January 16, 2012

Contact: Peter LaBarbera; americansfortruth@gmail.com

Raleigh pastor Dr. Patrick Wooden rejects the comparison of black civil rights to sinful and unnatural homosexual behavior.

MONTGOMERY, Alabama – A coalition of African American pastors and pro-family Christian and Jewish leaders is holding a press conference at noon tomorrow (the day after Martin Luther King Day) outside the headquarters of the Southern Poverty Law Center — to protest the SPLC’s smearing of pro-family groups that oppose homosexual activism as “hate groups”:

WHERE:  Outside the SPLC headquarters, 400 Washington Ave., Montgomery, Alabama

WHEN:  Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012, noon, Central Standard (Montgomery, AL) Time

WHO:  Scheduled speakers:

• Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), Chicago, IL (the SPLC has smeared AFTAH as a “hate group”);
• Dr. Patrick Wooden, pastor, Upper Room Church of God in Christ (COGIC), Raleigh, NC;
• DL Foster, founder, Gay Christian Movement Watch, Atlanta, GA;
• Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs, Liberty Counsel, Lynchburg, VA;
• Tim Johnson, Fredrick Douglass Foundation, Washington, D.C.;
• Rachel Conner, representing Abiding Truth Ministries (smeared by SPLC as a “hate group”)
• Pastor Glen Sawyer, New Mt. Zion Church of God in Christ, Elizabeth City, NC
• Pastor Wil Nichols, Victorious Praise Fellowship COGIC, Durham, NC
• Pastor Jon Robinson, Kingdom C.O.M.E. Ministries, Clairton, PA
• Pastor Kenneth Jefferson, Greater Harvest COGIC

The following pro-family leaders and groups will issue supporting statements:

• Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Rabbinical Alliance of America;
• Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute (smeared as “hate group”)
• Arthur Goldberg, author, “Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change”;
• Linda Harvey, Mission America, Columbus, OH
• Brian Camenker, Mass Resistance, (smeared as “hate group”)

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth, which is sponsoring the press event, recently interviewed Pastor Wooden, who said that the SPLC’s gambit of labeling mainstream pro-family groups that oppose homosexual activism as “hate groups” is seriously damaging the SPLC’s credibility. Wooden also debunked the “civil rights” analogy used by “gay” activists, saying it is wrong to compare “my beautiful blackness” with homosexual perversion.

LaBarbera said the SPLC is engaged in a thinly-veiled, one-sided campaign to demonize adherents of traditional Judeo-Christian morality. He noted that despite the considerable hatred and anti-Christian bigotry emanating from homosexual activists (e.g., Dan Savage’s vile hate-site, Santorum[dot]com), the SPLC has never labeled a “gay” organization or website as “hateful.”

Note: it is outrageous that the State of lllinois would even consider FORCING religious adoption agencies (or irreligious agencies, for that matter) to place children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design. Adults (proudly) practicing homosexuality are not good role models for impressionable children, who need a mom and a dad. (No, the sexes are not  interchangeable.) The new Illinois “Civil Unions” law — rammed through Springfield in a lame-duck session — must be repealed to preserve religious liberty in the Land of Lincoln. ”Exemptions” — even if they are strengthened – won’t preserve freedom.

In the meantime, a new movement has been launched to place an Advisory Referendum on “same-sex marriage” (and “civil unions”) on the Illinois ballot in 2012. Almost 300,000 signatures of Illinos voters must be gathered and turned into the Illlinois Board of Elections by April 2012 to make that happen. To get involved, go to www.DefendMarriageIllinois.org and download a petition and instructions. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org   

______________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                     

CONTACT:  Tom Ciesielka, 312-422-1333; tc@tcpr.net; June 7, 2011                                                                                                                   

Catholic Leaders Take Legal Action Over Risk of Losing Foster Care Services

Catholic Charities in Illinois Seek Remedy for Best Interests of Children, Families

(SPRINGFIELD, IL) Leaders of three Catholic dioceses – the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Peoria and Joliet – took legal action today as their charities fight to continue their work in serving the best interests of thousands of needy children and families throughout the state.

In March of this year, the Attorney General’s office issued a letter stating that the office “received notice that Catholic Charities … discriminates against Illinois citizens based on race, marital status and sexual orientation” in the provision of foster care and adoption services and demanded that Catholic Charities turn over a wide range of documents in response. The June 1 law authorizing civil unions in Illinois has raised further questions and criticism about Catholic Charities’ longstanding position not to place children for adoption and foster care with non-married couples who live together – regardless of sexual orientation.

This lawsuit, filed in Sangamon County Circuit Court, seeks a declaration that the charities are in full compliance with Illinois law in their current practices and an injunction against further action by Illinois government officials to the contrary. The charities argue both that the Illinois Human Rights Act exempts religious adoption agencies from the provisions relied upon by the Attorney General’s office and that the new Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act includes an express protection for the religious freedom of entities like Catholic Charities.

The charities ask the court to declare that they are legally justified to continue their current practices of working only with married couples and single, non-cohabiting individuals. Civil union couples are free to choose among dozens of other organizations for these services.

“Child welfare advocates know it is in the best interest of Illinois children for Catholic Charities to stay in this business,” said Steven Roach, Executive Director for Catholic Charities in the Springfield Diocese. “It’s tragic that there are people who believe unnecessarily disrupting the lives of thousands of vulnerable children is an acceptable outcome in this situation.”

Catholic Charities have served thousands of children and families with top-quality, nurturing care since 1921 and handle about 20 percent of the cases in Illinois. Charities’ leaders are extremely concerned what will happen with those children and families if they are forced out of this work.

“Religious and faith-based entities need not check their beliefs at the door when providing vital social services for the benefit of needy and vulnerable children and families in Illinois. Catholic Charities has a clear right under Illinois law to pursue its charitable good works in the true spirit of the Gospels and the Sermon on the Mount, faithful to the essential tenets of its Catholic faith. We will advocate strongly to protect Catholic Charities’ continuing its mission of social service,” said Tom Brejcha of the Thomas More Society, which is representing the charities in the lawsuit.

About the Thomas More Society

Formed in 1997, the Thomas More Society is a national public interest law firm based in Chicago. The Society defends religious liberty, marriage, and the sanctity of human life in courtrooms across the country. For more information, please visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

###

The following presentation [click HERE to listen] is excerpted from a speech by Liberty University School of Law Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen was made at the Truth Academy in Columbus, Ohio, April 1-2, 2011 — sponsored jointly by Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and Mission America. We aired Prof. Lindevaldsen’s talk (edited down slightly from the original, without the ‘Q&A’ session) on the “Americans For Truth Hour” radio program May 21, 2011. Lindevaldsen discusses the escalating ”gay” activist campaign to establish homosexuality — and same-sex “marriage” – as a “civil right.” She discusses the growing threat to religious and First Amendment freedoms arising from pro-homosexual court rulings and policies. Lindevaldsen explains how President Obama is undermining the Defense of Marriage Act, and warns that religious liberty will suffer a crushing blow if homosexuals receive favored “suspect class” status in the law. NOTE: All of Prof. Lindevaldsen’t excellent presentations at AFTAH’s Truth Academies are available below:

Order Truth Academy Sets: DVDs of Chicago 2010 or CDs of Columbus 2011 – Rena Lindevaldsen has spoken at both of AFTAH’s Truth Academies.  Columbus 2011: A 13-CD AUDIO set of this year’s two-day Truth Academy in Columbus, OH – co-sponsored by Mission America — is available for just $49 postpaid.  This 13-CD set includes the full talk above by Prof. Lindevaldsen, as well as presentations by Greg Quinlan, Matt Barber, Linda Harvey, Gary Glenn, Prof. Rob Gagnon, Peter LaBarbera and WorldNetDaily’s David Kupelian. Chicago 2010: A DVD-video set of the entire three-day Truth Academy — featuring two talks by Rena Lindevaldsen — is available for $89 (including postage). Other Chicago speakers include: Robert Knight, Barber, Quinlan, Ryan Sorba, Laurie Higgins, Gagnon, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera. Double order discount: Order BOTH Truth Academy sets (the Chicago DVD-VIDEO and the Columbus CD-AUDIO) for a discount price of $129 (postage included). Send your check and specify your order to AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522; or give online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (please use PayPal if possible). Send queries to americans

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

5-21-11, Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen

Pro-family advocates in Chicago rally against the new "Civil Unions" law in Illinois. The bill, HB 1716, was passed in a lame-duck session and ironically called the "Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act" despite the fact that its passage immediately put Illinois citizens' religious and First Amendment liberties in jeopardy. Photo by Lynn Thomas; click to enlarge.

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (www.aftah.org); June 1, 2011

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@gmail.com

CHICAGO–Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and a principal behind the Illinois Defense of Marriage Initiative (www.DefendMarriageIL.org), issued the following statement on the new Illinois “Civil Unions” law that takes effect today:

Homosexual behavior is always wrong, according to the broad sweep of Judeo-Christian history, so it is tragic to behold the State of Illinois – or any government entity – recognizing immoral same-sex relationships and treating them like marriage. Moreover, for the City of Chicago and Gov. Pat Quinn to celebrate homosexuality with a mass Civil Union ceremony June 2^nd is an act of hubris and defiance toward the Creator that mocks His wonderful plan for real marriage – the sacred union of a man and a woman to produce children and family. The pandering Quinn – epitomizing the modern Democratic politician –mocks his own professed Catholicism by working tirelessly to undermine its clear moral dictates.

The anti-Christian Civil Unions law must be repealed. It was passed in a lame-duck session that once again revealed the contempt that liberal Illinois lawmakers have for the citizens they are supposed to serve. Ironically, shortly after passage of this bill – mischievously titled the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act –religious liberty for Illinois citizens and religious institutions was immediately put in jeopardy. A homosexual male couple targeted Paxton, Illinois, bed-and-breakfast owners Jim and Beth Walder – who now face prosecution by the State because they refuse – as Christians – to hold “civil union” ceremonies celebrating homosexuality on their own business property. And the Rockford Diocese’s Catholic Charities announced that it will halt its state-funded foster care and adoption services rather than be forced by the State of Illinois to place children in same-sex households that are motherless or fatherless by design.

These sad developments in the Land of Lincoln constitute further proof that homosexuality-based “rights” and religious freedom cannot co-exist. “Gay” activism – empowered by Illinois’ “sexual orientation” law and the new Civil Unions law — will drive out the free expression of religion and morality, which must include the right to oppose sexual behavior historically regarded as disordered and sinful. (Thankfully, homosexuality is also changeable, as evidenced by Chicago Christian ex-lesbian Linda Jernigan, who spoke at Friday’s rally launching the Illinois Defense of Marriage Initiative.)  [Upcoming Event Notice: Jernigan will be giving a dinner-lecture at AFTAH's office in Carol Stream, IL, 25W560 Geneva Rd., on Friday, June 17th, on the topic "What's Wrong with 'Gay Pride'?"; e-mail us for more information: americansfortruth@gmail.com.]

Already, there are “conservative, pro-family” defeatists who argue that the radical Civil Unions bill cannot be repealed. It’s funny how “gay” activists never display such timidity. The well-financed Homosexual Lobby sees “Civil Unions” as a mere pathway to full, legalized “same-sex marriage.” We must work diligently to repeal this anti-Christian law, while also collecting 300,000 signatures to put a referendum on “same-sex marriage” on the Illinois ballot in 2012. Also, we will continue to push for House Speaker Mike Madigan to stop blocking a vote on a binding constitutional marriage amendment that will permanently prevent the radical redefinition of marriage in our state.

Newly confirmed EEOC Commissioner, lesbian Chai Feldblum, calls the battle between religious freedom and rights based on homosexuality a "zero-sum game," in which homosexuals should win and Christians should lose.

Chai Feldblum – the homosexual activist who rightly acknowledges that “rights” based on homosexuality and the religious freedom to live out one’s opposition to homosexuality cannot peacefully coexist in the law – has been confirmed as a Commissioner of the EEOC. A lesbian and top homosexual legal strategist, Feldblum calls the battle between religious freedom and homosexuality-based “rights” a “zero-sum game” – in which homosexuals usually should win and Christians should lose. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Excerpted from The Advocate, a magazine for people practicing homosexuality:

Lesbian lawyer and longtime activist Chai Feldblum was confirmed as a commissioner of the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a Senate vote Wednesday, the Federal Times reports.

Feldblum, who has been the target of much criticism by conservatives, had been serving under a recess appointment by President Obama since April, along with another commissioner, the commission’s chair, and its general counsel, who also were confirmed Wednesday in one of the Senate’s last actions before the holiday break.

Continue reading at The Advocate

Statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness, in 2008 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Personnel, in support of Section 654, Title 10, the law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. TAKE ACTION: Call your Senators TODAY to support Sen. John McCain’s filibuster of legislation designed to overturn the ban on homosexuality in the military: 202-224-3121 (http://www.contactingthecongress.org/). A vote on the repeal is scheduled for tomorrow.

What is the bigger threat to freedom in America, presently? a) Sharia Law; or b) the anti-religious homosexualist agenda (including legalized “gay marriage”)? If you answered “b,” you are correct. Tell that to the conservative and ‘liberal-tarian’ pundits who are silent on the intolerant government-gay agenda and yet very vocal on the threat of Islamic radicalism.

Think about it. Here’s one Christian man who was targeted by the Homosexual Thought Police, but was ultimately vindicated. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Aubrey Sarvis of the homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) said it was "not a big deal" serving in the Army as a homosexual way back in the 1960s. The gays-in-the-military debate is NOT about discreet homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, but the desire of homosexuals to be "out and proud" even in the conservative military culture.

Folks, note how homosexual activist and former Army infantry sharpshooter Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN) — the “gay” organization lobbying for homosexuals in the military — answers this question by MSNBC host Chris Matthews on his show Feb. 2, 2010:

MSNBC’s Matthews: “As a gay man, what was it like [serving in the Army]? You were not out in the open, obviously. What was your experience in that regard? What did you learn in terms of this issue of whether gay people should be allowed to serve openly?

Sarvis replies: “Well, by and large, even in the ’60s, Chris, I found that gays and lesbians serving — and most were serving in silence then — it was not a big deal. But all gays and lesbians want to serve openly. They want to be honest about their service to their country. And as Adm. Mullen said today, it comes down to integrity, and every servicemember counts — gay or straight.” [more analysis follows video....]

Sarvis’ comment is most reasonably interpreted to mean that  it was “not a big deal” for homosexuals like himself to serve — i.e., they were not harassed or persecuted, presumably as long as they kept silent about their homosexuality. By extension, he may also be asserting that it was “no big deal” to the majority of straight soldiers that there were (discreet, non-public) homosexuals in the Army.

Like Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council, I believe that “homosexuals” [for purposes here: people who practice homosexuality or claim a (deviant) sexual attraction to members of the same sex] should not serve in the military. That is the law. But think back to the days of Arvis’ youth 40 years ago — when homosexuality was much more condemned by society than it is today. If men or women were capable of serving (as secret homosexuals) then — without major difficulties — what is behind the current, politically manufactured “gays-in-the-military “crisis” that supposedly necessitates a revolution in our military conduct policy during wartime?

The answer is “gay pride” — which is a military and national priority only in the minds of homosexual advocates and their liberal allies like our current Commander-in-Chief. Discreet and celibate homosexuals have long served and continue to serve in the military — often after lying about their homosexuality to get in (which calls into question all that “gay” blather about “honesty” and “integrity”). But the fact that the nation’s leading homosexuals-in-the-military activist acknowledges that it was “not a big deal” for him to serve in the Army decades ago (Sarvis was in for more than three years) shows that — on a practical level — the issue is not really about homosexuals serving in the military.

No, Sarvis and fellow homosexual crusaders want servicemen and servicewomen who identify as homosexuals to serve as “out and proud gays and lesbians” –and to be affirmed as such by other servicemen, and by the Armed Forces’ bureaucracy. They already “serve in silence,” but they demand the “right” to do so loudly and proudly — traditional military values be damned. H.R. 1283, the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” sponsored by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), would accomplish this goal by imposing “sexual orientation” egalitarianism on the Armed Forces in the guise of fighting “discrimination”; as with all “gay rights” legislation, such a law would invariably lead to politically correct assaults on the rights and beliefs of fighting men and women of faith who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds.

In other words, GLBT activists — driven by the need to justify their immoral and unnatural lifestyle — seek to transform the conservative culture of the U.S. military to approve of “proud” homosexuality and bisexuality, even if that means spending millions of taxpayer dollars on “attitudinal adjustment” for all the soldiers, sailors and airmen who either oppose homosexuality or don’t wish to see it celebrated. If Congress caves in to this “gay” agenda, it would help drive out tens of thousands of high caliber, tradition-minded servicemen from the military.

Isn’t that a rather high price to pay to validate those in the military who aren’t even supposed to be serving in the first place? – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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).

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.

New EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldlum

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute, March 30, 2010

Click HERE to watch some video clips of Chai Feldblum at a 2008 panel discussion at the Family Research Council.

______________________________

Georgetown University lesbian law professor Chai Feldblum believes that when same-sex is marriage is legalized, which she argues is both necessary and inevitable, conservative people of faith will lose religious rights. She is also one of the authors of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which would provide special protections for those who choose to base their identity on their same-sex attraction or their disordered desire to do the impossible: change their sex.

And this is the same Chai Feldblum whom President Barack Obama has appointed to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). He used the legal but divisive mechanism of recess appointments, which allow him to appoint people to serve in important government roles without being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. According to the homosexual newspaper, Windy City Times, “Feldblum, as part of the commission, will have considerable influence in the writing of federal regulations to enforce” the deeply troubling ENDA if it’s passed.

Feldblum, speaking at a Becket Fund Symposium in December 2005 stated the following:

[L]et us postulate, for the moment, that in some number of years an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in this country will have changed their laws so that LGBT people will have full equality in society, including access to civil marriage. Or, indeed, let us postulate that the entire country is governed – as a matter of federal statutory and constitutional law – on the basis of full equality for LGBT people….

Assume for the moment that these beliefs ultimately translate into the passage of laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and that provide same-sex couples the same societal supports currently available to opposite-sex couples, including access to civil marriage. . . . [G]ranting this justified liberty and equality to gay people will likely put a burden on those religious people who believe acting on one’s same-sex sexual orientation is a sin and who may feel they are aiding and abetting sin if they rent an apartment to a gay couple, allow a gay couple to eat at their restaurant, or provide health benefits to a same-sex spouse….

Let me be very clear…in almost all the situations…I believe the burden on religious people that will be caused by granting gay people full equality will be justified….

That is because I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if “pockets of resistance” to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people….

Not surprisingly, following her nomination to the EEOC, Feldblum requested that her name be removed from the subversive document she signed in 2006 entitled “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage: A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families and Relationships,” which begins with this troubling statement (emphasis in original document):

We, the undersigned – lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and allied activists, scholars, educators, writers, artists, lawyers, journalists, and community organizers — seek to offer friends and colleagues everywhere a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families. In so doing, we hope to move beyond the narrow confines of marriage politics as they exist in the United States today.

We seek access to a flexible set of economic benefits and options regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender/gender identity, class, or citizenship status.

The “Beyond Marriage” authors seek to have “Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner” as well as “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households” be recognized as families and accorded all the benefits of traditional marriages.

Click HERE to watch a short and important video that exposes the radical nature of Feldblum’s vision for America, American jurisprudence, and religious liberty.

And here are the titles of just three of Feldblum’s scholarly articles:

• “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion”
• “The Right to Define One’s Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People”
• “Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More” — in which she asserts that “even if gay couples succeed in ‘getting marriage,’ the gay rights movement may have missed a critical opportunity – a chance to make a positive moral case for gay sex and gay couples. In other words, it will have missed the opportunity to argue that ‘gay is good,’” and that “changing the public’s perception of the morality of gay sex and of changing one’s gender may ultimately be necessary to achieve true equality for LGBT people.”

If conservatives continue to self-censor, if we refuse to courageously and publicly counter the relentless, pervasive, deafening cultural messages that affirm homosexual acts as moral, we will lose speech rights, religious liberty, and we will see the destruction of marriage and the natural family.

There’s no point now in expressing your opposition to Feldblum’s appointment: Obama doesn’t care, and the Senate won’t be consulted.

Homosexual activist Wayne Besen screams with a bullhorn into the window of Boston's Park Street Church, which was hosting an "ex-gay" seminar last April. Will the SPLC investigate virulent anti-Christian activists like Besen in its ostensible campaign against "hate"? How would the SPLC react if right-wing conservatives were to terrorize a homosexual church in the same way?

Well, now I think I’ve seen it all. A Chicago-based Marxist “direct action” group, the Gay Liberation Network (GLN) — which smears Chicago’s historic Moody Church as a “House of Hate,” attacks Catholic Cardinal Francis George as a “homophobe,” and compares the Boy Scouts to racist fringe groups  — has successfully lobbied the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to label AFTAH’s website a “hate site.” The GLN and its co-leader, Bob Schwartz, know a thing or two about hate: in 2005, Schwartz told me, as I was standing in opposition to a “gay youth” event in downtown Chicago, that he would have pushed me into the busy city street were it not for the presence nearby of my “friends,” the police. (Read my 2005 account as Executive Director for Illinois Family Institute HERE; imagine if I had made such a veiled, physical threat against Schwartz: I probably would have been arrested on “Hate Crime” charges right then and there.)

There are few things as sinister, and as cynical, as the Left’s manipulation of “hate” as a political weapon to malign Christians and patriotic, conservative Americans. Thankfully, it seems the only people taking the SPLC seriously anymore are the liberal media and hardened, ‘Move On’-types on the Left. The SPLC is a spent force when it comes to moral authority — and even some honest liberals are seeing through its disingenuous campaign to redefine morality as “hate” and “bigotry.” (Don’t look to the SPLC to investigate homosexual haters like Wayne Besen’s notoriously nasty “Truth Wins Out” anytime soon; Besen is shown at right screaming with a bullhorn into the window of Park Street Church in Boston; click here to read the MassResistance story on the shocking 2009 demonstration.)

GLN's Bob Schwartz knows about "hate" ....

The Left is so steeped in its own ideology and self-righteousness that it is oblivious to how out of step it is with everyday Americans. Sure, there are haters on the right like Fred (“God Hates Fags”) Phelps (who despicably pickets U.S. soldiers’ funerals, and whom AFTAH has repeatedly condemned). But there are far more haters on the Left, and they are much better organized and dangerous to American liberty than those on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

On behalf of Americans For Truth, I am gratified at the outpouring of support we have received from pro-family advocates across the country in response to the SPLC’s shenanigans. We’ll say it again: to defend historic Judeo-Christian moral norms is not “bigotry,” and to disagree with homosexual activists is not “hate.” You can contact the Southern Poverty Law Center HERE. God bless you. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org; e-mail us: americansfortruth@comcast.net>

Matt Barber’s statement on the SPLC follows the jump:

____________________________________

Statement by Matt Barber, Board Member, Americans For Truth, and Director of Cultural Affairs, Liberty Council:

Contact:  jmattbarber@comcast.net

Date: March 23, 2010

SPLC Fritters Away Last Traces of Credibility

LYNCHBURG, Va. – The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – a far-left organization famous for promoting a panoply of extreme liberal causes – has launched yet another politically motivated attack against a well-respected conservative organization. The SPLC has arbitrarily tagged as a “hate group” Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH). Most recently, the SPLC came under fire for comparing the “Tea Party” movement and other grassroots conservatives to “terrorists.”

AFTAH is a Christian organization that promotes biblical morality and publicly decries both violence and hatred  against homosexuals. Although it has been in operation for a number of years, the SPLC only recently labeled AFTAH a “hate group,” after being pressured by the Chicago-based “Gay Liberation Network.” (GLN is a fringe group of self-described Marxists and sexual anarchists best known for disrupting peaceful Christian gatherings with raucous, bullhorn laden protests.)

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, commented: “You can only cry wolf so many times before people begin to ignore you. Newsflash: Moveon.org wants Bush tried as a ‘war criminal,’ Charlie Sheen thinks the U.S. government is behind 9/11 and, yes, the SPLC has once again awarded its now meaningless ‘hate group’ distinction to another conservative organization with which it  is admittedly – in every way – both politically and ideologically opposed. Who would’ve thunk it?

“In the past, the SPLC has actually done some good,” continued Barber. “By identifying and monitoring  real   hate groups such as the KKK, neo-Nazis, and Skinheads, the SPLC once provided information to local law enforcement which was sometimes useful in preventing and investigating subversive and violent activity.

“Unfortunately, in recent years the SPLC has traded in its limited usefulness for radical left-wing activism. It has become exactly   MUCH LIKE [??]  that which it previously sought to expose. It now uses the very tactics employed by white nationalists and other bona fide hate groups to malign large groups of people  whom the SPLC most decidedly ‘hates.’

“It’s nauseatingly transparent ,” said Barber. With empty, ad hominem attacks and pejorative ‘hate group’  smears, the SPLC strives to politically marginalize its ideological opponents. It’s a cynical ‘guilt-by-false-association ‘ scheme, through which the SPLC hopes – in the public mind’s eye – to equate Christians, ‘tea party’ conservatives and other traditionalists to the KKK and neo-Nazis.

“Amazingly, in going after Americans For Truth, the GLN  betrayed its SPLC ally by publicly acknowledging its nefarious strategy. It publicly boasted that this was the strategy all along.  The Gay Liberation Network’s stated goal in  goading  the SPLC  to  label AFTAH a ‘hate group’ was to ‘help assist’ in AFTAH’s ‘political marginalization.’ Of course, by kowtowing to an already deeply marginalized GLN; by so obviously abusing its once-respectable reputation; and by spending its last remaining political capital  on such folly, the SPLC has only succeeded in further marginalizing itself.

“It’s a ‘hate group,’ mudslinging good time!” joked Barber.  ” Let’s try it on for size. In exercise of the SPLC’s trademark ‘I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I’ criteria for determining ‘hate group’ status, I hereby declare the Southern Pov Law Center an officeal  ‘anti-Christian, anti-conservative hate group.’ Try it, it’s fun.

“But seriously,” continued Barber, “If AFTAH is a ‘hate group,’ then so is  Liberty Counsel, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council,  American Family Association, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church. Any group that observes and defends traditional sexual morality would have to be  labeled such . Heck, for that matter, so would the U.S. Armed Forces, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA. These groups publically expose the undeniable medical and societal pitfalls associated with the homosexual lifestyle and, therefore, must be ‘hate groups ,’  right?

“Of course, like any bully, the SPLC  only goes after those it believes it can push around. But really, it confers  an honor upon every legitimate Christian and conservative group  that it so disingenuously labels as a ‘hate group.’  This is a tacit admission by the SPLC that these groups represent a threat; that their activities undermine the SPLC’s not-so-thinly-veiled, left-wing agenda.

“I can’t speak for the organizations with which I’m a affiliated and, of course, I hate absolutely no one,” concluded Barber. “Nonetheless, I’d like to officially request that the SPLC add my name to its apurious ‘anti-gay hate list. ‘ It’s good for one’s biblical bona fides.”

(Matt Barber currently, and proudly, sits on the board of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality.)

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.

P.S. It says a lot about the left-wing ninnies over at Media Matters that they thought this video would embarrass the Right; we used their Youtube because the quality was better than the others:

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

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

___________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________

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

____________________________________________

All the bile that’s fit to print

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

Posted on WND January 13, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____________________________

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

"Stay at Home" Lesbian to Take Kids 1,800 Miles from their Dad? University of Illinois professor Karen Kelsky is one step closer to uprooting her children from their devoted father in Illinois and raising them with her lesbian lover in Oregon.

Folks, this is a tear-jerker — a real-world by-product of the cultural elites’ myth advancing the supposed equality of “gay parenting.” If this rancid decision is left unturned, these poor children will be forced to live with immoral role models and all the confusion that entails — far, far away from their devoted father. (Maybe a couple of homosexual “uncles” from Portland could replace him….) Also, note the perverted “scholarship” at the University of Illinois — your tax dollars at work, Illinoisans! God help us, and God help these poor children: that they won’t become guinea pigs in the Left’s latest social experiment: intentionally fatherless, lesbian parenting. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

By Laurie Higgins, reprinted with permission from Illinois Family Institute

I apologize for the lurid title, but this is a lurid story.

Every divorced father, every non-custodial parent, and every decent, fair, compassionate person should both tremble and be outraged by the recent feckless court decision of activist Illinois judge, John R. Kennedy.

The now-lesbian ex-wife of Mr. Taro Iwata took him to court in Urbana, Illinois in a successful attempt to take their two young children, with whom Mr. Iwata is very close, to Eugene, Oregon to live with her and her lesbian partner.

Eugene, Oregon–a stone’s throw from the lesbian mecca of Portland, Oregon–is 1,800 miles away from Champaign, Illinois, where both Mr. Iwata and his children currently live.

His ex-wife, Karen Kelsky, is a tenured associate professor of East Asian Languages and Culture and Anthropology at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign). Kelsy has decided that her self-serving and disordered desire to live with a lesbian lover across the country trumps her husband’s natural and legitimate desire to be deeply and regularly involved in his children’s lives and trumps her children’s needs, desires, and rights to be deeply and regularly involved with their father.

And apparently Champaign County Judge Kennedy agrees, for he has decided that Kelsky may uproot her children, take them far away from their devoted father, and settle them permanently in a household defined by deviance.

According to attorney Jason Craddock, who represents Mr. Iwata, the Court found the following:
that the children’s best interests will be served by allowing the move because 1) the mother will be a “stay at home mom” (ah, yes, the quintessential picture of traditional domesticity: a fatherless home led by two lesbians) while her lover works (even though their standard of living here in Illinois is higher than their standard of living will be in Oregon); 2) the judge views the lesbian relationship as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage (even though neither the state of Illinois nor the state of Oregon views them as equivalent); 3) the judge found that the mother being with her lover will be a direct benefit that will enhance the children’s quality of life; and 4) the judge found that the presence in Oregon of the extended family of the lesbian lover was a factor warranting removal of the children in that neither the mother’s nor the father’s extended family lives close to Illinois or Oregon.

So now interactions with the extended family of a homosexual partner constitute a greater benefit to children than regular, frequent interactions with a loving, committed–and heterosexual–biological parent? That is a radical, subversive, insidious, pernicious, and stupefying idea. Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.

The Court went even further in its efforts to undermine the fundamental human right of both children and fathers to be intimately involved in one another’s lives: Kennedy decreased the remaining inadequate summer and holiday visitation times.

Attorney Craddock explains that,

Even from a “coldly” legal standpoint, this decision is subversive. It flies squarely in the face of decades of removal jurisprudence in Illinois, as Illinois courts historically and consistently give great weight to the relationship enjoyed between children and their non-custodial parents, and typically allow removal only where the visitation time would either remain the same or increase after the move. Also, Illinois courts have never allowed removal where a custodial parent desired to move to a place in order to move in with a paramour or when such a move would lower the family’s standard of living. Courts have without exception allowed removal only where the new spouse or fiancee of the custodial parent lived away from Illinois and where the standard of living would be increased.

This decision clearly constitutes an activist decision, with Judge Kennedy going boldly where the Illinois legislature expressly declined to go before: the Illinois “civil unions” bill presented in the House of Representatives was soundly rejected this past year. Our elected legislature apparently recognizes a legal distinction between heterosexual married couples and same-sex couples. Judge Kennedy has taken it upon himself to confer legal status where it decidedly does not exist.

This tragic, unconscionable, deliberate rupture in an essential relationship serves the unholy desire of Kelsky, who writes this about herself on the U. of Illinois faculty bio page (emphasis added):

My current work is on the lesbian community and the politics of transgenderism in Japan. I am at work on a book project entitled “The Personal is Personal: Reading the Lesbian in Contemporary Japan,” which is a cultural studies-based exploration of the major lesbian popular texts of the last twenty years, including autobiographies, zines, and pornography. I focus on the major sites of contestation around lesbian identity and subjectivity in this work, particularly around issues of butch-femme and sexual autonomy, coming out, privacy and visibility, and the question of sexual diversity. I have just finished a manuscript entitled “[Not] a Lesbian Feminist: Kakefuda Hiroko and the [Im]Possibility of the Lesbian Subject in 1990s Japan.”

Judge Kennedy’s findings reveal his likely underlying assumptions: he likely holds the unproven, highly arguable, a-historical theory that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to race and morally equivalent to heterosexuality, whereas in reality homosexuality is both ontologically and morally equivalent to polyamory or consensual incest.

He also likely holds the unproven, arguable, a-historical, erroneous theory that “gender” is irrelevant to both marriage and parenting.

Perhaps most troubling of all is that he has arrogantly decided that subordinating the relationship of father and children to the profoundly disordered relationship of mother and homosexual partner serves the best interests of the children.

It’s a wonder that Kennedy can sleep at night.

Mr. Iwata intends to appeal this execrable decision. Please pray for his victory.

______________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

Peter LaBarbera

If you want a good indication of the hatred and vilification to which Americans For Truth and this writer are subjected on a daily basis for exposing the truth about the homosexual and transsexual activist lobbies, do a Google search on my name: Peter LaBarbera (often misspelled: Peter LaBarbara).

Then try another Google search on the smear term that hateful homosexual militants like Wayne Besen and Joe Jervis have adopted in their quest to discredit me and AFTAH: Porno Pete.

Do you see why I can easily relate to Sarah Palin? AFTAH has been on the receiving end of irrational hate from snide leftists and mean-spirited homosexual activists well before anybody in the continental U.S. had even heard of Palin! If I had a quarter for every piece of pro-”gay” hate-mail we’ve received, I could fund our operations for a year.

Just the other day I noticed on Besen’s “Truth [gag] Wins Out” website that Wayne had posted another item blasting me as “Porno Pete.” It was a video that another bunch of hateful activists had created to attack me — sort of a Christmas present from the Gay Grinches to yours truly. I was touched.

“Porno Pete” is Besen’s proud creation, intended to mock me for exposing vile “gay” events like San Francisco’s annual depraved and nudity-filled “Folsom Street Fair” — and Chicago’s “Queer Prom” (sponsored by a gay bathhouse). We expose these events as often as possible because most Americans have no clue how radical the “gay” movement really is — and the threat it poses to kids [check out this gay youth flier] — and the liberal media will never tell them.

Besen plays the part of a responsible advocate for his cause on TV when he appears periodically on the Bill O’Reilly Show, but in real life he is a very bitter fellow who feels no compunction against using slimy, kill-the-messenger attacks like “Porno Pete” as a substitute for a real argument. (Wayne says I have an unnatural interest in gay perversions, to which I respond: I’ve got more than a few problems, but thankfully one of them isn’t lusting after men.)

Anyway, it’s all par for the course when it comes to exposing and opposing the Homosexual Lobby. To be hated by the likes of Besen for exposing the Truth is part of the job.

And determined “gay” activists wouldn’t bother hurling so much venom at AFTAH if we weren’t effective at what we do.

Most people don’t want their good name ruined on the web like mine has been, and so they pull back from opposing homosexual activism — even when they know in their gut that the “GLBT” movement represents one of the gravest threats to our America’s First Amendment liberties — and our Judeo-Christian moral heritage — that this nation has ever seen.

We understand why most people shy away from criticizing “queer” activists, but that makes AFTAH’s role even more crucial. We cut through the political correctness and the media’s pathetic pandering to the GLBT Lobby. And we will never quit. How can we when we look out at dozens of “gay,” lesbian, bisexual and “transgender” groups with collective budgets in the tens of millions every year? How can we give up when we behold the professional homosexual activist CEO’s with their annual salaries exceeding $200,ooo and even $300,000?

All to promote immorality in America and tear down Christians and anyone who agrees with God on this vexing issue.

AFTAH’s budget is miniscule compared to the “gay” giants like Human Rights Campaign (which — did you know? — has been busy promoting pro-homosexuality “Bible studies” that twist Scripture to advance the idea that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior). We could do so much more if we had even one-tenth the resources of HRC.

But despite all their money and power, homosexual activists lack something much more valuable: the truth. That’s why they lie so much — remember the “10 Percent” myth about the supposed number of “gays” in society? — and why they resort to hate-filled and bigoted attacks against AFTAH and other pro-family groups.

I can’t begin to document the full scope of homosexual activist hate and attacks directed our way, but here’s a few lowlights:

• One homosexual activist posted page after page of my personal financial records from my home purchase on his website;
• One “gay” militant sent AFTAH what appeared to be semen in an envelope;
• Pro-homosexual activists sought to shut down an AFTAH ad (full-page in USA Today) by inundating our 800# with harassment calls. So many calls came in that our phone-line supplier begged us to shut down the lines. How’s that for “tolerance”?
• Another “queer” activist wrote a post our address online accompanied by a sinister message: “Snipers, take note!” (he later apologized after being approached by local police);
• An evil fellow created a website using my name and accusing me of wanting to kill homosexuals (we are also regularly compared to racists despite my strong condemnation of racism);
• Another wicked activist, Joe Jervis, scribbled a piece on his blog: “Peter LaBarbera Wants To Have Sweaty Mansex With Every Single One Of You” (notice a trend here…?). Joe, I hereby nominate you for our “Gay Grinch of the Year” 2009 award — you deserve it!;
• The AFTAH-bashing website Box Turtle Bulletin created the “LaBarbera Award” to mock me — for the “most outrageous, offensive, malevolent, crazy or excessive statement or claim.” Perhaps I should nominate the website’s own editor, Tim Kincaid (another Gay Grinch 2009 candidate), for preposterously stating that my good friend Laurie Higgins (a former high school writing instructor and a very kind person) “believes it is a Christian kid’s duty to bully his gay classmates”. Kincaid made the outrageous, offensive, malevolent, crazy and excessive claim because Higgins advises students to forthrightly oppose the homosexual activist “Day of Silence” in schools and because she criticized one compromised Christian’s namby-pamby alternative to it;
• Homosexual activists have engaged in various illegal acts of harassment against AFTAH involving the mail, phones, etc. — which I will not describe here so as not to encourage harassers;
• One confused activist created an entire Facebook page devoted to smearing this writer, ingeniously titled, “Peter LaBarbera is a liar and spreader of hate.”

After a while, all the “gay” hatred, lies, and vicious attacks start to run together and you become numb to them. I’ve forgotten more than I can remember. What makes it so surreal is that homosexual activists spew their malice in the name of … “tolerance.”

They are blinded by a desperate need to defend a lifestyle that is indefensible. And their desperation translates into an escalating war against Christian America and a driving need to destroy religious freedom in the USA. The GLBT lobby works to undermine all religious and moral teachings against homosexuality because they know that true religion is the last bulwark stopping state-sponsored homosexuality in America.

The sad story of America and Homosexuality is that aggressive propaganda –that remains largely unanswered — works. Homosexual militants have learned — like so many spoiled children — that they can intimidate Americans into submission by yelling and screaming and falsely equating their sincere moral critics with being “haters, homophobes and bigots.”

But we are not intimidated at Americans For Truth. We don’t put up with the “gay” militants’ lies, and we are fearless when it comes to exposing the extremism that follows organized homosexuality like a dog follows squirrels. (After all, this is a perversion movement.)

But we need your help. We need to grow AFTAH into an organization that does indeed have one-tenth of Human Rights Campaign’s resources (that would put us well over $1 million annually), so that we — working beside like-minded family groups — can stop the “gay” juggernaut before it rolls over freedom of conscience in this blessed nation. Please help Americans For Truth by Dec. 31st with your tax-deductible donation.

Let me leave you with this wonderful note, which I received yesterday from Mike, a former homosexual and one of those guys that Wayne Besen claims doesn’t exist:

From: Mike <—————->
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:07:27 -0600
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net;
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Thanks for all your Great work.

As a born again Christian and an ex-gay man (5+ years) I was really happy to finally find such a great on-line media site that runs parallel to my beliefs. So much of the usual media endorse a lifestyle that often masks deep depression and despair. Growing up in an extremely liberal home where homosexuality was praised as a “good thing” I know firsthand how susceptible children can be to this misguided message. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for putting in all the hard work you do to preach God’s word and get the Truth out there.

God bless you, and thank you for standing with us! Tomorrow I’ll share another message about AFTAH’s unique role in the fight against the well-funded and powerful homosexual-bisexual-transsexual movement.

____________________________

TAKE ACTION by Dec. 31st: Please support Americans For Truth with a tax-deductible gift before the year’s end: www.americansfortruth.com/donate/. All donations received online by midnight Dec. 31st — or postmarked no later than Dec. 31st for regular mail gifts — can be deducted on your 2009 tax return. Send gifts to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. You can become a regular monthly AFTAH “Truth Team” giver by going HERE. Thank you for helping AFTAH fight for the Truth as hard as homosexual activists fight for their “gay” lies!

TAKE ACTION: Call or write CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) Chairman David Keene of the American Conservative Union (703-836-8602, ext. 19) and urge him to keep social liberals from corrupting CPAC’s conservative message. E-mail: cpac@conservative.org. Urge Keene to drop GOProud as a CPAC co-sponsor because GOProud supports the same radical homosexualist agenda as other GLBT organizations — which is corrupting children and tearing apart America’s moral fiber.

'One of these groups doesn't belong': the homosexual activist group GOProud joins truly conservative organizations co-sponsoring the annual CPAC conference. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel is leading a pullout of CPAC by social conservative groups unless GOProud is removed as a co-sponsor.

[Note: since publication of this article we have published a letter to AFTAH clarifying that GOProud does NOT support "hate crimes" laws, as most other homosexual groups do. -- Editor]

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, for years religious conservatives have been complaining about getting  the short end of the stick from CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. There is usually only a token panel or two dealing with “Culture War” social issues like abortion and homosexuality (and rarely one explicitly on fighting the “gay” agenda) – as organizers seek to appease the CPAC libertarians, some of whom support goals like homosexual “marriage” that are anathema to socially conservatives.

Now CPAC’s tenuous ”Big Tent” could collapse altogether as social conservatives led by Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber threaten to launch a boycott of the conference (scheduled for Feb. 18-20, 2010) unless CPAC drops a homosexual activist group, GOProud, as a co-sponsor. Barber, my good friend, an AFTAH Board Member, and the Director of Cultural Affairs at Liberty Counsel, is leading the charge to keep the CPAC sponsorship list … conservative.

GOProud describes itself as “the only national organization for gay conservatives and their allies,” but we at AFTAH dispute their definition of “conservative,” which would have the movement’s Founding Fathers, like Russell Kirk (see quotation at bottom), rolling over in their graves.

Matt Barber, author of The Right Hook: From the Ring to the Culture War (www.righthookbook.com)

I received an email sent by Barber to conservatives nationwide in which he wrote:

“I was disturbed to learn that CPAC is allowing the ‘Republican’ homosexual activist group GOProud to sponsor a booth at the 2010 conference. Among other things, GOProud advocates in favor of both ‘gay marriage’ and ‘civil unions,’ against pro-marriage constitutional amendments ; is pushing for the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ and advocates in favor of federal ‘partnership benefits’ for homosexuals. This group is pushing a radical leftist agenda that is an affront to the GOP platform, conservatism and, most importantly, the Word of God.”

In other words, GOProud is just another “gay” activist group, with a twist: the rest of its agenda (outside its pro-homosexual special interest) is conservative.

Barber is committed to leading a social conservative pullout of a pro-homosexuality CPAC, and AFTAH has learned that a number of leading pro-family organizations have already hinted that they will heed his call if CPAC retains GOProud as a co-sponsor.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write CPAC Chairman David Keene of the American Conservative Union (703-836-8602, ext. 19) and urge him to keep social liberals from corrupting CPAC’s conservative message. Urge Keene to drop GOProud as a CPAC co-sponsor because GOProud supports the same radical homosexualist agenda as other GLBT organizations — which is corrupting children and tearing apart America’s moral fiber.

What is conservatism?

It boils down to this: there is nothing “conservative” about — as Barber inimitably puts it — “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” Or two women awkwardly mimicking natural procreative relations or raising a child together in an intentionally fatherless home. This does not mean that people practicing those and other immoral (and changeable) behaviors cannot think and act conservatively on other issues like lowering taxes, cutting government spending, ending abortion, etc. But let’s be honest: the “proud” in GOProud is not about pride in opposing the death tax, or defending the right to bear arms; it’s about proudly embracing sinful homosexual behavior – and that is hardly a conservative value.

I challenge every thinking conservative to explain why we should jettison our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage (which clearly rejects homosexual acts as immoral) for some new, secularized brand of “conservatism” that fails to conserve natural, normal, and noble sex within God-ordained marriage. Where does the expansion of “conservatism” stop? Would CPAC welcome “Republicans for Abortion” as a co-sponsor? How about “Conservatives For Higher Taxes”? We doubt it. So let’s stop the double-standard on one issue — homosexuality — that happens to be politically incorrect in this decadent age.

Libertarians for a Big Gay Government?

And for you protesting libertarians who attend CPAC: please tell me what part of the statist Big Gay Government agenda you support: the part that expands newfangled federal “rights” based on aberrant-sex and -gender preferences — at the expense of Americans’ historic religious and First Amendment freedoms? The part that redefines criminal prosecution to factor in people’s thoughts (“hate crimes”)? The part that forces men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces to bunk and shower with people who define themselves by their sexual attractiom toward those of the same sex — thus sublimating straight soldiers’ and sailors’ privacy concerns to the demands of activist homosexuals? Or could it be the part that uses taxpayer-funded public schools to indoctrinate innocent, impressionable children in one side of the homosexuality debate?

We’re all ears.

_____________________

“A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.”
–Russell Kirk, historian, essayist, author, among many other books, The Conservative Mind: from Burke to Eliot

_____________________

The following item was posted on GOProud’s website Dec. 8:

GOProud to Cosponsor CPAC 2010

Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director – “GOProud is thrilled to be a cosponsor of the single most important conservative gathering in the country.”

(Washington, DC) Today, GOProud, the only national organization for gay conservatives and their allies, announced they are a cosponsor of CPAC 2010. Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud’s Executive Director, said, “GOProud is thrilled to be a cosponsor of the single most important conservative gathering in the country.”

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) will take place February 18-20 at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC. “GOProud’s participation at CPAC is one of the most important things we will do all year,” continued LaSalvia. “This gathering of the nation’s most influential conservatives gives us an incredible opportunity to deliver our message.”

“GOProud looks forward to continuing to work with the conservative movement to promote policies that will improve the lives of all Americans – including gays and lesbians,” concluded LaSalvia.

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.

Pastor Stephen Boissoin

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

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

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

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

Stephen Boissoin vindicated

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

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

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

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

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

Canada’s hard-left media not interested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Wilson slams the Alberta government

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

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

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

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

——-

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

- 30 -

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