Welcome to Americans for Truth, a newly reorganized national organization devoted exclusively to exposing and countering the homosexual activist agenda.
Most are unaware that during the Revolutionary War George Washington was a staunch advocate for allowing “gays” in the military. In fact, he boldly commissioned the little-known “Fabulous Pink Brigade,” which once infiltrated a British camp and –– while the redcoats slept –– covertly redecorated in eye-popping pastels.
No, although Washington was a revolutionary, he wasn’t a radical. The idea of open homosexuality within our armed services has long been considered preposterous.
The following is reprinted from an excellent article by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. We hope that it gives pause to liberal activists who are pushing for a rapid change in the military’s policy on homosexuality under the new Obama Administration. CMR’s Donnelly is the nation’s most influential conservative opponent of further homosexualization of American Armed Forces and other liberal social experiments involving our men and women in uniform.
TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators at 202-224-3121 (find them at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov) and — citing this new survey information — urge that they oppose all further attempts to homo-sexually liberalize the military (during wartime). Homosexuality and good military morale don’t mix — see this AFTAH story pointing to the extraordinary homosexual male interest in “gay” military pornography. Keep in mind, as Donnelly states below, that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy introduced by President Clinton (and “enforced” under the Bush Administration) does not reflect the actual law pertaining to the issue; if the law were to be enforced, homosexuals would be counted completely ineligible to serve in the military. — Peter LaBarbera
_________________________________
Military Times Poll: Troops Oppose Gay Agenda for the Military
By Elaine Donnelly
The Military Times, a liberal Gannett publication favoring inclusion of professed homosexuals in the military, has just released an astonishing poll of active-duty subscribers. Results of the 2008 annual survey indicate that success for that cause essentially would destroy the volunteer force.
As in previous years, the annual Military Times Poll (linked on Drudge today) reveals that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal what the survey described as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” The catchphrase incorrectly labels the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, which clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military.
The 2008 Military Times Poll asked a new question that produced jaw-dropping results: “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?” The article emphasized that 71% of respondents said they would continue to serve. But almost 10% said “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” and 14% said “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” Only 6% expressed “No Opinion.” Before voting to repeal the law, Section 654, Title 10, members of Congress, and President-elect Barack Obama, ought to do the math.
I have heard from many friends who missed the live CSPAN broadcast of the testimony I gave before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on July 23. Those who did see the program recognized that my opening statement, concentrating on the consequences of repealing the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, confronted the committee members with serious issues that they did not want to hear. My fellow witness, retired Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, also talked about concepts that he knows well as a former Army Ranger and Delta Force soldier. Those matters seemed beyond the understanding of liberal members who berated us with absurd questions and diversionary insinuations that were repeated in hostile news reports.
“Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines?” — Elaine Donnelly positing the common-sense poll question that liberal media polls refuse to ask.
_________________________________
Open homosexuality will undermine military morale. Straight soldiers should not be forced to cohabitate with people who define themselves as sexually attracted to the same-sex.
The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released on July 19, 2008, is typical of recent polls of civilians on this issue. Surveys such as this both reflect and help shape public opinion, as part of a relentless perception management campaign that has been going on for years.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll is less than persuasive because it includes two questions that demonstrate how misinformation and diversionary questions can affect the results of polls. Question #33 reads:
“[D]o you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 78%, No, 18% No Opinion, 5%)
Question #34:
“[D]o you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 75%, No, 22%, No Opinion 3%)
These two inquiries do not frame the real issue: Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines? Instead, the questions use confusing double negatives, which end with the phrase “or not?” It is difficult to find a clear statement in the poll on which to state an opinion.
The questions suggest that the main issue is being “undisclosed” or “disclosed” as a homosexual in the military. On the contrary, the true key issue is eligibility to serve, not disclosure of homosexuality. Inquiries also use the permissive word “allowed,” not the more accurate term, “required,” as in “Should members of the military be required . . . ?” Instead, the poll focuses only on the desires of homosexuals who want to serve in the military. The issues of military discipline, morale, and readiness are not mentioned at all.
MILITARY MEN AS HOMOSEXUAL SEX OBJECTS? Above is an ad for one of the many “gay” military-oriented porn websites: American male soldiers do not bunk and shower with women; should they be forced to shower and bunk with men who identify themselves as sexually attracted to other men? TAKE ACTION: call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or contact your U.S. Representative and Senators online to voice your opposition to opening up the military to homosexuality. Read below about how homosexual men with their same-sex attractions compromised the Catholic practice of priestly celibacy.
Allyson Smith of AFTAH sends along this compelling essay with obvious parallels to putting homosexual men in the military. Rev. James Haley’s logic presumably would extend to (public) restrooms — not just for the “transgendered” but for all suffering from what some are calling “same-sex attraction disorder.” Rev. Haley of The Roman Catholic Faithful writes in “The Real Story about Celibacy”:
…By assigning religious men to live only with men, and religious women to live only with women, the bishop or abbot is apparently also following the tradition and moral prudence, or one can more properly say, the moral necessity, of keeping religious men and women separated from one another – a very prudent practice because, in the words of an honest speaker concerning human nature and Christian love: “There is nothing more naturally attractive for a Christian man in love with God, than a Christian woman in love with God.”
But that same-sex living assignment quickly and clearly runs seriously afoul when the sexual orientations and desires are reversed from their norm and, even more so, when those sexual orientations remain hidden from the outside world – that leads to the very improper, imprudent and secret situation that the Church was trying to prevent. In other words: There is nothing more “naturally” attractive for a homosexual man in love with God, than another homosexual man in love with God.
So ironically, tragically, inexplicably, it is the Church itself, the model and guide to moral life, that is encouraging, advocating and requiring the perpetual near occasion of sin for homosexual priests, and, in turn, creating an extremely uncomfortable situation for the heterosexual priests who are not interested in forming one of those personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men. And this non-interest from the heterosexual priest is a frequent cause of alienation, resentment and bitterness from the homosexual priests who would prefer to live with, and associate with, other homosexual priests, especially when so many other homosexual priests are afforded that “secret” privilege. In simple terms: the straight priest is neither wanted nor welcome among the homosexual priests….
Building public acceptance of homosexuality is coincident with a general moral unraveling of our society, with all its destructive consequences
Star Parker makes a great point here: the undeniable reality that momentum is on the side of the homosexual activists does not make their agenda a good thing for America. Historically, societies in which sexual immorality flourishes are unhealthy, declining societies, so don’t buy the Left’s definition of “progress.” — Peter LaBarbera
For the first time since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law was enacted in 1993 by President Clinton, the House Armed Services Committee has scheduled hearings to review it. The law disqualifies gays from serving in the military.
Individuals are deemed gay, according to this ruling, if they publicly state so. However, the military is prohibited from asking. Thus, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Activists are now pushing for change to allow gays to serve openly.
We can anticipate a technical discussion. Does the presence of openly gay soldiers undermine cohesiveness of units, morale, and discipline? How would retention rates of troops or enlistments be affected?
We can be sure, though, that a discussion about the general moral implications of such a policy will not take place.
‘Gay’ groups condemn Bush for giving general Presidential Medal of Freedom
“General Pace did nothing wrong in stating his moral and religious opposition to homosexual acts as immoral….Pace also said adultery is wrong, and yet I don’t see two ‘pro-adultery’ organizations out condemning him.” –Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth
Here is more evidence of the sheer hatred that fanatical homosexual activists have for Judeo-Christian teachings on sex. Gen. Peter Pace’s “crime”? He affirmed the historic teachings of his Catholic faith that homosexual sex is immoral. You’d have to be blind or brainwashed not to see the goal of homosexual militants: intimidate good people and especially public servants into silence on the moral question of homosexual practice. AFTAH is mentioned in the following Cybercast News Service article, “Homosexual Activists Oppose Medal for Retired General,” excerpted below:
Homosexual Activists Oppose Medal for Retired General
By Randy Hall CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 19, 2008
(CNSNews.com) – Two homosexual advocacy groups are criticizing the decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to retired General Peter Pace. He’ll be honored on Thursday.
“Honoring General Pace with the country’s highest civilian award is outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops currently serving on active duty in the armed forces,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), in a news release on Wednesday. …
“Honoring General Pace for using his personal prejudice to meddle with military matters is just plain wrong,” PFLAG [Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays] added. “There should be no medal for bigotry and intolerance.”
Homosexual activists spend tens of millions of dollars annually promoting their lifestyle and political goals, yet many Christians get upset when pro-family groups like Americans For Truth stand against their aggressive agenda.
The following is an article by Nathan Neighbor of the ChristianResearchNetwork.info website, followed by my response (which is adapted from a comment I posted on their site; see this link). I believe Nathan’s is a good representation of the (naive) attitudes of so many Christians regarding the “culture war” over homosexuality. Many Christians, appropriately desirous of winning souls to Christ, are non-confrontational in public policy (or simply avoid or even abhor it altogether) – while our “gay” activist opponents are aggressive, highly skilled, and often ruthless in the political and cultural campaigns that they wage.
If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
