The following commentary by Sun News “Byline” host and Toronto Sun columnist Brian Lilley aired April 15, 2014, regarding the arrest at the University of Regina (in Saskatchewan, Canada) Monday of Canadian pro-family/pro-life activist Bill Whatcott and American AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera:
On May 11, 2013, I spoke at a pro-family rally and posed the question, “Do you fear God or man?” on the issue of homosexual “marriage–which, of course, is not truly marriage in the eyes of our Creator. The rally was sponsored by Illinois Family Institute and was held outside of (Republican) State Rep. Jim Durkin’s district office in Western Springs, Illinois. At the time, Rep. Durkin was undecided on a pending homosexual “marriage” bill but he ended up voting “No.” The bill ultimately passed the Democrat-dominated Illinois General Assembly and was signed into law by Gov. Pat Quinn (D). It goes into effect June 1, although unnatural “gay marriages” are already allowed in Chicago and surrounding Cook County due to legal action. –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH [Watch this on YouTube here: http://youtu.be/Y4t3bzYkc0c]
Another scalp for Big Gay Inc. means diminishing freedom of conscience for Americans
Ideology over Performance: Brendan Eich is extremely qualified to be Mozilla”s CEO. He just thinks the wrong way about the preservation of natural marriage–according to LGBT militants–igniting a homosexual activist campaign against him.
By Peter LaBarbera
In the type of story that has become all too common, the Los Angeles Timesreports: ”Just days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, after coming under fire for his 2008 support of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that disallowed the marriage of same-sex couples in the state.” That prompted this comment by a smart reader (“brdcstr”):
So Mozilla promotes a lifelong employee based upon his skills and leadership qualities, presumably after an exhaustive search, only to fire him a week into his tenure based upon a donation he made to a cause they differed on?
What are they running over there, a business or a social club? Sounds like the type of company that only welcomes monolithic thinking.
I would be willing to bet that the cackling hyena who asked for his resignation voted for Obama in 2008… When he was opposed to gay marriage, before he was for it.
Gotta a love the liberals who falsely pride themselves as being tolerant, as long as you agree with them. If not, they would prefer to silence your voice instead of engage in debate to promote dialogue and better understanding.
Time to go uninstall my Firefox browser. Like the company, it keeps crashing, rendering it useless.
I’m afraid that my friend Matt Barber, founder of Barbwire.com and an AFTAH Board Member, is correct [see his piece below]: the rising tide of ‘homo-fascist’ bigotry–or call it ‘homo-Marxist’ cultural aggression if you choose–threatens to destroy freedom in this great nation. Note that it is no longer just disagreeing publicly with homosexuality that triggers the powerful forces of Homosexual Indignation and Hate, but merely standing up for natural marriage (one man, one woman), as EX-Mozilla CEO Eich did in supporting California’s Prop 8 in 2008.
Eich, who gave $1,000 to help pass Prop 8, was joined by over seven million “homophobic bigots” in 2008–if you believe pro-homosexual fanatics. Prop 8 passed by a margin of 52.24-47.76 percent, with a popular vote of 7,001,084 in favor and 6,401,482 against.
A troubling pattern of homosexual activist intimidation, corporate or individual capitulation, and then self-censorship or mandated ideological compliance seems to be the West’s New Normal–in defense of the abnormal.
Mozilla’s politically correct baloney
Reading Mozilla’s Executive Chairwoman Mitchell Baker’sstatement on Eich’s resignation reminds me of the old Soviet propaganda: savvy citizens have to read through the obfuscatory lines (a fancy way of saying B.S.) to decipher the real meaning behind the DiversitySpeak. For example, there’s this:
From de-criminalization of the “great moral evil” of homosexuality to a “powerful, clamouring, threatening, vengeful” Homosexual Lobby
“Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended up with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamouring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental – and to most of us horrifying – changes to civilised patterns of sexual behavior.” – British historian Paul Johnson, The Quest for God
Corrupting Children: As opposed to jaded Americans, Jamaicans are still shocked by the radical homosexual agenda — including pro-homosexual “children’s” picture books like the above, “King & King,” about a “gay” prince who “marries” another prince rather than a princess. Historian Paul Johnson describes how what began in the U.K. in the name of “compassion” for homosexuals (rescinding anti-sodomy laws) morphed into a vengeful “monster in our midst” — the powerful Homosexual Lobby. Today’s homosexual activists will even corrupt the minds and souls of the very young in their desperate quest to rationalize their sinful behavior, which God condemns.
By Peter LaBarbera
Folks, when I was in Jamaica I took time in my presentations to share this compelling passage from British historian Paul Johnson, from his book, The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage. (Hat tip to Paul Cameron of Family Research Institute for bringing this to light.) I have found nothing that better explains the inevitable slippery slope of indulged pro-homosexual activism — from the repeal of anti-sodomy laws (motivated by well-intended but misguided compassion toward homosexuals as “victims”); to demands for “tolerance” of homosexuality; to the steady growth of a “gay rights” movement winning passage of laws granting affirmative “rights” based on sexual perversion (and gender confusion); to homosexual and transgender advocacy in schools (targeting even the very young [see book photo]); and ultimately, to the rise of a powerful, well-heeled Homosexual/Transgender Lobby that achieves dominance in society at the expense of biblical truth, religious tradition, public health and the rights of others to disagree.
Note that Johnson correctly calls homosexuality a “great moral evil” – something I think even many committed Christians – neutered by political correctness and decades of “gay” propaganda – today would have a hard time admitting (to their shame). Johnson, writing in 1996, had not yet experienced the attachment of this moral evil to the noble institution of marriage itself (as is now legal in the U.K and in 16 American states). Sin’s advance – like an insatiable, devouring monster — destroys people and cultures, and displaces virtue with man-centered notions of wrong as right (Isaiah 5:20).
But God’s Truth – our Creator’s standard of righteousness – is unchanged – despite fanatical efforts by religious homosexuals to co-opt even Christianity itself. Like homosexual (mis)behavior, the ideology of homosexualism – proud homosexuality aggressively defended as a “civil right” and moral good – is an egregious sin before God. (For if, as the Word of God teaches, homosexual practice is detestable and always sinful in God’s sight, how can a movement based on condoning and celebrating it be any less so?) [See Leviticus 20:13 (note the context), Jude 7 (a verse liberals conveniently ignore in distorting the meaning of Sodom and Gomorrah), Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:7-11.]
Of course, we in America have our own arrogant and vengeful “gay” (LGBT) “monster in our midst” — and I warned the Jamaicans that they, too, will have one if they give in to Western powers by opening up the Pandora’s box of homosexual “rights” in their country. The smart and resolute Jamaican leaders and pastors whom I encountered understand the tragic lesson from Britain and the United States: all attempts to appease this self-justifying Sin Movement are doomed to fail, as each concession leads only to further, and more radical, demands.
Jamaican Pastor Rev. Everal Edwards (left) of Church of the Open Bible in Kingston, with AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera, who was a guest speaker at the church. “Right is right, and wrong is wrong,” said Edwards, in response to international pressure on Jamaica to repeal its anti-buggery law banning homosexual conduct. The law is largely unenforced but repealing it is only the first in a long chain of homosexual activist demands in the island nation.
It was the Irish statesman Edmund Burke who famously said: “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Let us hope and pray that the Jamaicans (and Russians, Czechs, Poles, etc.) succeed at stopping the LGBT juggernaut and avoiding our tragic fate. Please pass on this excerpt to others – especially those who naively – or cravenly – counsel “compromise,” retreat or surrender in the face of escalating homosexual activist demands. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
Johnson “Monster in our Midst” Passage:
Excerpt from The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage, by Paul Johnson (pages 28-29) [emphasis is added, and for readability I have also broken in half the paragraph beginning, “I believe…”]:
…after a section in which Johnson discusses radical, worldly movements – race, sexual, environment and health politics — that collectively present an alternative to God and traditional religion:
“The radical agenda …with its strong appeal to the idealistic, as well as the materialistic, instincts of mankind, especially among young people, does constitute an alternative religion. Like any other form of humanism, it replaces God by man, and the welfare – or supposed welfare – of man, rather than the worship of God and obedience to his commandments, as the object of human existence and the purpose of society. That, of course, is its defect. The Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner once argued that it is the consciousness of God, the acceptance that there is power outside and above ourselves, to whom we owe allegiance and whose guidance we must follow, which essentially distinguishes mankind from other creatures. If belief in God were ever to fade completely from the human mind, we would not, Promethean-like, become masters of our fate; on the contrary, we would descend to the status of very clever animals, and our ultimate destiny would be too horrible to contemplate.
I believe this argument to be profoundly true, and corroborated by history, and what worries me about the new radical agenda is the danger that it will dehumanise man just as the totalitarian alternatives did, though no doubt in rather different ways. But there are further, related objections. All the items on the agenda lend themselves to extremism. Take, for instance, the issue of homosexuality, an important part of the sexual politics item. There were many of us, in the 1960s, who felt that there were grave practical and moral objections to the criminalisation of homosexuality, and who therefore supported, as happened in most Western countries, changes in the law which meant that certain forms of homosexual behavior ceased to be unlawful. Homosexuality itself was still to be publicly regarded by society, let alone by the churches, as a great moral evil, but men who engaged in it, within strictly defined limits, would no longer be sent to prison. We believed this change to be the maximum homosexuals deserved or could reasonably expect.
We were proved totally mistaken. Decriminalisation made it possible for homosexuals to organise openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality, and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance in schools, children’s homes, etc., became progressively more difficult. This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytise, and not least the privilege of special programmes to put forward their views – including the elimination of the remaining legal constraints – on radio and television. Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended up with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamouring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental – and to most of us horrifying – changes to civilised patterns of sexual behavior.
Here indeed we have sexual politics in action. And, as with other alternatives to God, the result is not human happiness, but human misery. The homosexual community, as they now styled themselves, by their reckless promiscuity during the 1970s and 1980s, helped to spread among their members the fearful scourge of AIDS, a killer disease of a peculiarly horrible nature, for which there is no cure, and no immediate likelihood of a cure….
Radical homosexual media activist Michelangelo Signorile writes that it is “abhorrent” that under the ENDA bill, “a Catholic school teacher who’s done a great job for years could still be fired under ENDA if the school’s principal discovers that she is a lesbian.”
By Matt Barber
The religious liberty death spiral continues.
One of the most dangerous and discriminatory pieces of legislation in modern times – the ironically tagged “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” or ENDA – passed the U.S. Senate on Thursday by a vote of 64-32. Ten Republicans disgracefully joined liberal Democrats in this effort to ultimately outlaw the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.
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.
Writing in the Huffington Post, popular homosexual radio personality Michelangelo Signorile confessed that, of any potential ENDA legislation that might reach President Obama’s desk for his pledged signature, “none should include any religious exemptions” whatsoever.
If Signorile and other “LGBT” activists get their way, this would mean that churches, mosques, synagogues, religious schools, Bible bookstores, as well as any and every other business in America with 15 or more employees, would be forced, under penalty of law, to abandon the biblical and traditional-values viewpoint on human sexuality, and hire (and otherwise not offend) those who openly flaunt expressly sinful and demonstrably self-destructive sexual behaviors.
Though in its current form ENDA contains an extremely weak religious exemption that might – and I mean might – partially protect some churches and religious organizations (until they’re sued by “gay” activists), this so-called exemption would leave most others – such as the aforementioned Bible bookstores and many Christian schools and para-church organizations – entirely unprotected. It would additionally crush individual business owners’ guaranteed First Amendment rights.
Ten Republicans vote Yes on ENDA; no Democrats vote No
The following is the Roll Call for the U.S. Senate’s passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), on November 7, 2013. But first, here are the 10 Republicans who voted FOR ENDA. (Note that no Democrats voted against ENDA.) To reach your Senator, call 202-224-3121; to reach your U.S. Representative (including House Speaker John Boehner, who has pledged not to bring the ENDA bill up for a vote), call 202-225-3121.
Note: Independents Angus King (ME) and Bernie Sanders (VT) both voted FOR the ENDA bill. Three Republicans — Barrasso (WY), Coburn (OK), and Sessions (AL) — and one Democrat (Casey – Ohio), did not vote on the bill.
The Illinois House of Representatives voted 61-54 yesterday (Nov. 5, 2012) to approve SB 10, a bill to legalize homosexual “marriage.” The bill was previously approved by the State Senate, and now will go to be signed by Gov. Pat Quinn (D), a strong supporter of homosexual “marriage.” The vote tally and some breakdowns for SB 10 are below. The vote went roughly along party lines, with all but three of the “Yes” votes from Democrats. Ten Democrats voted AGAINST SB 10 (with two voting “Present”), and three Republicans voted FOR it (with one GOP member absent from the vote).
Party affiliation in Illinois House of Representatives: 71 Democrats; 47 Republicans
Republicans (3) voting YES on SB 10 (homosexual “marriage”):Tom Cross (outgoing House Republican Leader; see his statement on SB 10 vote HERE; Cross is running for Illinois State Treasurer in 2014); Ron Sandak; Ed Sullivan, Jr.
Democrats (10) voting NO on SB 10: Beiser; Bradley; Cloonen; Costello; Monique Davis; Flowers; Jackson; Jefferson; Mautino; Scherer.
More voting breakdowns are beneath the graphic:
More voting breakdowns on SB 10:
Members of House Black Caucus (14) voting FOR SB 10 (FOR legalizing “gay marriage”): William Davis; Dunkin; Evans; Ford; Golar; Gordon; Jones; Lilly; Christian Mitchell; Riley; Sims; Thapedi; Turner; Chris Welch;
House Black Caucus members (4) voting AGAINST SB 10: Monique Davis; Flowers; Jackson; Jefferson
Black Caucus members (2) voting “Present” on SB 10: Mayfield; Derrick Smith (both Democrats; all Black Caucus members are Democrats)
House Member with “Excused Absence” from vote: Mike Fortner (Republican)
Homosexual legislators: Kelly Cassidy; Greg Harris (SB 10 Chief Sponsor); Sam Yingling (all Democrats);
“ENDA would be a devastating, unconstitutional blow to American liberty,” says writer
The only African American in the Senator, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), does not seem to be buying the pro-ENDA arguments put forward by Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and others — that “rights” based on homosexuality and “gender identity” are an extension of the noble civil rights struggle on behalf of Black Americans.
The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) crossed a major hurdle yesterday with the U.S. Senate voting 61-30 to end cloture and proceed towards a vote (with seven Republicans voting in favor). This vote indicates that ENDA will likely pass in the Senate, so the House could quickly become the battleground to stop this bill that effectively creates a new employment “right” based on homosexuality and extreme gender confusion. Politico reports that a vote in the Senate is likely by the end of the week; see their story HERE, which discusses efforts by some Republicans to strengthen ENDA’s religious exemptions.
My Senator, Mark Kirk (R-IL), in his first floor speech in two years after suffering a stroke, compared ENDA to past civil rights victories and, by implication, the effort to ban slavery. Though I wish Mr. Kirk a thorough recovery, his analogy is preposterous and, in fact, quite revolting: creating federal “rights” based on sexual perversion and anti-biological “gender identity” (think men in high heels and dresses) – through an intrusive law that will undermine Americans’ freedoms of religion, association and conscience — has absolutely nothing to do with the noble civil rights struggle against racism and slavery. Perhaps that is why the Senate’s only African American, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), cast a “No” vote against ENDA yesterday — and why Blacks are leading the fight against homosexuality-based “marriage.” Much more on ENDA will be posted on AFTAH. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
Night of the Living ENDA
By Gina Miller
This column first appeared Nov. 4, 2013 in Renew America, a “Must Read” daily news and commentary source for Reagan conservatives.
Just like the flesh-eating zombies in Romero’s classic 1968 horror picture Night of the Living Dead, the sinister “Employment Non-Discrimination Act” (ENDA) won’t stay in the grave. Although attempts to add “sexual orientation” to the list of federally protected people date back to the early 1970s, ENDA was first spawned in 1994 and repeatedly re-introduced and killed in subsequent Congresses. Back in April, it again became undead in the Senate, as S. 815, by pro-homosexual Democrat Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon and 55 cosponsors, two of whom are Republican: Susan Collins (ME) and Mark Kirk (IL). In the House, we can “thank” openly homosexual Congressman Jared Polis (founder of ProFlowers) for its latest incarnation as H.R. 1755. A vote in the Senate is now imminent.
ENDA’s requirements and prohibitions for employers are “justified” under the umbrella of previous civil rights legislation, creating a bogus equality between innate characteristics like race and sex and the perverse behavior of homosexuals and other sexual deviants. This proposed legislation equates homosexual behavior with skin color in an apples-and-oranges “civil rights” fiasco. Why a fiasco? Because this horrible legislation will strip fundamental, God-given, constitutionally-protected rights from many American citizens while it conflates unnatural, unhealthy, immoral homosexual behavior with “civil rights.”
ENDA would be a devastating, unconstitutional blow to American liberty, essentially killing our God-given rights and freedoms of religion, speech and association. It is anti-business. It would require employers, under penalty of federal law for violations, to accept open homosexuals, cross-dressers, “transgenders” and whatever other sexual degeneracy they can come up with to “federally protect.” ENDA prohibits discrimination “on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”