“The risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities.” — CDC

"Where the boys are": homosexual bathhouses lure young men into anonymous sodomies. The CDC and Obama Administration should shut down these perversion centers or at least hit them with a large "sin tax." Above is taken from the Steamworks bathhouse chain's website.

Dear Readers, once again the reality that Nature itself discriminates against homosexuality breaks through the bureaucracy’s official political correctness on this issue. Note how the CDC admits that anal sex is  a much higher risk activity than other sexual practices. Yet to teach the special risks of sodomy in schools would be to invite a “discrimination” lawsuit by the ACLU! Homosexual oral sex also is mentioned as a risk factor for syphilis. So why don’t the nation’s “Best and Brightest” on this issue launch an educational, pro-health campaign against “gay” sex, especially sodomy?

A less bold option might be to levy a heavy “sin tax” on homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs where dangerous, anonymous, “queer” sex proliferates, or — God forbid — actually to shut down these perversion centers as public health hazards. (Instead, “gay” bathhouses like “Steamworks” (right) are flourishing and even offering “Spring Break discounts” to lure young men.)

We understand that such ideas are anathema to the “gay”-pandering fraternity of the enlightened who run the country’s incompetent “war on AIDS” — you know, the types who truly believe their own propaganda that “homophobia” helps spread HIV. But the folly of their failed approach is revealed by press releases like that below. Common sense dictates that our government get out of the “gay” advocacy business and start aggressively targeting homosexual practices linked directly to disease — rather than trying to make those inherently unsafe practices “safe.”

If you have any other ideas on how to target destructive homosexual behaviors rather than “homophobia,” write us at americansfortruth@comcast.net. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________

CDC – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

NCHHSTP – National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

Press Release [emphasis added]

All Findings Embargoed Until: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 4:30pm EST
Contact: NCHHSTPMediaTeam@cdc.gov [the NCHHSTP is the National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention within the CDC]; (404) 639-8895

CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men

A data analysis released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscores the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men in the United States.

The data, presented at CDC’s 2010 National STD Prevention Conference, finds that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.

While CDC data have shown for several years that gay and bisexual men make up the majority of new HIV and new syphilis infections, CDC has estimated the rates of these diseases for the first time based on new estimates of the size of the U.S. population of MSM. Because disease rates account for differences in the size of populations being compared, rates provide a reliable method for assessing health disparities between populations.

“While the heavy toll of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men has been long recognized, this analysis shows just how stark the health disparities are between this and other populations,” said Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC’s National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention. “It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts.”

For the purposes of determining rates of disease for MSM, CDC researchers first estimated the size of the gay and bisexual male population in the United States – defined as the proportion of men who reported engaging in same-sex behavior within the past five years. Based on an analysis of nationally representative surveys, CDC estimated that MSM comprise 2.0 percent (range: 1.4-2.7 percent) of the overall U.S. population aged 13 and older, or 4 percent of the U.S. male population (range: 2.8-5.3 percent). Disease rates per 100,000 population were then calculated using 2007 surveillance data on HIV and primary/secondary syphilis diagnoses and U.S. Census data for the total U.S. population.

The new analysis is the first step in more fully assessing the impact of HIV among MSM and other populations significantly affected by the disease. CDC is developing more detailed estimates of infection rates among MSM by race and age, as well as among injection drug users. CDC is also in the early stages of planning for estimates among heterosexuals. Ultimately, these data can be used to better inform national and local approaches to HIV and STD prevention to ensure that efforts are reaching the populations in greatest need.

Research shows that a range of complex factors contribute to the high rates of HIV and syphilis among gay and bisexual men. These factors include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services.

Also, the risk of HIV transmission through receptive anal sex is much greater than the risk of transmission via other sexual activities, and some gay and bisexual men are relying on prevention strategies that may be less effective than consistent condom use.

“There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men,” said Fenton. “We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men.”

Preventing HIV and STDs among gay and bisexual men is a top CDC priority. CDC provides funding to health departments and community-based organizations throughout the nation to implement proven behavior-change programs for MSM and will soon expand a successful HIV testing initiative to reach more gay and bisexual men. Additionally, CDC is implementing an updated National Syphilis Elimination Plan in cities where MSM have been hardest hit by the disease, and will release an updated HIV prevention strategic plan within the next year to support the President’s upcoming National HIV/AIDS Strategy. CDC officials note that the new analysis released today underscores the importance of the HIV and STD prevention efforts targeting gay and bisexual men recently announced as part of the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal.

For more information on HIV or syphilis, please visit www.cdc.gov/hiv or www.cdc.gov/std.

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.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

One need not rely on this disturbing item from NRO to conclude that American jurisprudence is in big trouble given the expanding number of judges who are, to use modern parlance, “openly gay” (which is to say: proudly practicing or inclined to practice perversion). If they regard their homosexuality as (part of) “who they are” and, by extension, view foes of homosexuality as akin to racists, it is difficult to imagine them being truly impartial on “gay”-related cases.

Having said that, given the ferocity with which many straight liberals promote homosexualist ideology today, there surely is plenty of left-wing judicial bias to go around without laying all or even most of the blame at the feet of America’s homosexual judges. A straight liberal who regards homosexuality as a pure “civil rights” issue is just as capable of being a reactionary, anti-religious bigot in his approach toward moral opponents of homosexuality as an openly homosexual judge.  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH story: “Gary Glenn Assails Focus on the Family’s ‘Moral Retreat’ on Openly Homosexual Judges”

____________________________________

By Ed Whelan, National Review Online’s “Bench Memos”

Reprinted from NRO Online, February 07, 2010

Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment

According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay.  It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially.  I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.  Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions:

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.  Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees.

Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause.

And so on.

Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation:  that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.  Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________

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

Tax Court Allows Deduction for Woman’s Sex Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge declined to comment on the ruling.

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

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

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

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

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

The tax court agreed.

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

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

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

“Gay rights groups were already mobilizing Thursday to make the subject [of homosexuals in the military/ending "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"] a campaign issue before congressional elections in November. The Human Rights Campaign announced plans to start a more than $2 million national grass-roots and lobbying campaign targeting lawmakers whose votes would be needed to pass a repeal.” – Washington Post, “On Issue of Gays in Military, Pentagon Will Make Recommendations to Congress”, Jan. 29, 2010

"Gay" military porn ad. Homosexual military pornography is a huge business. Many "gay" men are attracted to "macho" (masculine) guys in uniform. The last thing our Armed Forces need is to welcome in more men and women with disordered sexuality.

BACKGROUND NOTE: Here’s the truth on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and the law from Center for Military Readiness.

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION:  Dedicate yourself to actively oppose President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing and politicizing our American Armed Forces (pro-”gay” “diversity” is political). As the Washington Post above reveals, homosexual activists will be going all out to pressure Congress to impose their radical agenda on our Servicemembers. Contact your Congressman and Senators by phone (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) AND in writing (preferably in a regularly mailed letter or a fax as opposed to e-mail) and urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283 — which we’re calling “Homosexualize Our Military Act” — which is mischievously named by liberals as the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act.” This act would impose a pro-homosexuality “non-discrimination” policy on our Armed Forces. In other words, it would radically force a change in ethos in the military to one of approving of homosexuality — including through one-sided “diversity” programs that would undermine servicemembers’ faith and morals (as happens today to people of faith in major corporations implementing pro-homosexual ”sexual orientation” agendas).

Also oppose all efforts by the President to advance his misguided agenda of homosexualizing our military non-legislatively (i.e., by various executive actions). Already, military leaders are laying the groundwork for a plan to gradually open up the military to homosexuality — the Washington Post reports. Obama must NOT autocratically launch this revolutionary change to our Armed Forces without legislative action and oversight.

__________________________________________

Two points about the 2006 FOX story below on a homosexual porn bust at Ft. Bragg:

1) There is a huge market for “gay” military porn because lots of homosexual men are turned on by “straight-acting,” “macho” (masculine) men. I realize it’s a sick comparison, but just as many women like a “man in uniform,” so do homosexual men. On Jan. 29, 2010, a Google search on the three words “gay military porn” (no quote marks) yielded “about 1,300,000″ entries. “Gay Military Porn” (in quote marks) yielded 34,300 entries. This is a huge (and very twisted) business, and obviously the demand is high among men with a homosexual problem.

The last thing our fighting men and women need is to have the military floodgates opened up for homosexual men and lesbians to join as open practitioners of homosexuality. That would put men who are sexually attracted to men, and women to women, in tight bunking situations, showers, etc., with servicemembers of the same sex. Remember: homosexuality is not an “identity” issue (sorry, Warren Throckmorton) or a “civil rights” issue; it’s a BEHAVIORIAL issue, and welcoming in men and women who are tempted to practice – or inclined to practice — disordered same-sex behavior is wrong and detrimental to the morale, effectiveness and readiness of our Armed Forces. 

Of course, there is a huge straight pornography problem, too, of course. But men do not bunk and shower with women in the Armed Forces (except married couples). The sexes are segregated. [And then there is this peculiar logic by a homosexual activist, Dale Carpenter, who argues that allowing open homosexuality in the military would help identify the “gay” soldiers — making it harder for them to leer at naked straight soldiers!  “Under present policy, the straight soldier doesn’t know who might be leering at him in the shower. So he has to wonder about everybody — hardly a reassuring prospect,” Carpenter writes. “Under a policy of openness, he’ll have a better idea who might find some of his 2,000 body parts especially appealing. Thus, he can take whatever modest precautions are available to minimize his exposure.”  How absurd. To even discuss such folly in a time of war is a needless distraction — and showering/privacy issues are just one of the many problems caused by homosexualizing the military.

2) Read the second to last sentence of the Fox story below: “The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” What kind of a nonsensical policy encourages “homosexuals” to join the armed forces but then bars homosexual conduct? This is a triumph of “gay” activists’ “sexual orientation” ideology — skewing the debate toward “civil rights” and away from aberrant behavior. And it is very bad public policy. As Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness constantly reminds anyone who will listen, “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land, but rather a political compromise driven by a previous president”s (Bill Clinton’s) desire to pander to homosexual activists. We must go back to following the actual law passed by Congress, which bars homosexuals from serving. But that can only happen after the Obama presidency is over. Meanwhile, we must resist Obama’s plan to homosexualize and politicize our Armed Services.

__________________________________________________ 

Army Paratrooper Pleads Guilty in Gay Porn Case
April 27, 2006, FoxNews.com

FORT BRAGG, N.C. —  An Army paratrooper pleaded guilty Thursday to engaging in sex acts on a military-themed gay pornographic Web site and was sentenced to prison.

Pfc. Richard T. Ashley, one of seven members of the 82nd Airborne Division charged with appearing on the site, pleaded guilty to sodomy, conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit, and drug use.

He was sentenced to 90 days in prison, but was given 15 days credit. Ashley also was demoted to private, will receive a bad conduct discharge and will lose two-thirds of his pay.

“I’ve embarrassed the entire Army, my country and most of all, dishonored God,” Ashley said during the hearing.

Pfc. Wesley K. Mitten and Pvt. Kagen B. Mullen were charged with pandering, sodomy and conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit. Mitten and Mullen, who also faces adultery charges, have pleaded not guilty.

Military Investigating 82nd Airborne Over Gay Porn Allegations

The 82nd Airborne says that four other soldiers, whose names were not released, received nonjudicial punishment for appearing on the Web site. They were reduced in rank to private, forfeited half a month’s pay for two months, performed extra work and were restricted to Fort Bragg for 45 days.

The Army has recommended that all seven be discharged.

The 15,000 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne are among the Army’s most elite soldiers, having volunteered to serve in a unit that trains to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” Service members who violate the policy are removed from the military.

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.”

Bruce LaVallee-Davidson

Once again we are confronted with the unparalleled deviance of a Sexual Perversion Movement that masquerades as a “civil rights” cause. As we’ve said many times, truth really is stranger than fiction when it comes to the “gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/sadomasochist” (GLBTS?) lobby.

Just four days after attending a sadomasochistic party where he shot a fellow homosexual, Fred Homer Wilson, who “got a thrill out of using a loaded gun as a sex toy,” Bruce LaVallee-Davidson testified for “gay marriage” with his homosexual lover Buck at a public hearing.

Had such a bizarre situation emanated from the “religious right,” Maine’s liberal media would have had a field day with it and used it to discredit pro-family ideas. Here’s a description of the sex-party shooting from WorldNetDaily:

The defense in the case said there were three men participating in the sex party, and they were consenting adults and were aware of the risks. The defense also said no one was at fault, because Wilson was an ultimate thrill seeker and wanted the gun to be loaded to maximize the sexual experience.

We aren’t surprised that homosexual activist groups are silent about the LaVallee-Davidson scandal. After all, powerful “gay” groups like the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — which was heavily involved in Maine’s recent plebiscite on same-sex “marriage” — promote sadomasochism as part of their overarching “sexual freedom” agenda.  Kudos to the Maine Christian Civic League for their good work in bringing this to the public. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org [Christian Civic League press release follows jump]
__________________________

The Christian Civic League of Maine has issued the following press release in response to the manslaughter conviction of (Malcolm) Bruce LaVallee-Davidson for the killing of South Portland resident Fred Homer Wilson (emphasis added):

In January last year, the homosexual rights lobby used State Senator Dennis Damon (Democrat – Hancock County) to introduce a bill to legalize same-sex “marriage.”  Not only did the bill legalize same-sex “marriage,” it made all terms pertaining to the family, words such as ‘husband and wife’, ‘father and mother,’ gender neutral.  It was a travesty to introduce such a bill at a time of deep economic crisis, a fact acknowledged by Democrat Governor John Baldacci, the most liberal governor in Maine history.

The bill was shepherded through the Maine Legislature by State Senator Larry Bliss (Democrat – Cumberland County), a homosexual activist from California, now head of the Judiciary Committee.  During the campaign to repeal the law, the ‘No on 1′ side offered a sanitized view of same-sex “marriage,” marketing their product with commercials which showed “married” homosexual couples and their children, all smiling, healthy, and content in a typical Maine setting.

It took an act of brazen hypocrisy for the truth to be revealed.  The public discovered that one of the proponents of same-sex “marriage” testified in person in favor of gay “marriage” shortly after killing a man during a night of drug and alcohol-fueled debauchery. During the public hearing on same-sex “marriage” at the Augusta Civic Center, Bruce LaVallee-Davidson stood alongside his homosexual partner ‘Buck’ and claimed he was “already married in the eyes of God.”

Some independent observers, including those who support same-sex” marriage,” have claimed LaVallee-Davidson’s remarks taint the entire same-sex “marriage” movement, and that the leadership of that movement must move quickly to disown his call for gay “marriage.”  We at the Christian Civic League of Maine agree.

We wish to give the leaders of the same-sex “marriage” movement a fair chance to explain why they have not already publicly repudiated the remarks of Bruce LaVallee-Davidson.  Let them step forward and state forthrightly why they have been reluctant to call LaVallee-Davidson’s  actions by their right name — perversion.

The Christian Civic League of Maine calls on EqualityMaine, Senator Larry Bliss, Senator Dennis Damon, Senate President Libby Mitchell, the Maine Civil Liberties Union, and Jesse Connolly, to take this opportunity of the news of the manslaughter conviction of LaVallee-Davidson to clear the air.  Let them explain how LaVallee-Davidson could state he was “married in the eyes of God” after a night of  tenfold depravity — tenfold because his actions that night involved two guns, five drugs, and three men — one of whom is dead.

Let the leaders of the same-sex “marriage” movement in Maine use the opportunity of the news of the manslaughter conviction of LaVallee-Davidson to explain why sadomasochistic bondage-and-discipline homosexual organizations march in their parades, namely the Harbor Masters of Maine and Blackstones bar, under the name of Pride.  Let them also explain the extent and prevalence of illegal drugs and AIDS infection in their homosexual community, as all three men involved used illegal drugs and were AIDS-infected at the time of the killing.

Absent such explanations, the public will be left with the impression that the call for ‘gay marriage’ by these groups and individuals is nothing more than a sinister ruse.  Convicted violent felon LaVallee-Davidson’s own claim to marriage, like the claim to marriage made by many other homosexuals, is built on a foundation of appalling homosexual perversion and sodomistic deviancy.

Worse, the failure to speak out publicly against such perversion by these groups and individuals will be seen as a tacit admission that such behavior and practices are not an aberration in their community, but rather, a normal and accepted part of everyday homosexual life.

______________________________

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!

WARNING: Offensive Descriptions, Web Links

Dan Savage, anti-Christian activist, deviant sex advice columnist, prolific hatemonger -- and 'Gay Grinch 2009' candidate. See his "gay marriage" YouTube video below.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, we have heard from a few readers who suggested that prolific homosexual writer and sex advice columnist Dan Savage be added to our “Gay Grinch of the Year” 2009 contest, and so he is. Only a perversion activist as twisted as Savage could stage a contest with his readers to come up with a sickening definition to associate with “santorum” — because he was upset that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) made comments critical of homosexuality (in 2003). (And how appropriate that the winner of Savage’s little nastiness competition was a disgusting by-product of the crime against nature itself, anal sodomy; see his “santorum” definition HERE in the Urban Dictionary.)

Savage is also the lovely fellow who engaged in “Germ Terrorism” against GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer in 2000, by, as Wikipedia reports, “volunteer[ing] for the Bauer campaign with the intent to infect the candidate with his flu.” Picture the pathetic and sniffling Savage  walking around Bauer’s empty Iowa campaign office licking doorknobs; later he presented Bauer with a saliva-soaked pen to autograph a picture of his adopted son, posing as a pro-life fan of Bauer. (Don’t you just love modern liberalism?)

Who would have thunk that our “Gay Grinch” award would end up sullying the reputation of the “real” TV Grinch by comparison to such Major League deviants and hatemongers as Savage?

But enough about Savage’s past extremism. Recently the Seattle-based sex columnist made a very “queer” plea for homosexual “marriage” (watch YouTube below) — not seeming to comprehend the radical difference between evolving reforms within marriage and the revolutionary homosexualization of “marriage” that essentially redefines the institution to mean anything. (If two men can get “married” on the basis of “love,” how are we going to stop a man and two women from doing so on the same basis? In fact, polygamists feel they have a greater claim to legal marriage than homosexuals because at least they have opposite genders and can produce children on their own.)

You will note that toward the end of the video Savage shamelessly appeals to the fact that he has a child (which he adopted with homosexual partner Terry), thus seemingly satisfying one his critics’ criteria for real marriage. But here Savage has the chutzpah of ten Gay Grinches — plus two: as we reported, he thinks “monogamy is optional” for marriage and admits to having sexual three-ways with Terry and another man — one with an ex-boyfriend of Savage, “a Microsoft millionaire who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building a ‘playroom’ in his basement — a kind of sex toy wonderland.” Yuck. (Keep in mind these are “gay parents” of a young boy.) Savage claims that allowing heterosexual spouses a “few tightly controlled” affairs would help lower the divorce rate.

To protect his overactive behind, Savage then oddly asserts in his column recommending non-monogamous “marriages”: “”We’ve never done anything, nor would we ever do anything, that would put our child at risk.” Earth to Savage: it’s way too late for that! But I suppose that from the poor boy’s perspective, if you’re being raised by two homosexual men — one of whom writes a perverted, weekly sex column and shills for “nonmonogamous marriage”– finding out one day that they engaged in a sadomasochistic threesome with another guy could hardly be construed as shocking news.

Nevertheless, I have a question for Dan and his domestic homosexual lover Terry: who watches the kid when you guys are having one of your “tightly controlled” three-way sex romps? — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________

Nominees Sought for ‘Gay Grinch of the Year 2009′

By Peter LaBarbera

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

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

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

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

  Perez Hilton

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

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

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

  Tim Kincaid

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

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

  George Fornero: bad role model for students.

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

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

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

Matt Barber's brutally honest description of homosexual sodomy was too much for Exodus International.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, a few days ago we ran a story about CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) allowing a homosexual activist group to be a co-sponsor, in which I quoted my friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber offered a colorful description of homosexual sodomy and same-sex “love.” It was appropriately dismissive toward this “detestable” act (Leviticus 18:22) once known as a “crime against nature,” and you can read it HERE.  The point was: no true “conservative” can support or celebrate homosexual perversion.

Well, thanks to the politically correct overreaction of Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers of Exodus International (an ex-”gay” umbrella group), Liberty Counsel (Barber’s current employer) issued an apologetic statement that was not fully accurate in that it left out a key fact: Matt’s ownership of the bold sodomy description. This could create the  impression that Barber might not have made the comment, which he did.

Today Matt issued his own clarification (emphasis added):

“This is for clarification only. As affirmed in Liberty Counsel’s statement, neither I nor anyone with Liberty Counsel ever publicly ‘wrote or made’ the comment in question – an unapologetically direct and accurate depiction of the sin of sodomy (a sin that God directly and accurately calls both an ‘abomination’ and ‘detestable’). Some years before I began working with Liberty Counsel, I made the comment in private conversation with Peter LaBarbera. At the time, Peter asked if he could ‘quote me on it’ and I said yes.

“On a personal note, let me take this opportunity to share with those caught-up in this particular sin lifestyle that I am no less a sinner and no better a person than they. None of us are. The good news is that, through Christ’s earth shattering sacrifice on the cross, we are redeemed. We need merely believe, call upon His name, repent and make every effort to ‘go and sin no more.’

“Unfortunately, however, we live in a society where this particular sin is embraced, promoted  and even celebrated. People erroneously equate this unnatural and sinful behavior with ‘identity’ and ‘orientation’ even taking ‘pride’ in an objectively deviant lifestyle. My hope and prayer is that this silly faux ‘controversy’ might actually make people reflect –– if only for a moment –– upon the emotionally, spiritually and physically destructive nature of homosexual conduct. ‘Gayness’ is about what people do, not who people are. It’s about feelings and behaviors alone. But those feelings and behaviors don’t make those caught-up in them any less precious to God, to me or to anyone I know.

“Scripture tells us that the ‘wages of sin is death.’ It breaks my heart that so many ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ continue in a lifestyle that ultimately results in spiritual and, yes, even physical death. I’m very grateful for ministries such as PFOX, Exodus and others that reach out to those who seek to escape the homosexuality snare. In the meantime, I will push forward, undeterred, on the front lines of the ongoing culture war, fighting the militant homosexual activist organizations that enable and encourage those trapped in homosexuality to continue down that changeable path of destruction. Shame on them and shame on those who support them.” – Matt Barber

Exodus published two blog posts by Randy Thomas (first THIS ARTICLE and then THIS FOLLOW-UP pegging off the LC statement) highly critical of Barber’s remark and this writer for using it. Predictably, these Exodus articles have been exploited by homosexual activists such as Wayne Besen — who typically exaggerate the story in their zeal to embarrass Americans For Truth and by extension the pro-family movement. (Besen is also a malicious liar whose life ambition is to discredit ex-”gays”; he revels in ad hominem attacks on Barber, me (he came up with and continues to use the nasty smear “Porno Pete”) and others in the pro-family movement. Needless to say, he despises and maligns Exodus on a regular basis. By the way, the hateful Besen is also a strong contender for AFTAH’s “Gay Grinch of the Year” 2009 award due to — among other mean-spirited acts — his bullhorn harassment of Boston’s Park Street Church, which was holding an ex-”gay” conference.)

Below is a reprint of my original response to Liberty Counsel’’s statement — which I published as a comment on Randy Thomas’ Exodus blog.  AFTAH will continue to work with Exodus even though occasionally we have philosophical and semantic disagreements with them about the proper approach toward homosexuality and the “Gay” Activist Lobby. The reality of our movement — like all coalitions — is that different groups take different approaches, hopefully all with the same end goal in mind. Exodus has a problem with re-stigmatizing homosexual behavior; we believe doing is essential to turning back the GLBT Lobby’s gains.

We also appreciate the work of Liberty Counsel and look forward to partnering with them as always in the fight against the aggressive and anti-Christian homosexualist movement.

This episode made a mountain out of a molehill and we regret that Exodus chose to draw more attention to it and to condemn us in such a self-righteous manner. If you would like to read my four responses to Randy’s posts (and to a comment by another writer critical of AFTAH) on the Exodus blog, go HERE to see all four posts. I look forward to reading Randy’s responses to my questions if he can find the time to answer. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera’s first comment on Randy Thomas’ Exodus blog post, “Liberty Counsel Responds to Crass Quote Attributed to Matt Barber”:

December 18, 2009 at 2:00 pm

This is Peter LaBarbera. The quotation in question by Matt Barber — a brutally honest and necessarily accurate description of homosexual sodomy — is printed verbatim and was made in conversation between the two of us years ago — long before he went to work for Liberty Counsel. I asked Matt at the time if I could quote him on it and he gave me permission to use it, and ultimately I did — in the context of showing how CPAC or any organization that defends sodomy (as GOProud and countless other GLBT organizations implicitly and explicitly do) cannot call itself “conservative.”

I presume and hope that what Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel meant to say was that Matt Barber’s quoted words were not uttered or published under the auspices of Liberty Counsel — as they were made several years ago in private conversation long before Matt came to work there.

Frankly, I am appalled at Randy’s “spiritualized” condemnation of Matt Barber’s phrase. Sorry, Randy, I disagree with your self-righteous take on Christ-like compassion. Philosophically, I believe that you are conflating behavior with a supposed “identity” — “sexual orientation”/”gayness” — found nowhere in the Bible. Sin is what we do in our fallen nature, not who we are. Is Tiger Woods’ serial infidelity part of his “core” identity? I think not.

Would Randy be upset at a similar, direct condemnation/description of other sinful sexual behaviors condemned in the Bible, like pornography, adultery or incest? We’re talking about behavior here (sodomy) that God calls an “abomination.” Using the same logic, is Randy going to get on God’s case next for His very unambiguous (you might say harsh) classification of homosexual sodomy as detestable? Is Almighty God demonstrating “insensitivity” toward “gay” men with such language?

Let me ask you, Randy: how would you accurately and honestly describe the act of sodomy, and are you opposed to forcefully condemning it?

There is so much to disagree with regarding Randy’s posts that I will leave that for a formal reply on my site (Americans For Truth: http://www.americansfortruth.org). But I do want to clarify that Matt Barber’s candid description of homosexual sodomy — typical of his bold, entertaining and decidedly non-PC style –  is completely accurate; that he stands by it; and that he did indeed give me permission to use it years ago — which has nothing whatsoever to do with Liberty Counsel today.

Next time please shoot me an e-mail and we’ll clear this up easier.

_____________________________________

Randy Thomas responds to Peter LaBarbera’s comment:
December 18, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Peter, I have tried to dialog with you in person and via email in the past and it hasn’t cleared up anything before. You nod, say nice things and then go do something else that stigmatizes people who struggle with or embrace homosexuality. This time you wrote a hateful public quote attributed to someone else and contextualized it as a current reaction to the GOProud situation. We went through the direct and appropriate avenue to follow up with the person you alleged made this quote and got the above response.

Do what you got to do Peter.

____________________________

Peter LaBarbera responds to Randy Thomas’ “snippy” answer:
December 18, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Nice snippy non-response, Randy.  Talk about presumption. Perhaps you are correct: dialogue between us is not very productive as you seem to have one foot still in the “gay” camp (at least sympathy-wise) and another in the Christian pro-family camp. I sometimes wonder if you are more troubled by conservative pro-family groups like AFTAH than you are by homosexual activists. According to your loaded and misguided definition of “hate,”  I suppose you could make the case that the God of the Bible is a “hater” because He calls sodomy “detestable.” Matt and I and others are re-stigmatizing homosexual behavior, Randy — not people. Please, I beg you, show me anything close to “sexual orientation” in the Bible!  If you cannot, then stop defining people by destructive behaviors and treating homosexuality like some sort of special sin that deserves more deference than all the others. In fact, if criticizing bad sexual behavior is truly “hating” people, then much of the country is hating Tiger Woods right about now. (Do you “hate” Tiger? I don’t, and yet it makes me sick what he has done.) The practice of anal sodomy — or the infamous “crime against nature,” as that “hater” Noah Webster defined it — has caused untold physical destruction in this country, and across the world: I make no apology for agreeing with Matt’s dismissive and bold condemnatory description of it.

Damian Geminder’s letter to AFTAH:

From: Damian G. [-------]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:53 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site] RE: GOProud article

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:
——————————————————————————–
In your article about CPAC’s sponsor GOProud, you questioned libertarians for supporting “redefin[ing] criminal prosecution to factor in people/s thoughts (hate crimes).” Actually, GOProud was largely formed as a result of homosexual conservatives who opposed the Log Cabin Republicans’ pro-hate crimes stance. GOProud is for many pro-gay causes, but hate crimes is not one of them.

WARNING: OFFENSIVE DESCRIPTIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See Wikipedia entry on "buggery" HERE.]

____________________________

Links were added to the following Washington Times editorial:

EDITORIAL: Obama’s Buggery Czar

Jennings’ group made sex between children and adults look normal

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES, Dec. 8, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Stephen Boissoin

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

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

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

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

Stephen Boissoin vindicated

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

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

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

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

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

Canada’s hard-left media not interested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Wilson slams the Alberta government

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

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

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

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

——-

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

- 30 -

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

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

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

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

November 24, 2009
From the Liberty Counsel website:

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

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

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

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

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

New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."

By Peter LaBarbera

New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.

Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:

“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”

I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).

But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.

I don’t know who I will support for the GOP nomination in 2012, or even if Sarah Palin is running.  I hope she does. Palin has earned respect for her accomplishments and her generally principled, conservative positions and she should not be written off as some Republicans like Brooks are doing. Besides, anyone who has taken the hits that she has from the Left deserves a certain degree of appreciation — something the tone-deaf Brooks might have considered if only to keep from losing his truly conservative readers.

Yes, Palin certainly has all the right enemies — including snotty New York Times opinion writers who cheerlead for homosexual “marriage” as a moral — even a “sacred” — cause.

Brooks Backs Buggery

It’s funny. Just before I learned of Brooks’ rash and gratuitous slam on Palin, I stumbled upon a quotation of his that appeared in a booklet put out by the Human Rights Campaign — a powerful homosexual lobby organization — titled, “Answers to Questions about Marriage Equality.” HRC identifies Brooks as a “conservative columnist,” but no true “conservative” worth his salt gets cited favorably by a “gay” activist group that traffics in the worst kind of hateful, anti-Christian bigotry — and that spends millions of dollars every year electing mostly pro-homosexual-agenda and pro-abortion-on-demand Democrats. (HRC also backs a few socially left Republicans like Illinois’ Congresswoman Judy Biggert to create the appearance of bipartisanship.)

Here’s the Brooks’ quote cited by HRC (on page 13) from his November 22, 2003 column in the New York Times, “The Power of Marriage”:

We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

Below is the full context of that quotation from Brooks’ 2003 column; this excerpt follows the contrast that he commendably draws between the noble “culture of fidelity” and the selfish “culture of contingency,” in which men flake out of their marital pledge like some “easily canceled contract.” He writes (emphasis added):

Still, even in this time of crisis, every human being in the United States has the chance to move from the path of contingency to the path of marital fidelity — except homosexuals. Gays and lesbians are banned from marriage and forbidden to enter into this powerful and ennobling institution. A gay or lesbian couple may love each other as deeply as any two people, but when you meet a member of such a couple at a party, he or she then introduces you to a ”partner,” a word that reeks of contingency.

You would think that faced with this marriage crisis, we conservatives would do everything in our power to move as many people as possible from the path of contingency to the path of fidelity. But instead, many argue that gays must be banished from matrimony because gay marriage would weaken all marriage. A marriage is between a man and a woman, they say. It is women who domesticate men and make marriage work.

Well, if women really domesticated men, heterosexual marriage wouldn’t be in crisis. In truth, it’s moral commitment, renewed every day through faithfulness, that ”domesticates” all people.

Some conservatives may have latched onto biological determinism (men are savages who need women to tame them) as a convenient way to oppose gay marriage. But in fact we are not animals whose lives are bounded by our flesh and by our gender. We’re moral creatures with souls, endowed with the ability to make covenants, such as the one Ruth made with Naomi: ‘‘Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried.”

The conservative course is not to banish gay people from making such commitments. It is to expect that they make such commitments. We shouldn’t just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity.

When liberals argue for gay marriage, they make it sound like a really good employee benefits plan. Or they frame it as a civil rights issue, like extending the right to vote.

Marriage is not voting. It’s going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage. Not making it means drifting further into the culture of contingency, which, when it comes to intimate and sacred relations, is an abomination.

Here Brooks, though ostensibly on the right, evinces the Social Lefts’ disdain for biblically-based morality — and its penchant for stealing religious terminology and using sloppy, politically driven exegesis to advance a man- (not God-) centered agenda in the name of piety.

Not bound by our gender? Is Brooks a guest-lecturer in the Women’s Studies Department at Smith College? Whatever  happened to the truth of Genesis — of man and woman as God’s distinctive and complementary creations — as echoed by Jesus Christ:

“And He answered and said to [the Pharisees], ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said,  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and  the two shall become one flesh’? — Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

Yes, God created two “genders” (sexes) — not five or seven or whatever the number claimed by radicals is these days.

Homosexualizing Holy Scripture?

And why did Brooks’ choose the biblical example of Ruth and Naomi for his dubious proposition, anyway?  In the biblical account, Naomi was Ruth’s mother-in-law, and the devoted Ruth (a “woman of excellence”) went on to marry Boaz — so what does this noble relationship between two women have to do with homosexual “marriage”? In fact, although Brooks lacked the guts to come right out and say so, his allusion to the Book of Ruth is a mischievous sop to activist, homosexuality-affirming theologians who twist the Bible to claim that Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers [see the Human Rights Campaign's self-serving "Out in Scripture" interpretation of Ruth and Naomi's relationship HERE].

Thus Brooks joins the homosexualists in sexualizing and perverting a wonderful story about selfless love and faithfulness in a desperate attempt to legitimize sinful behavior. By including this nonsensical, “queer” theological misinterpretation of Scripture — which is rejected by the vast majority of serious Bible scholars — Brooks demonstrates his profound ignorance of theology and insensitivity toward pious Jews and Christians. He owes all Bible believers an apology, but as a mere Christian in flyover country (who doesn’t hate Sarah Palin) I’m not holding my breath.

Sacred Sodomy?

Brooks continues in his sophistic folly. He views the prohibition of homosexual “marriage” as scandalous when an intellectually honest reading of Scripture would lead us to declare it “scandalous” to attach marriage — the model of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his Church — to deviant relationships whose “love” is expressed by acts of homosexual sodomy clearly condemned as “detestable” by our loving Creator.

God created sex as the sublime expression of love, unity and commitment between husband and wife, for the purpose of procreation — that is, filling the earth with humankind. In contrast, two men attempting a sexual union produces … disease. The plain truth of the Bible is that secular liberals hate is that homosexual (erotic) love is always illegitimate — the outworking not of “sexual orientation” but the sinful orientation with which each human being struggles. The Old Testament prophet Jeremiah’s words about our deceitful hearts are relevant here. Tough love dictates that we uphold God’s truth about homosexual sin while reaching out with the love of Christ to those who struggle with this sin.

Nature clearly discriminates against homosexuality and, by extension, the oxymoronic notion of “gay marriage.” What larger purpose does anal sodomy serve — with its many health hazards? Can two women produce children without borrowing from heterosexuality? (So much for “equality” — and please, don’t even go there with the silly analogy between homosexual and normal, albeit infertile, couples: the latter do not model aberrant, immoral conduct. Rather, they only seek the blessing of children that their opposite-sex union would normally provide.)

Moving toward his dramatic conclusion, Brooks cavalierly implies that homosexual “intimacy” can be “sacred.” But such a claim begs the question: who defines sacred and what is sacredness? Who determines moral right from wrong?  Christians believe that a holy God defines moral truth and reveals it to man through his divinely inspired Word, the Bible. The Bible is the gold standard of moral authority and Truth — which is why the Homosexual Lobby, as the latest in a long line of rebels, is working so hard to undermine it and distort its teachings. (One HRC staffer, Harry Knox — who also sits on President Obama’s  “Faith Advisory Council” — defiantly declares that “being gay or lesbian is an immutable, unchangeable gift from God, one for which I am very grateful. And it would fly in the face of my respect for God to give that gift back.”)

Harry is playing with fire and needs to repent: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20).

Here we must go to Noah Webster’s original 1828 “American Dictionary of the English Language” definition of “sacred,” which avoids the liberal corruption that associates the word with anything “spiritual” (including homosexualized religion):

SACRED, a …from L. sacer, sacred, holy …The sense is removed or separated from that which is common, vulgar, polluted …

1. Holy; pertaining to God or to his worship; separated from common secular uses and consecrated to God and his service.
2. Proceeding from God and containing religious precepts …;
3. Narrating or writing facts respecting God and holy things ….

Note that far from keeping the truly sacred things separate from the corruption of the world, Brooks and other fellow travelers with the “Gay” Lobby are intentionally corrupting the sacred by attempting to fuse it with sin. In their pride, they seek to create a New Morality based upon their own foolish ideas (of which “gay pride” is one). Insidiously, the most radical manifestation of “queer” activism is not the high-heeled drag queens marching down city streets every June — but the “conservative,” domesticated version of homosexual activism that redefines and dumbs down noble institutions like marriage and family — and Truth itself — to the point where words have no meaning.

Besides, even in their gut most people recognize that there’s something deeply wrong with homosexual acts: why else would we cringe at the thought inspired by this question: How do two men consummate their “same-sex marriage”?

Yuck. Behavior — not politically charged abstractions like “gay identity,” is the issue.

Sodomy is not sacred. Sodomy is sin. Homosexual behavior cannot be “sanctified” because it is directly opposed to God’s revealed will and His moral law, as confirmed by thousands of years of Judeo-Christian tradition. Thankfully, many men and women have found freedom from this destructive lifestyle through the healing power of Jesus Christ — but something tells me that David Brooks will not be writing a sympathetic column about happy and successful former homosexuals anytime soon. (If he did, would the Times run it?)

One last turn of the knife

But wait. It’s not over: Brooks saves his most obnoxious “gotcha” assault on biblical morality for his final sentence — proclaiming it an “abomination” for conservatives NOT to make the “moral” case for “gay marriage.”

What is it about secular, big-city elitists like Brooks that they are driven not only to redefine historic morality, but in so doing they appropriate the language of the divine to define deviancy up (to quote Charles Krauthammer)? Is it because — even though they regard ancient moral norms like keeping sex limited to marriage as quaint anachronisms –  they understand the power of traditional religion to define right and wrong authoritatively, even in this jaded modern era?

My Open Bible (Nelson: 1985; NASB) lists passages about “abominations” as “things utterly repulsive.” Is David Brooks really suggesting that it is “repulsive” to God for his followers to resist cloaking detestable behaviors like homosexual sodomy — which God condemns — in the beautiful robe He created called “marriage”?

Indeed, he is, but cheap rhetorical gimmicks make bad theology. The New Liberal “Morality” is bankrupt and has no compelling, divine authority — I’d use an Emperor-Has-No-Clothes reference but it hits too close to home. Therefore it must steal the words of holy revelation to feign legitimacy. Just as two domesticated homosexual lovers with their adopted child are playing house (to quote my ex-”gay” friend Steve Bennett), social liberals like Brooks who exploit holy words of old to promote trendy sins are playing church.

And boy do they love to “preach” their hollow, false “gospel” without boundaries to Americans, even as they ridicule our appeals to a Higher Authority for moral guidance.

So my message to Sarah Palin and all victims of Christian-bashing is this: don’t let social leftists — even those on the “Right” — get you down. Wear their derision as a badge of honor. In fact, take the fight to them and aggressively defend the old truths while tearing down their rootless, fake “morality” that preposterously elevates sin as “sacred.” You can even quote your Bible if you really want to drive the elitists nuts! Because, to paraphrase Brooks, when secularized liberals, libertarians and media pundits attempt to redefine moral Truth by manipulating and distorting the language of faith, it’s really hard to take them seriously.

Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
Let all that you do be done in love. (1 Corinthians 16:13-14; NASB)

__________________________________

Peter LaBarbera is president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and an evangelical Christian.

Here’s the YouTube of the ABC “This Week” episode in which David Brooks attacks Sarah Palin:

P.S.  Why would parents entrust their children to adults who proudly call themselves and their sexual agenda “queer”?  And are we surprised that such a movement actually has spawned groups built around such vile perversions as “fisting”?

[WARNING: Very Graphic Sexual Language; sex acts and perversions described just as they were in group conversations between adults and underage youth at the GLSEN-sponsored conference in Boston in 2000]

“What’s Fisting?”: That’s the question that a teenager asked an adult at a Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN)-sponsored conference at Tufts University in Boston in 2000. (GLSEN was founded by Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s pick to head up the “Safe Schools” wing at the Department of Education.) What followed from this perverse question was a detailed explanation of this disgusting perversion, including “how-to” advise on how to “fist” (hand/arm-anal and -vaginal penetration) “correctly.” At left is the logo of the Chicago group MAFIA, Mid-America Fists in Action, Inc., a homosexual club that holds “fisting parties” for men into this vile and dangerous perversion. (MAFIA holds “fisting” parties every year at Chicago’s International Mr. Leather.)

TAKE ACTION: Kevin Jennings wants to use schools to “promote homosexuality.” His group has repeatedly exposed children to harmful and promiscuous “gay” sexual behaviors and exhibited a recklessness toward youth that should disqualify him and GLSEN from working in any school anywhere. Call your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121) and urge them to call for the withdrawal of Jennings as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Also call or write President Obama (202-456-1414) and Education Secretary Arne Duncan (arne.duncan@ed.gov; 202-401-3000) and urge them not to reward Jennings and GLSEN with this influential appointment.

_________________________________

The following affidavit is reprinted from the Lambda Report newsletter (April 2000), published by Peter LaBarbera, which preceded Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. On April 18, 2000, Scott Whiteman submitted an affidavit, excerpted below, describing the March 25 conference of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in Boston to the Hon. Martha Coakley, District Attorney for Middlesex County, Mass.

LaBarbera and Massachusetts pro-family advocate Brian Camenker had advised Whiteman to secretly tape the “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class” youth panel – presuming that: 1) highly inappropriate discussions would occur; 2) homosexuality advocates likely would deny that the controversial talks actually took place; and 3) the subject matter would be so shocking and outrageous that nobody would believe Whiteman unless he provided proof of the actual GLSEN workshop. Those predictions proved to be right on the money as Whiteman’s “undercover” audiotape –– the basis of what came to be known in conservative circles as “Fistgate” –– provided the most damning evidence to date of homosexual activists’ breathtaking irresponsibility toward children in their care.

Homosexual activists ended up suing Whiteman and Camenker for making the secret recording — incredibly citing the “privacy” rights of the students in the “Queer Sex & Sexuality” workshop. For an even more detailed report on the GLSEN “Fistgate” seminars, see MassResistance’s website.

Following is Whiteman’s affidavit (emphasis added in bold):
_____________________________________

It is my belief that three public servants should be investigated for their involvement in the corruption of minors at a recent student/teacher conference in Medford. Additionally, as the conference was supported by several publicly funded and private groups and the Department of Education, I believe that they may have some liability for the corruption of children.

On the weekend of March 25, 2000, I attended the tenth annual “GLSEN/BOSTON & Project 10 East Teach Out!” conference at Tufts University. GLSEN is a national Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, led by Kevin Jennings a former Massachusetts teacher. GLSEN works with teachers and students throughout the nation and claims to fight what they deem “homophobia.” GLSEN/BOSTON is headed by Wallace Bachman and receives some funding from the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and the Massachusetts Department of Education through the Safe Schools Program.

I attended two workshops while at the conference that should be brought to your attention. In the first workshop, entitled “What They Didn’t Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only ages 14-21,” the three homosexual presenters acting in their professional capacities coaxed about 20 children into talking openly and graphically about homosexual sex. The three presenters were:

• Margot E. Abels, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed lesbian
• Julie Netherland, Coordinator, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed lesbian
• Michael Gaucher, Consultant, HIV/AIDS Program, Massachusetts Department of Education, self-proclaimed “gay” man

The workshop syllabus was a follows:

This workshop for youth addresses what is different for glbt (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual) youth when it comes to sex, dating, relationships, HIV etc. Come and discuss the questions you couldn’t or didn’t ask in health class. What’s it like to be young, queer and beginning to date? Are lesbians at rick for HIV? What does it to identify as queer and still be sexually active with the opposite sex? Who can you talk to about these things? And, why aren’t queer issues addressed in Sex Ed classes? We will address the information you want about queer sexuality and some of the politics that prevent us from getting our needs met.

The workshop opened by the three public employees asking the children how they know, as gay people, whether or not they’ve had sex. Questions were thrown around the room about whether oral sex was “sex,” to which the Department of Public Health employee stated, “If that’s not sex, then the number of times I’ve had sex has dramatically decreased; from a mountain to a valley, baby.” Eventually the answer presented itself, and it was determined that whenever an orifice was filled with genitalia, then sex had occurred. In coming to that conclusion, one student, egged on by the Department of Public Health employee, said in response to the question, “What orifices are we talking about?”:

Michael Gaucher: “Don’t be shy, honey; you can do it.”
Student: “Youth mouth.”
Gaucher: “Okay.”
Student: “Your ass.”
Gaucher: “There you go.”
Student: “Your pussy. That kind of place.”

By my estimation, that child was just about 16 years old.

But since sex occurred when an orifice was filled, the next question was obviously whether lesbians could “have sex.” At one point, Margot Abels asked whether a dildo [fake penis] had to be involved; could one be too big or too small; and where would students go to get these questions answered?

The children were asked to role play at this point. The scene was set up like this: One student was a “young lesbian who’s really attracted to another woman, and it’s really coming down to the with and you’re thinking about having sex.” The other student played the “hip GSA (gay, straight alliance) lesbian advisor, who you feel you can talk to.” In effect, Michael Gaucher was telling these high school aged children that they should be talking about lesbian sex, oral-vaginal contact, or “carpet munching,” as one student called it, with a teacher. The student asked whether it would smell like fish.

“What’s Fisting?”
At one point in the session, there was a five-minute break so that all of the teenagers could write down their questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland: “What’s fisting?”

A student answered this question by informing the class that “fisting” is when you put your “whole hand into the ass or pussy” of another. When a few of the students winced, Gaucher, the Department of Public Health employee, offered, “A little known fact about fisting, you don’t make a fist, like this. It’s like this,” forming his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier [this way].

Margot Abels told the students that “fisting” is not about forcing your have into somebody’s “hole, opening or orifice” if they don’t want it there. She said that “usually” the person was very relaxed, and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience.

At this point, a child of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He said that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn’t sound very appealing to him. Abels responded by pointing out that although fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” it usually isn’t about the pain, “not that we’re putting that down.” She informed the student and the class that “fisting” was “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.” Thus Gaucher provided the “how-to” of this lascivious act, and Abels the incentive. When a teen asked the question, “why,” Margot Abels provided comfort to the children, to “put them into an exploratory mode.”

Gaucher then read the students’ next question: “Do lesbians rub their clits [clitorises] together?”

Gaucher and Abels asked if it was possible, and whether someone would do a “hand-diagram” for the class. No one volunteered, but a girl who I estimate was 15 or 16 stepped up to the board and draw a three foot high vagina, and labeled each of the labia, the clitoris, and “put up inside the ‘G’-spot.” While drawing, Gaucher told her to use the “pink” chalk, to which Abels responded, “not everyone is pink, honey.” All of the youths laughed.

After the chalk vagina was complete, the children remarked about the size of the “clit,” and the presenters stated that that was a gifted woman. Then, Abels informed all of the young girls that indeed, you can rub your “clitori” together, either with or without your clothes on, and “you can definitely orgasm from it.” Gaucher told the entire class that “these is a name for this: tribadism.” Which he wrote on the board, and told one girl who I estimate was 14 years old to bring that vocabulary word back to Bedford, where she apparently went to school. Julie Netherland, the other Department of Education consultant, informed the children that this lesbian sex act wasn’t too difficult, because “when you are sexually around, your clit gets bigger.”

Gaucher then read the following from a card: “Cum [semen] and calories: Spit versus swallow and the health concerns.” He informed the children that although he didn’t know the caloric count of male ejaculation, he has “heard that it’s sweeter if people eat celery.” The public employee thereafter asked, “Is it rude not to swallow?” Many of the high school boys mumbled, “No,” by one, about the age of 16, said emphatically, “Oh no!” Another student, against about the age of 16, offered his advice on avoiding HIV/AIDS transmission while giving oral sex: do not brush your teeth or eat course food for four hours before you “go down on a guy…because then you probably don’t want to be swallowing cum.”

Another question submitted to the presenters was whether oral sex was a better with tongue rings. A 16-year-old student murmured, “yes,” to which all of the children laughed. Gaucher said, “There you have it,” and said something to the effect that the debate on that issue had ended.

Advising the Teachers
The second session which I attended was far less graphic, but potentially more dangerous. This session was presented by the same three public employees in their professional capacity and was titled, “Putting the ‘Sex’ Back Into Sexual Orientation: Classroom Strategies for Health & Sexuality Educators.”

The workshop syllabus read as follows:

What does it mean to say “being gay, lesbian and bisexual isn’t about sex?” Where do queer youth get their information about sex and sexuality? How can we deny that sexuality is central for all of us? How do we learn to address the unique concerns of queer youth? What about the epidemiology and risk behavior data concerning sexual activity, HIV and pregnancy for queer kids? This workshop is for educators to examine strategies for integrating sexuality education and HIV prevention content specific to gay, lesbian and bisexual students into the classroom and GSA’s. Data will be presented, exercises from the GSA/HIV Prevention Project will be shared and additional strategies will be discussed.

These three presenters who had just instructed a group of 14- to 18-year-olds on how to properly position your hand for “fisting” now assumed the task of teaching teachers how to facilitate discussions about “queer” sex with their students. Several of the attending teachers asked to review the questions which the students had submitted earlier.

Margot Abels opened by telling the room full of teachers (and two high school students), “We always feel like we are fighting against people who say publicly, who say privately, that being queer is not at all about sex…We believe otherwise. We think that sex is central to every single one of us, and particularly queer youth.”

Abels, Julie Netherland and Michael Gaucher reviewed a few “campaigns” that have been used to demonstrate to homosexual youth how to best “be safe.”

The campaign, “Respect yourself, protect yourself,” was praised as effective in getting the message to kids that they should use protection, but since it made children who didn’t protect themselves feel bad, ultimately it was judged a poor message.

Gaucher asked if children [are] “with an older partner, [whom] they are not feeling they can discuss things with, does that mean that they don’t respect themselves?” My question is why does Gaucher not consider boys having sexual relations with men, either with or without a condom, to be a problem. Let me put this into perspective. If I, a 26-year-old man, were to approach a 16-year-old girl for sexual intercourse, wouldn’t I end up in trouble? Yet public employees, who are bound by law to report abuse under [Massachusetts] rule §51(A), are concerned more with how the young sodomized boy feels that whether he is being sodomized at all. This is absolutely outrageous.

The campaign, “No sex, no problem,” was ridiculed, as it assumed that children could opt not to have sex. Additionally, it made those children who had already had sex feel bad, or think they had a problem, since they had sex.

After reviewing a few of the campaigns, Abels described the project she works on. The “Gay/Straight Alliance HIV Education Project” goes around five different schools each year conducting up to eight HIV prevention sessions in that school’s gay club. These same presenters who just told a group of children how to properly position their hands for “fisting” were now telling a room full of educators that they would visit their schools and conduct their workshops for their students.

One participant remarked halfway through that Abels just wasn’t “talking to” her, since she, the participant, was a lesbian-middle school teacher. She wanted to know specifically what she could do to facilitate discussions about homosexuality in middle school. After I left that session, I met a few people and we compared notes. I was told of another session entitled, “Struggles & Triumphs of Including Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum.” Christine L. Hoyle, Special Education Teacher and workshop presenter, told the story of how she turned the Holocaust portion of her curriculum into a gay affirming section. Ms. Hoyle allowed the group at the conference to watch a video which she had her students produce and which was narrated by a seventh grade girl. This girl told the audience that ancient Greeks “encouraged homosexuals; in fact, it was considered normal for an adolescent boy to have an older, wiser man as his lover.” In effect, this teacher informed her adolescent students that it is okay if an older man approaches them for sexual gratification.

I have a compendium of resources and information which I obtained at the conference encouraging young children to become actively engaged in homosexual activities. I approached the Sidney Borum Community Health Center table to obtain a cassette sized “pocket sex” kit, which included two condoms, two antiseptic “moist” towelettes, and six bandages, which were for when the sex got really rough according to the high school-aged volunteer behind the desk. I now have a countless supply of condoms supplied by both Sidney Borum and Planned Parenthood, all of which was for the taking by any child who wanted them…

I am extremely troubled by what I learned at the GLSEN conference, and even more troubled…that it was led largely by Department of Education employees and was supported by Commissioner [David] Driscoll and the Department of Education, which is demonstrated by [Driscoll’s] attached letter [of support] to participants as well as the Department’s endorsement of the conference by offering six Professional Development Activities hours for teachers attending the conference.

The specific areas in the law I am asking for you to investigate are the abrogation of Massachusetts General Laws, ch. 272, § 2, 4, and 28: Enticing away a person for prostitution or sexual intercourse; Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse; and Matter harmful to minors, dissemination; possession; defenses, respectively…

I swear under oath and the pains and penalties of perjury that everything written within this letter, to be best of my knowledge and recollection, is true and factually accurate.

Scott T. Whiteman
Peabody, Massachusetts

From an article yesterday in the conservative CNSNews.com, “Obama: Homosexual Relationships ‘Just as Real and Admirable’ as Heterosexual Marriage”:

Tuesday, October 13, 2009
By Pete Winn, CNSNews.com Senior Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) – President Obama delivered an unprecedented message to the Human Rights Campaign Saturday night. Sounding more like a homosexual activist than a sitting president, Obama went well beyond his expected message of “I’m here with you” on the homosexual agenda.

“My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield,” Obama told an estimated audience of 3,000. “You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”

Even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was stunned at the breadth of  Obama’s statement, calling it “something quite remarkable.”

“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States,” Solmonese said in a post-speech statement. “It’s simply unprecedented.”

But Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, called the president’s remarks “appalling.”

“Barack Obama is … declaring that these relationships are basically equal to the real thing,” LaBarbera told CNSNews.com. “I think this is the ultimate Obama audacity play –– for him, just declaring it seems to make it so.”

The president pointedly used the pronoun “we” – not “you” –– throughout much of his speech.

“Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach,” Obama said at one point….

LaBarbera said Obama’s comments went far beyond using the presidency as a bully pulpit.

“The condescension is glaring,” LaBarbera said. “He’s really putting down millions and millions of faithful, moral-minded citizens and dismissing traditional beliefs with such arrogance, it is almost indescribable. It really is amazing.”

“It’s just hateful rhetoric,” LaBarbera added. “It’s a different kind of hate, to be sure, but it is hate –– he hates our Judeo-Christian tradition.”

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                        October 10, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER

Walter E. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.
8:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, you’re making me blush. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who’s doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC. (Applause.) To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC. (Applause.) Representative Patrick Kennedy. (Applause.) David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa. (Applause.) John Berry, our Director of OPM, who’s doing a great job. (Applause.) Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality. (Applause.) Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank. (Applause.) And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who’s in the house. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I’ve made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That’s not easy. For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship — (applause) — for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — (applause) — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need. (Applause.) And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America. (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now. And I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (Applause.) For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. (Applause.) We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Applause.)

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole. (Applause.) You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures. You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job. You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance. You’re soldiers. You are neighbors. You are friends. And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future. (Applause.)

So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with. But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems. And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach. (Applause.)

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. (Applause.) You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. (Applause.) You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son. (Applause.)

This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. (Applause.) They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment. (Applause.) Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. (Applause.) And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law. (Applause.)

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation. (Applause.) And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated. And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear. Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love. (Applause.)

But we know there’s far more work to do. We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. (Applause.) For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (Applause.)

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. (Applause.) We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future. (Applause.) We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. (Applause.) We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you. (Applause.)

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country. And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation. But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we can; I believe we will. (Applause.)

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. (Applause.) I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. (Applause.) And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law. It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another. It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment. It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes: to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love — (applause) — to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger. (Applause.)

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences. That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message. (Applause.) And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America. (Applause.)

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford. It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police. Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids. Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose. So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard. And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.” (Laughter.) Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know. Why are you bothering him?” (Applause.)

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York. She carried a sign that stated her support. People cheered. Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents. And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well. At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up. But slowly, interest grew. Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS. But the cause endured. Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays — (applause) — has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person. I didn’t even cross the street against the light.” (Laughter.) “But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.” (Applause.)

That’s the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit. (Applause.)

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person. For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow. These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today. (Applause.) These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable. That’s the promise of America, HRC. That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill. (Applause.) Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Thank you for the work you’re doing. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:35 P.M. EDT

Obama’s Expanding Anti-Christian Agenda: Photo of President Obama appearing on the website of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s most powerful homosexual lobby group. Obama was the keynote speaker at the group’s annual fundraising dinner. He echoed HRC’s talking points by claiming that homosexuality-based relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal and natural relationships between a man and a woman.

CHICAGO, Illinois — President Obama used the bully pulpit tonight to defy the Creator, by brazenly declaring before a homosexual activist audience that homosexuality-based relationships are “just as real and admirable” as normal relationships between a man and a woman.

Here is how influential one homosexual activist — Joe Solmonese of the Human Rights Campaign, whose annual fundraising dinner Obama keynoted tonight — reacted to the president’s unprecedented endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle:

“Finally, we heard something quite remarkable from the President:  ‘You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.’

“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented.”

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera issued this response:

President Obama has taken his ‘audacity’ to new levels tonight, equating sin-based ‘relationships’ to the normal and natural male-female relationship that finds its best fulfillment in God-ordained, procreative marriage.

During the presidential campaign, Obama once punted on an abortion-related query as to when life begins, saying that was above his “pay grade.” Too bad he didn’t attempt a similar evasion on  homosexuality. The president has gone way over his pay grade on this one. Homosexual practice is a moral issue, settled by the Creator and His clear design of nature since the beginning of time. Obama can no more declare with any authority that abnormal, homosexuality-based relationships are as “admirable” as normal relationships than he can proclaim that each day will now have 30 hours instead of 24 to increase American productivity.

The president could not be more wrong. Homosexual relationships are not to be admired, they are to be pitied, as immoral “unions” that can only pretend to copy real marriage. Moreover, when the government treats such aberrant relationships like marriage, it risks placing hundreds of thousands of children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design, through “gay adoption” — another misguided homosexual demand advanced by Obama.

Perhaps the president needs to meet at the White House with some “ex-gays” — former homosexuals who now live in natural, man-woman marriages — people like Steve Bennett, Yvette Schneider, and Alan Chambers — to see the error of his ways.

We have yet to analyze Obama’s entire speech, but his declaration about admiring immoral homosexual relationships alone is the latest in a series of acts of spectacular hubris that have marked his political career. But Obama has a problem: he sold himself to the American electorate as a moderate Christian who believes deeply in traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Yet the more he panders and postures to his impatient homosexual allies, the more Obama’s supposed embrace of husband-and-wife marriage becomes a farce — one apparently designed to fool voters who knew next to nothing about his real, radically pro-homosexual and pro-transsexual agenda.

We don’t blame Obama’s “queer” allies for asking: if you truly believe same-sex relationships are as “real and admirable” as male-female relationships, then why NOT support “gay marriage”? Equal is equal, right? The truth, of course, is that homosexuality-based relationships are anything but equal to the real thing: they cannot produce children; they are based on destructive and changeable behavior that has been condemned by Christianity and other major religious throughout most of civilized human history; and in celebrating their particular sin and attaching it to the noble institution of marriage, they force the teaching of homosexuality and counterfeit “marriage” as normative to schoolchildren in the name of tolerance and equality.

Barack Obama is a man whose “audacity” and pride seem to know no bounds — he even distorts the Bible to justify his “gay” advocacy. In his mind, he knows better than God, or so it would seem. Yet in this respect Obama is not unlike other pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality politicians — mostly Democrats but some Republicans — who take it upon themselves to redefine right and wrong based on their subjective “feelings.” As the prophet Isaiah said long ago, they call good evil and evil good (Is. 5:20).

We hope that Obama’s cynical habit of talking out of both sides of his mouth on the homosexual issue (like other issues) will be his undoing. Now it is time for moral-minded Americans — especially those who voted for Obama  — be they Christian, Muslim or Jew; black, white or brown — to let the White House and Congress know that they will oppose all of the Obama Administration’s legislative efforts to create a bogus “civil right” out of the human wrong of homosexuality.