In 2008, 15-year-old Amanda Collette was shot and killed by lesbian classmate Teah Wimberly after she resisted Wimberly's homosexual advances.

A SERIOUS NOTE: As you can see, below we are making light of the bald-faced hypocrisy of homosexual activists, who demand tolerance for themselves even as they maliciously attack and victimize their critics — and falsely accuse them of “hate.” However, we are not including the most vicious manifestation of homosexual hatred that occurred this year: the recent murder conviction of  Teah Wimberly, a lesbian student who shot and killed Amanda Collette, her 15-year-old classmate at Ft. Lauderdale’s Dillard High School — because Collette refused Wimberly’s same-sex romantic advances.

This is no joking matter, so Wimberly (courtroom photo below left) is not on our list. Needless to say, her conviction for the murder of the talented and beautiful Collette (pictured below right) — a murder directly tied to homosexuality — has not received anything close to the national media attention that made homosexual murder victim Matthew Shepard a household name. (Recall that the much-touted “anti-gay-hate-crime” motive for Shepard’s murder was later cast into serious doubt by ABC’s 20/20.)

Teah Wimberly was found guilty of murdering the target of her same-sex crush, Amanda Collette.

A little over a year ago, Amanda Collette became the ultimate victim of homosexuality when Wimberly shot her in the back at school. As the Miami Herald reported, “Collette, 15, a star dancer on the school’s hip-hop dance squad, had rejected romantic advances from Wimberly in the days before the shooting.” Minutes after the shooting, Wimberly cried in a call to the 911 operator: ”I didn’t want to kill her so I shot her in the back . . . I just wanted to give her the pain she gave me.”

Regardless of what other factors were involved in this tragedy, it is not unreasonable to assert that Collette would be alive today were it not for the modern GLBT activist movement, which aggressively seeks to mainstream sexual deviance and immoral gay/lesbian “relationships” as normal and acceptable — most tragically among young people.

Yes, Virginia, there was a time in America when young women did not have to worry about sexual harassment and sexual advances from other young women. And the GLBT movement is first and foremost to blame for the rising number of youth who are embracing homosexual behaviors and considering destructive “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, or “transgender” self-”identities,” at younger and younger ages.  We ask you to pray for the families of both Collette and Wimberly, and pray for the Christian conversion of Teah Wimberly as she awaits sentencing. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________

Nominees Sought for ‘Gay Grinch of the Year 2009′

By Peter LaBarbera

CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is taking nominations for our first annual “Gay Grinch of the Year” Award for 2009 — given to the meanest, most deceitful, most socially destructive and/or most blasphemous “gay” activist of the year. Two Thousand Nine was a particularly “mean one” for the Homosexual Lobby — to quote the infamous theme song for the Grinch (which was sung by Thurl Ravenscroft and not Boris Karloff, by the way) — so the choice will be a tough one. We want your input: send your nominations, suggestions and documentary evidence of “gay” Grinchiness to americansfortruth@comcast.net. The Gay Grinch 2009 Award winner will be announced after Christmas.

As this is AFTAH’s debut “Gay Grinch of the Year” award, our procedures are still in flux. I am inclined to limit the competition to actual practicing homosexuals, bisexuals and “transgenders” but am open to the idea that we will need to give another award to the Grinchiest heterosexual advocate for “gay rights” (perhaps starting next year). We have noticed the growing arrogance and stridency of straight, pro-homosexuality activists — and some of the most caustic pro-”gay” rhetoric comes from straight sympathizers — so we don’t want to leave them out.

AFTAH has already received input from various pro-family experts in choosing Gay Grinch of the Year 2009 candidates. Please write to us at americansfortruth@comcast.net to cast your vote for the Grinchiest “gay” activist of the year, or to nominate one. Here is a partial list of the candidates that we have assembled (a few more nominees will be in another post):

• Perez Hilton — homosexual Hollywood online gossip columnist — for his vulgar, bigoted rant against Miss California Carrie Prejean during the Miss USA 2009 pageant (Hilton’s other mean and intolerant acts can count towards the award as well);
  

  Perez Hilton

• Wayne Besen — for his ongoing hatred and harassment of former homosexuals and Christians who help “gays” leave the lifestyle; Besen was videotaped screaming with a megaphone into the window of Boston’s Park Street Church that was hosting an “ex-gay” seminar; see MassResistance’s full story on the Park Street protest HERE.
  

  Wayne Besen leads fellow homosexual militants in harassing Boston's Park Street Church, which was hosting an "ex-gay" conference. Imagine if "Christian" activists did this to a "gay" church.

• Frank Kameny — this “gay” historical icon — who led the first public pro-homosexual protest in America — proclaimed that the God of the Bible is a “sinful homophobic bigot” who needs to repent (to whom, we wonder…) — in a letter to Americans For Truth’s Peter LaBarbera; Kameny is an atheist, yet he maintains that “Gay is Godly”;
• Rachel Maddow, resident lesbian talker 0n MSNBC — for suggesting that rather than tossing two tomatoes at Sarah Palin, an activist in Minnesota should have thrown a pie at the former Alaska governor (it’s more accurate). Especially coming from a “gay” activist, this recalls the infamous incident in which a homosexual militant threw a pie in the face of Anita Bryant — a very mean act indeed.  (Maddow too has plenty of other material that gives her a serious shot at the Gay Grinch 2009 award.);
• ChadMichael Morrisette and Mito Aviles — This West Hollywood homosexual couple erected a grotesque Halloween display on their rooftop: a nude female mannequin with “LIAR” written on the belly and a copy of the face of pro-traditional-marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher attached as the head (amongst other anti-religious images; see photos of the pathetically putrid and puerile prank HERE). This followed last year’s effigy of a Sarah Palin lookalike mannequin hanging from a noose. The vicious anti-Palin stunt in 2008 may have made the deviant duo a favorite for last year’s Gay Grinch award, but alas, we didn’t give one out. They remain dark horse for the 2009 Gay Grinch Award.
• Timothy Kincaid — this writer for the homosexual website “Box Turtle Bulletin” stepped into the competition for Gay Grinch 2009 when he preposterously accused pro-family advocate Laurie Higgins (a former high school writing instructor) of wanting to see students harmed — just because Higgins opposes the pro-homosexual “Day of Silence” and affirms the Scriptural condemnation of homosexual sin.
  

  Tim Kincaid

  Kincaid wrote: “Let’s be clear. Higgins does not oppose the Day of Silence because it is the wrong way to go about ending the bullying of gay kids. Rather, Higgins opposes the Day of Silence because she believes it is a Christian kid’s duty to bully his gay classmates.” This is a mischievous and awful lie, and Kincaid knows it, yet he and Box Turtle Bulletin’s editors have left it up on their “fact-checking” site for months — even after Higgins strenuously complained to Kincaid. (We understand from Laurie that the Grinchy Kincaid now regrets his word choice but not enough for BTB to remove their spurious hit-piece.) Read Higgins’ response to Kincaid’s “stunning display of malicious, deceitful non-reasoning” HERE.

• George Fornero — This homosexual superintendent of school District 113 in the northern suburbs of Chicago was caught red-handed spreading gossipy, lying e-mails about the same Laurie Higgins and her family. Higgins, now with Illinois Family Institute, is a former writing instructor at a District 113 high school. She filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request with the district — which revealed dozens of nasty, catty in-house e-mails by and between Fornero and other liberal educators and administrators.
  

  George Fornero: bad role model for students.

  Fornero’s most malicious lie occurred in the form of a constituent e-mail he forwarded that made this absurd claim about Higgins: “I have a pretty good idea that she doesn’t care for Jews.” The hate-filled missive erroneously asserted that Higgins had barred her son from attending a classmate’s bat mitzvah ceremony, and then added this über-Grinchy bit of nastiness: “”I guess the contamination would have spread to [Higgins' son's] pure heart nor did he attend her celebration–probably too many Christ killers there.” WRONG, writes Higgins, who corrected the record: her son “attended countless bat and bar mitzvahs, as did my other children.” Fornero should be fired as a mean-spirited activist and poor role model for students who does not practice the respect and tolerance that he demands from others. See the incredible story HERE and if you are a pro-family advocate who holds educators accountable: file a FOIA request at your child’s school!

Look for more Gay Grinch of the Year 2009 Nominees Tomorrow!

Frank Kameny with one of his original "gay" protest signs, as he was being honored by Smithsonian Museum of American History officials. The homosexual icon says the God of the Bible is a "sinful, homophobic bigot" who needs to repent.

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

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

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

_____________________________

Matt Barber writes:

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

By Matt Barber, August 5, 2009

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

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

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

She did not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But don’t hold your breath.

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

Then sit back and watch them squirm.

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

If Rachel Maddow were to form Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU), would it be forced to recognize a Christian ex-”gay” student club? At left, the openly lesbian MSNBC talker interviews Brian Diaz, head of a student Democratic club that was denied recognition by Liberty University. See YouTube video at bottom of this story.

By Peter LaBarbera

Nobody has mastered the art of snide inflections and biased liberal hit “journalism” as quickly and masterfully as MSNBC’s resident smarty-pants lesbian talker, Rachel Maddow (see this lesbian site’s story). Check out Maddow’s exaggerated pronunciation of “LGBT” in the YouTube video below as she attempts to skewer Liberty University for banning a campus Democratic Club. (Read the Democratic Party Platform HERE.) Now, at the risk of not knowing my place at the back of the bus as an Idiot Evangelical in Maddow’s World, I’d like to help her understand the principle of American liberty at stake in this case:

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the mannish Maddow and her female partner established the Smarty Pants Lesbian Liberal Party (SPLLP) for the purpose of mobilizing snarky lesbians and liberal fellow travelers to influence government and culture. Furthermore, the determined duo also create (with a Tim Gill financial assist) Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU) to train up annual cadres of mini-Maddows to permeate the media and other culture-influencing institutions. (We’re not sure if non-lesbian feminists or males would be admitted to SPLU.)

Now, here’s our questions for Ms. Maddow: let’s say a covert SPLLP member were to trick her way past Liberty U.’s faith-based admission process, become a Liberty student and then suddenly apply for recognition of her SPLLP club on campus. (I envision a special appearance on MSNBC and sympathetic interviews in all the liberal media.) Would Liberty U.  be obligated to recognize the Smarty Pants Lesbian Party? Of course not — it would impinge upon and undermine Liberty’s right to propagate its own belief system to students. In fact, Liberty would be within its rights to expel the troublemaking student, at the risk of making her even a bigger star in Maddow’s World.

In the same vein, take a lesbian student who finds Christ at Maddow’s Smarty Pants Lesbian U. (someone smuggled a Bible to her inside a lesbian magazine). The reborn, ex-”gay” woman now desires to form an Ex-Lesbians for Christ Club (ELCC) on campus. Would Maddow and Smarty Pants Lesbian U. be required to recognize the evangelical, homosexuality-opposing Christian club? Certainly not. That would violate their right to propagate their bitter, snide, left-wing, pro-homosexual, Christian- and Republican-hating ideology — thus jeopardizing their master-plan to spawn Rachel Maddow clones across America! And yes, Smarty Pants U. would be within its rights to expel the righteous former lesbian.

Young Democrat Club president Brian Diaz does not understand the difference between liberty and (state-enforced) egalitarianism (“I think that you should definitely be equal and show both sides of the issue equally,” he tells Maddow). Apparently Liberty University accepts federal student aid and loan dollars (as Maddow mentions on air) but if that ultimately translates into being forced to accept groups like the Democratic Club that defy its foundational Christian beliefs, then we believe it would be time to refuse federal monies — like Hillsdale College does — for the sake of freedom. Now watch the Rachel Maddow video (conservatives: brace yourselves):