather than “nature” model for the causation of homosexuality. Robinson’s parents, expecting him to die, gave him two female names — Vicky Imogene — because they had hoped for a daughter. Then when he survived, they allowed him to live as a boy carrying those feminine names — a parental act that was irresponsible at best and cruel at worst. (Remember the Johnny Cash song, “A Boy Named Sue”?)

Thus, the abnormal factors that undoubtedly contributed to Bishop Robinson’s deviant proclivities and homosexual self-identification as an adult undermine his current, self-serving, specious claim that modern, “monogamous” homosexuality is some kind of benign, naturally “oriented” variation on life that was not yet discovered by the Apostle Paul. [See related AFTAH article: "Researcher: Half of Gay Couples Choose to be ‘Non-Monogamous.’"]

Prof. Rob Gagnon

Moreover, if we know that thousands of men and women have left homosexuality through faith in Jesus Christ and through various methods and circumstances — why would we treat this particular sin as somehow special and unchangeable — or not sinful at all, as long as it is “domesticated”?

Professor Rob Gagnon and other scholars — including some homosexuals — who have studied the context of the New Testament Book of Romans take issue with Bishop Robinson’s claim about monogamous homosexuality not being proscribed. TAKE ACTION AND LEARN:  Please share this article with your friends and support Prof. Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net) — a rare, indefatigable foe of pro-homosexual political correctness in the academy — by ordering his 2008 DVD series, “Love, the Bible and Homosexual Practice” (cost is $42 including shipping & handling). The excerpt below is taken from Gagnon’s 2009 paper, “What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues.”

– Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.” (I Corinthians 16: 13-14)

_________________________________________

Prof. Gagnon Responds to “Gay” Theological Arguments on the Book of Romans:

3. Romans 1:24-27 and the Erroneous “Exploitation Argument”

Claim: The Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice in Romans 1:24‐27 applies only to exploitative and hedonistic forms of homosexual practice such as sex with slaves, prostitutes, and adolescents.

What the evidence really shows: Every piece of evidence that can be culled from the text’s literary and historical context confirms that the Bible’s prohibition of homosexual practice, like its prohibition of adult incestuous unions, is absolute, rejecting all forms of homosexual practice regardless of consent and commitment.

Five lines of evidence make this point clear. First, Paul in Rom 1:24-27 rejects homosexual practice because it is a violation of the God’s creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair in Genesis. In Rom 1:23-27 Paul intentionally echoed Gen 1:26-27, making eight points of correspondence, in the same tripartite structure, between the two sets of texts (humans/image/likeness, birds/cattle/reptiles, male/female). Paul was rejecting homosexual practice in the first instance because it was a violation of the male-female prerequisite for sexual relations ordained by the Creator at creation, not because of how well or badly it was done in his cultural milieu.

Second, the kind of nature argument that Paul employs in Rom 1:18-27 isn’t conducive to a distinction between exploitative and nonexploitative forms of homosexual practice. For Paul contended that female-female and male-male intercourse was “contrary to nature” because it violated obvious clues given in the material structures of creation that male and female, not two males or two females, are each other’s sexual “counterpart” or “complement” (to use the language of Gen 2:18, 20) in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology. What Paul says regarding the vertical vice of idolatry (1:19-23) is equally true of the horizontal vice of same-sex intercourse: male-female complementarity is “clearly seen, being mentally apprehended by means of the things made” (1:19-20). Some have argued that the ancients had no comprehension of a complementarity argument. Yet as classicist Thomas K. Hubbard notes in his magisterial sourcebook of texts pertaining to Homosexuality in Greece and Rome (University of California Press, 2003): “Basic to the heterosexual position [among Greek and Roman moralists in the first few centuries A.D.] is the characteristic Stoic appeal to the providence of Nature, which has matched and fitted the sexes to each other” (p. 444). Hubbard is supportive of homosexual relationships, yet admits the point.

Third, the fact that Paul in Rom 1:27 specifically indicts male homosexual relations that involve mutual, reciprocal affections—“males, having left behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed with their yearning for one another”— precludes any supposition that Paul is thinking
only of coercive relationships.

Fourth, Paul’s indictment of lesbianism in Romans 1:26 further confirms that his indictment of homosexual practice is absolute, since female homosexuality in antiquity was not primarily known, or criticized, for the exploitative practices of sex with slaves, prostitutes, or children. And there can be little doubt that Paul was indicting female homosexuality, as evidenced by:

1. the parallelism of the language of 1:26 (“females exchanged the natural use”) and 1:27 (“likewise also the males leaving behind the natural use of the female”);
2. the fact that in antiquity lesbian intercourse was the form of female intercourse most commonly labeled “contrary to nature” and paired with male homosexual practice;
3. the fact of nearly universal male opposition to lesbianism in antiquity, even by men engaged in homosexual practice; and
4. the fact that lesbian intercourse was the dominant interpretation of Romans 1:26 in the patristic period.

Fifth, contrary to false claims that people in the Greco-Roman world had no concept of committed homosexual unions, there is plenty of evidence for the conception and existence of loving homosexual relationships, including semi-official “marriages” between men and between women. Moreover, we know of some Greco-Roman moralists who acknowledged the existence of loving homosexual relationships while rejecting even these as unnatural (indeed, we can trace this idea back to Plato’s Laws). This is also true of the Church Fathers. For example, Clement of Alexandria (late second century) referred to “women … contrary to nature … marrying women” (Paidagogos 3.3.21.3). Obviously marriage implies commitment (else there is no need to marry) yet commitment does not change the unnatural and sinful character of the relationship. And it should go without saying that Jewish writers in Paul’s day and beyond rejected all forms of homosexual activity. For example, the first-century Jewish historian Josephus stated the obvious to his Roman readers: “The law [of Moses] recognizes only sexual intercourse that is according to nature, that which is with a woman…. But it abhors the intercourse of males with males” (Against Apion 2.199).

It is hardly surprising, then, that even Louis Crompton, a homosexual scholar, acknowledges this point in his massive work, Homosexuality and Civilization (Harvard University Press, 2003; 500 pgs.):

“However well-intentioned,” the interpretation that Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships….seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstance. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian. (p. 114)

Also worth noting is the falsity of claims that the ancient world knew nothing akin to our understanding of a homosexual orientation or of congenital influences on at least some homosexual development. As classicist Thomas K. Hubbard (cited above) notes:

Homosexuality in this era [i.e., of the early Imperial Age of Rome] may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation. (p. 386)

Bernadette Brooten, a lesbian New Testament scholar who has written the most important book on lesbianism in antiquity also acknowledges this point. She states that “Paul could have believed” that some persons attracted to members of the same sex “were born that way and yet still condemn them [better: their behaviors] as unnatural and shameful…. I see Paul as condemning all forms of homoeroticism as the unnatural acts of people who had turned away from God” (Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism [University of Chicago, 1996], 244).

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain -- a man -- won his quest to get a tax deduction for his "sex-change" operation.

Folks, America’s rapid descent into post-Christian chaos continues. The 11-5 U.S. Tax Court decision below now gives a (sizeable) monetary incentive for men and women steeped in gender confusion to go through grotesque and horrifying, body-disfiguring “sex-change” operations. I’m saying this as someone who attended a “female-to-male” “transgender” conference where I witnessed young, early-twenties women showing off their newly-flattened chests — after their healthy breasts were surgically removed in their quest to be like men.

Yes, in the Brave New “Transgender” World, trans women cut off their healthy breasts while their male counterparts seek to grow a feminine-like pair in a pathetic attempt to become like women. (And “pathetic” doesn’t begin to describe the MtF — male-to-female — transsexual’s effort to create a makeshift “vagina” from his surgically-dismantled, once-healthy penis.)

Note the last paragraph in the AP story below: this poor man – yes, he is still a man — Rhiannon O’Donnabhain — actually sought a deduction for his follow-up boob job, after he had already grown fake breasts by taking female hormones. (The latter “augmentation”  deduction was denied.) Who could make this stuff up?

Men were never intended to have sex with men, nor were they intended to try to turn their bodies, as God made them — into female bodies, as God made them. Wake up, America: your judicially-approved tax code is now creating incentives for one of the most tragic manifestations of rebellious man’s claim to know better than God. In the meantime, Mister O’Donnabhain needs our prayers. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Does this mean that parents, too, are going to receive a tax break for pushing aggressive “transgender” treatments on their gender-confused children?

___________________________________________

Here is a second, follow-up AP story: “Woman Says Sex-change Tax Battle also Helps Others”; and below is the original, biased AP story with its politically-correct, “transgender”-approved pronouns and descriptors:

Tax Court Allows Deduction for Woman’s Sex Change

(Boston) The U.S. Tax Court ruled Tuesday that a Massachusetts woman should be allowed to deduct the costs of her sex-change operation, a decision that could have broad implications for transgender people.

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain (oh-DON’-oh-vin), who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for approximately $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery.

The IRS said the surgery was cosmetic and not medically necessary.

In its decision Tuesday, the tax court said the IRS position was “at best a superficial characterization of the circumstances” that is “thoroughly rebutted by the medical evidence.”

The legal group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represented O’Donnabhain, said the ruling could potentially affect thousands of people a year in the U.S. who undergo similar operations.

“I think what the court is saying is that surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people to alleviate the stress associated with gender identity disorder is legitimate medical care,” said Jennifer Levi, a GLAD attorney.

IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge declined to comment on the ruling.

In a 2007 interview with The Associated Press, O’Donnabhain said she underwent sex-reassignment surgery at age 57, after a tormented existence as a father, husband, Coast Guardsman and construction worker.

She wrote off the $25,000 in medical expenses on her taxes, but the IRS disallowed the deduction, ruling that the procedure was not a medical necessity.

O’Donnabhain, now 65, said she brought the lawsuit in an attempt to force the IRS to treat sex-change surgeries the same as appendectomies, heart surgeries and other deductible medical procedures.

“It is not OK for them to do this to me or anyone like me,” she said.

O’Donnabhain’s lawyers argued that because gender-identity disorder is a recognized mental disorder that is generally treated with hormones and surgery, the costs are legitimate medical deductions.

The tax court agreed.

“The evidence amply supports the conclusions that petitioner suffered from severe GID, that GID is a well-recognized and serious mental disorder, and that hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery are considered appropriate and effective treatments for GID by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who are knowledgeable concerning the condition,” the court said in its ruling.

An estimated 1,600 to 2,000 people a year undergo sex-change surgery in the United States, according to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

The tax court said O’Donnabhain could deduct as a medical care expense the costs associated with treating her gender-identity disorder, including sex-reassignment surgery and hormone therapy. But the court said she could not deduct the costs of breast augmentation surgery because it found that she had achieved breast enhancement through hormone treatments.

Homo-Supremacist at the EEOC? Obama EEOC Commissioner appointee Chai Feldblum says there is a "zero sum" game, legally-speaking, between "gay rights" and religious freedom (people who oppose homosexuality as morally wrong) -- and that homosexual "rights" usually should win. Feldblum is now backpedaling from her more radical statements and affiliations.

Take action: call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to: 1) Put a hold on the nomination of radical homosexual activist Chai Feldblum as Commissioner of the EEOC; and 2) oppose S. 1584, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Also call your U.S. Representative at 202-225-3121 and urge him or her to oppose the House version of ENDA, HR 3017.

Note: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) has signed on to a pro-family coalition letter to the Senate HELP Committee expressing concern over EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum’s extreme record. Thanks to Traditional Values Coalition for taking the lead on the letter.

___________________________________

The Discriminatory ‘Non-Discrimination Act’
By Matt Barber

Today’s Democratic leadership is a predictable lot. They’ve cornered the market on mass manipulation through semantic tinkering. It’s a relatively easy code to crack. To decipher what Democrats mean versus what they say one need merely apply the “forked-tongue test.”

If Dems say “Fairness Doctrine,” expect unfairness in spades. When Harry Reid tags Obamacare the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” we know that the patient gets hosed, and the “care” breaks the bank. Indeed, if the 111th Congress were to pass the “No Kicking Fuzzy Puppies Act,” bet your Obama tax hike that Nancy Pelosi would be first in line to punt Poochie across the Capitol Rotunda.

And so it goes with the characteristically mislabeled “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” or ENDA (S. 1584 in the Senate and H.R. 3017 in the House). According to its leftist proponents, ENDA – which is under consideration in both houses of Congress – would merely insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual conduct (sexual orientation) or those who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment discrimination.  But in truth, this legislation would effectively codify the very thing it purports to combat: workplace discrimination.

ENDA would force –– under penalty of law –– Christian, Jewish, or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that those volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history, and uncompromising human biology.

This is no different than compelling a deeply religious business owner to hire and accommodate an “out and proud” adulterous “swinger.” It’s a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.

During his second term, President Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy on ENDA, pointing out its clearly unconstitutional nature. “[ENDA] is inconsistent with the right to the free exercise of religion as codified by Congress in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),” noted the statement. “The Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion except for compelling reasons, and then only in the least restrictive manner possible. [ENDA] does not meet this standard.”

The fact that our current president both supports ENDA and prefers our sacred Constitution as potty paper for the aforementioned Poochie makes ENDA no less unconstitutional.

Chai Feldblum (pronounced “high” as in “stoned”) is a lesbian activist and sexual anarchist attorney who supports legalized polygamy and bisexual polyamory. She has been nominated by President Obama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This is like having Michael Moore guard the donuts. In the past, Feldblum –– ENDA’s chief framer and, if confirmed, one of five commissioners charged with its enforcement –– has candidly summed-up the mindset behind the bill.

Feldblum believes that the battle between religious freedom and unfettered sexual license (aka, “gay rights”) is a “zero sum game,” meaning that the two cannot possibly coexist in harmony. One must triumph over the other. (Guess who wins in her twisted analysis?)

When asked about the Christian business owner or religious organization that morally objects to hiring people openly engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, Feldblum snapped: “Gays win; Christians lose.” And where Americans’ constitutionally guaranteed right to religious liberty comes into conflict with the postmodern concept of “gay rights,” Feldblum has admitted having “a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.” Of course Feldblum’s analysis is entirely arbitrary and completely unsupported by any reasonable constitutional interpretation or federal precedent.

In fact ENDA would –– for the first time since the Constitutional Convention –– extend special, federally preferred government status to individuals based upon a changeable and objectively aberrant sexual lifestyle, rather than requiring that such status be delineated by immutable, non-behavioral characteristics such as skin color or gender.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell put it well when he said, “Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.”

But Ken Hutcherson, a prominent, well-respected African-American pastor from the Seattle area, summed it up even better, stating rather incisively: “Don’t compare your sin to my skin.”

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law, and author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War.” He serves as director of cultural affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action.

WARNING: OFFENSIVE DESCRIPTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See Wikipedia entry on "buggery" HERE.]

____________________________

Links were added to the following Washington Times editorial:

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Buggery Czar

Jennings’ group made sex between children and adults look normal

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Dec. 8, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former homosexual Pete Lines shares about his life at AFTAH's banquet last month.

“[I]f my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land….“

“But if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and go off to serve other gods and worship them, then I will uproot Israel from my land, which I have given them, and will reject this temple I have consecrated for my Name. I will make it a byword and an object of ridicule among all peoples. And though this temple is now so imposing, all who pass by will be appalled and say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this temple?’ People will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the LORD, the God of their fathers, who brought them out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, worshiping and serving them—that is why he brought all this disaster on them.’ “ — 2 Chronicles 7

Dear Readers,

I want to wish each of you a Happy Thanksgiving and thank you for your support of Americans For Truth this year, and for standing up for God’s Truth in an era (and in a country) in which true biblical values have fallen out of fashion.  America is the most spectacular nation every formed –  with blessings from God too great to quantify.  But like the Israelites, we will be judged if we continue to reject the will of our Creator.

This has been a good year so far for Americans For Truth, despite the challenges brought by the severe economic downturn.  We opened a new office in Carol Stream, where we have hosted several fine pro-family speakers (please note that our scheduled Laurie Higgins dinner-lecture has been postponed until January).  Our banquet a month ago was a great success, and our website continues to draw readers who are frustrated by the media’s incessant cheerleading for homosexuality and gender confusion (the “transgender” “T” in the “GLBT” movement).

AFTAH is founded on a simple idea: that homosexual behavior is as wrong, changeable, unnatural and unhealthy today as it was thousands of years ago.  We confront the “Gay” Activist Lobby directly, and expose its destructive agenda without apology — as we did in Maine just before that state’s citizens voted to reject “same-sex marriage.”  In a culture in which even many conservatives seem reluctant to publicly oppose homosexuality as a matter of principle, Americans For Truth stands out as bold and uncompromising.  In our vocabulary, political correctness is a dirty word because it’s all about fearing man instead of God.

For our adherence to God’s truth we are hated by “queer” activists.  But we do not hate them back: one of my goals for 2010 is to pray more for lost people caught up in homosexuality — who desperately need the grace, forgiveness and love of God.

As I look out at the moral landscape of our country on sexual issues and marriage, I am haunted by the spectacle of a post-Christian America squandering its immense spiritual heritage, as we fall from a biblical standard into amoral relativism.   A country in which even the “Christian” kids have lost the ability to tell right from wrong.  The other day, Christianity Today article reported on one group’s study that found that “younger evangelicals … are more tolerant of same-sex marriage” than older evangelicals.

More “tolerant” of government-sanctioned “marriage” based on perversion that the Bible calls an abomination (Lev. 18:22)? Has the term “evangelical” — with its presumed allegiance to Scripture as the source of Truth — lost its meaning?  How is it that young Christians (and older ones) are ditching the Bible’s truth in favor of a sin-enabling worldliness, and what can be done about it?  I wish I had all the answers, but I do know that abandoning God’s heart on homosexuality is not one of them.

If our nation’s moral trajectory is not reversed, we will sink further into ungodliness and inevitable judgment, all the while patting ourselves on the back for our “tolerance” and new ideas about sin.  And yet, Christians know the way back: a humble return to following Almighty God through the daily study of His Inerrant Word, the Bible — which reveals His Son, Jesus Christ, who alone is the Way, Truth and the Life.

(Yes, whoever you are, whatever you’ve done, you can trust your life to Christ.  He will forgive you and take the punishment for your sins.  Salvation is a free gift from God — you can’t earn your way to heaven — “so that no one can boast.” And God’s grace is limitless: did you know that David Berkowitz, the infamous “Son of Sam” New York City serial killer, is now a powerful Christian witness to the life-changing power of the Gospel?!  Watch Berkowitz’s amazing YouTube Testimony HERE.)

We must teach a new generation that they have no right to redefine God’s timeless moral code just because, well … they’re young and hip.  (I write this as a hipness-challenged 47 year old.)  Young followers of Christ must understand that they cannot truly love homosexuals without telling them the full truth — that “gay identity” and “same-sex relationships” are not part of God’s plan for anyone.  “Feelings” can lead people astray (our hearts are deceitful), but there is freedom through Christ, as ex-”gay” Pete Lines told our banquet audience last month.

On this Thanksgiving Day 2009, let us give thanks to God for the blessing that is America, and repent for our creeping toleration of all kinds of sin. And let us pledge to return to biblical fidelity — each in our own sphere — as a path toward national healing.  God bless you.

P.S.  I found this online CWA interview with David Barton on America as a “Christian nation” extremely informative.  Share it with your friends and family!

Sincerely in Christ,

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
E-mail: americansfortruth@comcast.net