From today’s AFTAH e-newsletter; go HERE for contact info for Chili’s and parent company Brinker International — which is a “National Corporate Partner” of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:

Dear Readers,

This is not just another e-mail about boycotting yet another irresponsible corporation.  It’s about educating the nation on the incredibly extreme and unhealthy agenda of the pro-Homosexuality-Bisexuality-Transsexuality Lobby — and holding company executives accountable for financing that agenda.  Last week in Minneapolis, I and a few other pro-family advocates went undercover at the annual “Creating Change” grassroots homosexual conference put on by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.  There were more than 2,000 LGBT activists in attendance!  Some of the “change” we heard advocated in the various workshops, and which we will document in the days and weeks ahead, was shocking.  Yet this agenda is one that the left-leaning media refuse to examine, much less expose. So AFTAH will do the media’s job for them by laying out the Gay Task Force’s extremist vision, which includes:

• Taxpayer-financed “sex change” operations for transsexuals (not to do so is “discrimination” against “transgenders”);
• Using polling, focus groups and emotional arguments to persuade evangelical Christians to ignore Scripture and accept homosexuality-based “rights”;
• Using the tragedy of homosexual youth suicides to shame Christians into stop calling homosexuality sinful;
• Celebrating sadomasochism (consensual sexual violence and degradation) and “kinky”/fetish sexual behaviors
• Pro-homosexuality lessons for grade school kids (because waiting until middle school is too late to reach them); 
• “Non-judgmental condom advocacy for young men in the name of HIV prevention — and even being non-judgmental in “safe sex” training when it comes to bizarre/disgusting “fetish” behaviors
• Predicting not just a future “gay” president of the United States but also a “bi” and a “transgender” president! (I’ll withhold the jokes…);
• “[F--k--g] with gender,” and celebrating bisexuality and “genderqueer” lifestyles (see this definition for latter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genderqueer);
• Using “gender identity” laws to pressure businesses to bend to the transgender agenda of “Gender-Neutral Restrooms” — to replace the old-fashioned variety with an “M” or an “F” on the door.

There is much, much more — the homosexual Task Force puts the “D” back in “Deviance,” that’s for sure.  Stay tuned as we lay out the “change” that this high-powered organization and “Friend of Barack Obama” is promoting for America — with help from Chilis restaurants, Wells Fargo, Southwest Airlines, and other major corporations.  God bless you and thanks for standing with us! – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth, www.aftah.org; americansfortruth@gmail.com. 

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), an ex-combat-Marine, opposes the effort to repeal the ban on open homosexuals in the military.

Folks, note the bias in this Politico article reprinted below reporting the legislative action Thursday on Capitol Hill to end the ban on open homosexuals serving in the military. Perhaps a large part of the reason that many Americans have changed their opinion on “gays in the military” is that they have been bombarded for the past 15 years with biased media treatment of the issue.  (And this Politico article is more “balanced” than most media stories dealing with homosexuality.) I sent Politico reporter Jen DiMascio this short note:

Letter to Politico.com, May 28, 2010

Re: your story on the House repeal of DADT

Dear Ms. DiMascio,

Why did you include no quotes from (non-governmental) pro-family or conservative lobby groups in your story today on the repeal of DADT [Don't Ask, Don't Tell] — seeing that you quote both SLDN [Servicemembers Legal Defense Network] and HRC [Human Rights Campaign] spokesmen?

Fair is fair.

Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

As you can see below, DiMascio is not “fair and balanced” in quoting members of Congress, either, but at least she quotes two critics of the repeal (versus three supporters). I’ve bolded the quotation paragraphs as follows to help analyze the (un)fairness of this piece:

1. RED: pro-homosexuals-in-the-military quotes by private citizen activists (special interest groups);
2. BROWN: pro-homosexuals-in-the-military quotes by Members of Congress;
3. BLUE: anti-homosexuals-in-the-military (AGAINST REPEAL of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) quotes by Members of Congress.

Roll Call of vote: go HERE for a tally of the “repeal” vote in the House Thursday.  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
__________________________________________

House votes to repeal ‘don’t ask’

By: Jen DiMascio, Politico
May 27, 2010 07:53 PM EDT

The push to end the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military cleared two major hurdles Thursday, with the House backing repeal by a 234-194 vote, while the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-12 in favor of that body’s version of the change.

Both repeals, offered as amendments to a defense spending bill, would remove the policy only after the Pentagon completes a study due in December on the impact of the change on the military.

“I will not rest until the repeal of this discriminatory policy that hurts national security is signed into law,” Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.), the sponsor of the House amendment, said after the vote.

The White House and the Pentagon both approved the compromise in the amendments that allows Congress to act while granting the president, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ultimate authority to implement repeal when they are satisfied that the military’s readiness, recruiting, retention and morale would not be adversely impacted by it.

After the vote, Obama said he was pleased by the move toward repeal. “Our military is made up of the best and bravest men and women in our nation, and my greatest honor is leading them as commander in chief,” Obama said in a statement. “This legislation will help make our a rmed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity.”

The debate leading up to the House vote was heated at times, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), led the debate against repeal. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did her part on to the floor to defend it.

McKeon, who pressed for additional time to debate the measure in floor action, said he strongly opposed the amendment.

“We do have a sacred obligation to those who serve,” McKeon said in a statement after the vote, adding that proceeding before the Pentagon’s review of implementing repeal was through was “[t]he equivalent of turning to members of military and their families and saying that your views don’t count.”

“Passing this amendment today respects the timeline of the Pentagon’s Implementation Study Group. Repeal would take place only after the study group completes its work in December 2010 and after the president, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretary of defense all certify that repeal will not hurt military readiness or unit cohesion,” Pelosi said during the debate. “No one in this body would jeopardize our national security.”

The debate in the Senate committee was also “lively,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) the panel’s chairman.

“Today’s action by the Senate Armed Services Committee is an important step to end this discriminatory policy,” [Levin] said.

The amendment was the most-watched part of the Senate Armed Services Committee’s markup of its annual defense bill, which also passed Thursday evening.

Aside from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the bill was opposed by the Republicans on the committee and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), who explained in a statement that he opposed repealing the ban while the Pentagon is in the midst of reviewing how it should implement the change.

“I see no reason to pre-empt the process that our senior Defense Department leaders put into motion, and I am concerned that many members of the military would view such a move as disrespectful to the importance of their roles in this process,” Webb said.

Thursday’s votes are just one step toward reversing the ban that has been in place since 1993.

The defense authorization bill typically passes with wide margins, but last year was an exception, as many Republicans voted against the bill because it included a hate-crimes provision.

The inclusion of don’t ask don’t tell could set up a similar dynamic this year.

And because the House defied President Obama’s veto threat to hang onto funding for two Joint Strike Fighter engines, the situation is even stickier. With the engine money and don’t ask don’t tell, Obama is caught between promises he has made to his most powerful Cabinet member and his liberal base of support on a landmark civil-rights issue.

The Pentagon is aggressively pushing for a veto.

“We don’t want nor need the extra engine, but this is just one step in a long journey and Secretary Gates is committed to staying engaged in this process the whole way, including if necessary ultimately recommending President Obama veto this legislation,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said after the vote.

So, too, is Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who supports don’t ask don’t tell repeal but opposes funding for the General Electric engine. Larson said he was encouraged by a strong vote on the amendment and the fact that the Senate Armed Services Committee did not include funding for the engine in its bill.

“I fully expect the President to follow through with his threatened veto of the Defense Authorization Act if the F-35 Extra Engine Program is in the final legislation,” Larson said.

Gay-rights groups, which have been assured by the White House that repeal will work out in the end, immediately hailed the Senate panel’s vote as historic.

“Lawmakers today stood on the right side of history,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This is a historic step to strengthen our armed forces and to restore honor and integrity to those who serve our country so selflessly.”

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said Congress is the correct branch of government to reverse the policy.

“Chairman Carl Levin, Sen. Joe Lieberman, and Rep. Patrick Murphy showed remarkable courage and steadfastness in the face of unprecedented and inappropriate last minute lobbying by the Pentagon service chiefs. who seemed to have forgotten that they are not the policymakers here,” Sarvis said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The column by Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs at the Liberty Counsel and a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, first appeared in WorldNetDaily. Barber will be the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet on Saturday, October 24:

________________________________

WorldNetDaily, Friday, June 26, 2009

By Matt Barber

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.

Washington wisely understood that to allow men among the ranks who sodomized other men would necessarily distract from the mission at hand, disrupt unit cohesion and damage the morale of non-sodomy-disposed soldiers forced to sleep and bathe alongside those so inclined. It’s understandably disquieting to wonder whether your foxhole buddy “has your back” or wants to rub it.

In general court-martial orders dated March 14, 1778, Washington, through his designs, addressed the disposition of a homosexual soldier “tried for attempting to commit sodomy”: “[We] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

Barack Obama is no George Washington. He and a like-minded gaggle of congressional liberals have pledged to repeal the federal law, Section 654, Title 10, which stipulates that homosexual practice is incompatible with military service. Furthermore, they intend to do away with Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” administrative compromise.

The president has asked Congress to pass and send to his desk H.R. 1283, which, for the first time in American history, would homosexualize the military. To wit, he seeks to supplant military vitality with San Francisco vice. Whereas George Washington put a premium on combat readiness and national security, these indispensable safeguards play last fiddle to liberals’ obtuse fixation with political correctness.

In the deadly game of war it’s dangerously irresponsible to place extreme social ideology above national security. In combat, even the slightest disruption or distraction can spell the difference between victory and defeat –– life and death. The left fails to understand this grave reality.

The boots on the ground do not. In a March 31, 2009, letter addressed to President Obama and members of Congress, over 1,l00 of the military’s highest ranking and most distinguished commanders warned that they were “greatly concerned” by movement toward military homosexualization. They expressed fear that a DADT repeal would “eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

It seems their fears are justified. A 2009 Military Times poll determined that nearly one in 10 of those currently serving would not re-enlist if the policy were repealed. In today’s highly perilous global political climate, such a plummet in service could be devastating to national security.

I’m speaking from personal experience. I served 12 years in the Army National Guard. During basic training a young man who later turned out to be homosexual was discharged after making unwanted advances toward other soldiers and for inappropriately touching several while they slept in the barracks.

A lengthy investigation ensued. Troops were pulled away from their regular training to answer questions. It was a tremendous distraction for our entire platoon. This incident most definitely disrupted unit cohesion and harmed troop morale.

But none of this matters to liberals. Obama is the un-Washington. The left –– of which Obama sits on the fringe –– loathe the armed services. Rather than viewing the military as a noble and necessary institution designed as our last line of defense, they consider it a giant petri dish ripe for radical social experimentation. Move over Army National Guard; make way for the smarmy avant-garde.

But it’s not just the military that Obama seeks to “remake”; it’s the entire social construct. On June 1, 2009, he unilaterally and arbitrarily issued an official Presidential Proclamation smugly declaring that all Americans should celebrate sexual deviancy. He dubbed June “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.”

Rather than regarding homosexual practice with “abhorrence” and “detestation” –– as did George Washington and most everyone until recent years –– Obama has euphemistically vowed to “outlaw discrimination” (read: criminalize traditional morality). Included within his proclamation –– and among a host of equally radical social pledges –– was yet another promise to “[end] the existing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. …”

Well, in recent weeks the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the notion that DADT constitutes “discrimination.” It affirmed a lower court ruling which held that the policy is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

In an age of rampant judicial activism, it’s refreshing to witness some common-sense judicial restraint. This decision by the Supreme Court should once again remind everyone that, contrary to the propaganda fomented by the organized homosexual lobby, Barack Obama and liberals in Congress, homosexual temptation and the destructive but changeable homosexual lifestyle must not be confused with neutral and immutable characteristics such as race or gender for purposes of assigning special government minority status.

That is to say, it’s properly illegal, for instance, to ban African-Americans from serving in the armed forces. It is neither illegal nor discriminatory, however, to disallow an African-American who “loudly and proudly” opts to practice what George Washington would have called “the sin that dare not speak its name.”

Hands off the military, Mr. Obama; we can’t afford the “progress.”

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

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.

If the opinions of Reserve and National Guard troops are similar to those of active-duty personnel surveyed in the Military Times Poll, and if the poll’s findings approximate the number of military people who would leave or consider leaving if the 1993 law is repealed, combined losses (including Guard and Reserve forces) would be huge.

• A rough estimate using Defense Department numbers for all service branches and components, totaling more than 2 million, indicates that a loss of one in ten (almost 10%) would cost the military approximately 228,600 people — more than the active-duty Marine Corps (200,000).
• If an additional 14% decided to leave, the voluntary exodus would translate into a loss of almost 527,000 — a figure approaching the size of today’s active-duty Army (more than 545,000).
• Estimates of losses in active-duty forces alone would range between 141,000 (10%) and 323,000 (23%).

The poll’s findings are not an exact prediction, but they are significant and ought to be of great concern to President-elect Barack Obama and members of Congress who are considering a vote to repeal the 1993 law.  If that legislation succeeds, the Defense Department’s new policy would be forced cohabitation with homosexuals, 24/7, in all military communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, and submarines.

Corollary programs to make the new policy “work” would include professional “diversity training” to enforce acceptance, and “zero tolerance” of anyone who disagrees.  Dissenters would face discipline and be denied promotions, which would end their military careers. Incidents of misconduct would increase threefold, to include male/male and female/female misconduct that undermines discipline and demoralizes the troops.  These results would harm recruiting and retention, and effectively destroy the volunteer force.

Advocates of repealing the law always point to professional civilian polls that appear to support their cause, but they have been confounded by the annual Military Times surveys, which have always been more credible.

Professional pollsters recognize that survey respondents who think that a policy is already in place are more likely to favor it.  Military personnel, however, are more likely than civilians to know what the 1993 law actually says, and why.  Hence the disparity between the Military Times annual polls and several highly publicized civilian polls asking confused questions about Bill Clinton’s convoluted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.  Civilian polls, like the one done last July by the Washington Post, usually limit their inquiries to personal feelings about homosexuals (which are usually positive), or ask whether gays should serve openly or discreetly.

The December 2006 news release announcing the often-quoted Zogby Poll on this subject, which was paid for by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (now called the Michael D. Palm Center), blatantly spun the story by omitting mention of responses to the key question asked — Should homosexuals serve openly in the military?  The 26% of Zogby respondents who favored repeal of the law could not compete with the combined 69% of people who said that they were opposed or neutral on that question.  This was hardly a mandate for radical cultural change in the military.

There is no record of any poll seeking to gauge opinions on the actual consequences of repealing the law: forced cohabitation with homosexuals in all military communities, 24/7, with “zero tolerance” of dissent.

The Military Times Poll also indicates that 60% of the active-duty troops surveyed are  “Wary of Obama.” The newspaper’s webpage posted a video of Obama talking about his intent to convince the troops that he knows what he is doing.  It does not help to know, however, that high-level members of Obama’s Transition Team are meeting with leaders of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered) Left to discuss administration appointments and legislative goals.

There is no “national security” argument for repealing a law designed to protect good order and discipline in military living conditions offering little or no privacy.  Federal courts have upheld the constitutionality of the statute several times, and it continues to enjoy strong support among military men and women.   Regardless of what it is called, the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, deserves continued support.

Contrary to some disingenuous news reports, activists for gays in the military are determined to impose their agenda on our military.  They are working with the incoming administration and pushing hard for repeal.  Members of Congress and the new Commander-in-Chief need to take this issue seriously, and see to it that activists demanding repeal of the law do not win.

A Message from Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness:

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.

Here are our opening statements, which were strictly limited to 10 and 5 minutes, respectively.

• Video-Statement of Elaine Donnelly
• Video-Statement of Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, US Army, (Ret.)
• World Net Daily provided more commentary on last week’s hearing.

I was prepared for and would have welcomed questions on the issue itself, but the unprofessional behavior of some members made serious discussion impossible.

All of this hostility actually proved the point I was trying to make: If Congress repeals the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service, anyone who disagrees will face the presumption of “bigotry,” “homophobia,” or worse. Denied promotions will cause thousands of people to leave the volunteer force, or avoid it all together.

ACTION ITEMS

Some friends have asked me what can be done—the answer to that is simple.
– Please take a moment to support CMR with a generous tax-deductible contribution today. (Our secure donation page is easy to use, and also provides a printed form if you prefer to contribute via regular mail.)

– Since members of Congress are now in recess, you may want to call your own representative, particularly if he or she is a member of the House Armed Services Committee. Tell them that you expect them to support the law regarding homosexuals in the military, which should not be confused with Bill Clinton’s administrative policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

I am very grateful for all the good wishes and prayers that I have received in the past week. Your support means a lot to me, and encourages me in this fight. I will be in touch again soon.

Elaine Donnelly
Center for Military Readiness
P.O. Box 51600 , Livonia, MI 48151

PS: Printed copies of our summary and opening statements (in PDF format), are available at http://cmrlink.org/problemgays.asp.

_________________________________

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. 

More Media for Gays in the Military

National Review’s Online Military Blog, “the tank”

Sunday, July 20, 2008

By Elaine Donnelly

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.

Click here to read the rest of Donnelly’s NRO article: “More Media for Gays in the Military”

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”:

Excerpted from the article by Rev. Haley:

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….

Click HERE to read the full article, “The Real Story about Celibacy”

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

______________

By Star Parker, founder and president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), July 23, 2008

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.

Early last year, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace called homosexuality “immoral.” More fire and brimstone rained down on him than fell on the residents of Sodom and Gomorra for engaging in this behavior.

Rebukes came from Democrats and Republicans alike. GOP Sen. John Warner, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, writing his own scripture, challenged Pace’s view that homosexuality is immoral.

Although a recent Zobgy poll of military personnel shows more opposed to allowing gays to serve openly than favoring (37 percent to 26 percent), the direction of polling of the general public favors the pro-gay forces.

When “don’t ask, don’t tell” was enacted in 1993, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed 52 percent opposed to homosexuals serving openly and 43 percent in favor. By 2004, Gallup polling indicated 63 percent in favor of allowing homosexuals to serve against 32 percent opposed.

The culture war is like the recipe for boiling a frog. If you drop it in hot water, it jumps out. But if you drop it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat, you get frog soup.

Concession by concession, traditional values are being pushed, inexorably, to the margins of America.

It’s a sign of this moral war of attrition that each battle is fought with less and less attention to what it means to the overall war.

Acceptance of openly gay people in the military means the next discussion will be qualification of gay couples for the same benefits received by traditional military families.

In all likelihood, we’ll see claims of discrimination if a gay person gets passed over for promotion and intimidated review committees will become increasingly politically correct.

But, hey, in the morally relative world, a glass half empty for one is half full for the other.

Increasing acceptance of homosexuality is viewed by many as social progress. The Seattle Times, for example, calls for a “modernized” military that accepts the openly gay.

But for this traditionalist, it’s no accident that building public acceptance of homosexuality is coincident with a general moral unraveling of our society, with all its destructive consequences.

According to Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank located in Washington, D.C., 32 percent of American households today are nontraditional compared to only 28 percent that are traditional, with a mother, father, and children. The remaining 40 percent are households without children. He points out that children in nontraditional households have considerably higher incidences of emotional and educational problems.

I would argue that most of the major costs dragging down our society today — whether its poverty, entitlements, health care, or housing — trace to our diminishing sense of personal responsibility and the erosion of traditional values.

Our first great general, George Washington, would be considered politically incorrect today cautioning against believing “that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle” and admonishing, “virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.”

“Gays in the military” is more than a question of military morale. It’s about the character of this country that we have a military to defend.

Who would question what George Washington would say about this important issue?

____________________________

Have you read these other articles by Star Parker yet?

Change we should worry about
Rejection of the Republican Party today is not a rejection of limited government and traditional values

Remind Hispanics that it’s about freedom
Why would Hispanics want to kill the goose laying eggs of opportunity by supporting the same kinds of ideas about government that they left behind?

Planned Parenthood and the marketing of meaninglessness
One-third of abortions are black babies

Drive energy policy by markets, not politics
Although we import two-thirds of our oil, it comes from well over twenty countries, mostly Canada and Mexico

GOP should reflect on Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech
Reagan’s leadership established the Republican brand in the 1980s, which stayed in ascendancy throughout the 90s, even through Clinton’s presidency

Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service

Send a comment to Star Parker

Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004
www.urbancure.org

CURE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

“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.”

Both PFLAG and the SLDN criticized Pace for comments he made during an interview with the Chicago Tribune in May 2007, when the general remarked: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” including adultery. …

However, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth — a group devoted to opposing “gay” activism — told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday that he was “stunned” by the homosexual lobby’s self-centeredness and vindictiveness in trashing Pace as he was about to be honored for his service to America.

“General Pace did nothing wrong in stating his moral and religious opposition to homosexual acts as immoral,” LaBarbera said. “Pace also said adultery is wrong, and yet I don’t see two ‘pro-adultery’ organizations out condemning him.

“These petty attacks on a good man’s character by PFLAG and the SLDN are just more evidence that homosexual activists put their selfish and misguided cause way above the national interest,” he stated.

“If we’ve come to the point in this country where our leaders cannot answer a question about homosexuality for fear of being demonized by the ‘Gay Thought Police,’ then we’ve lost the very freedom that Gen. Pace defended — and for which our heroic men and women in the armed forces paid the ultimate price to protect,” he added.

LaBarbera said PFLAG and SLDN should apologize to Gen. Pace “for using this moment when we as a nation honor our national leaders — so they could make a cheap point for a bad cause: bringing open homosexuality into the military during a time of war.”

Pace will join five other persons in receiving the Medal on Thursday, including: Benjamin Carson, M.D., for improving the lives “of those suffering from neurological disorders;” Anthony Fauci, M.D., for advancing “our understanding and treatment of HIV/AIDS;” and Tom Lantos, “the only Holocaust survivor to serve in the Congress.”

Click HERE to read the entire CNSNews.com story, “Homosexual Activists Oppose Medal for Retired General”

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.

Nathan Neighbor writes (emphasis added):

In this article by Ingrid, she links to this website: Americans for Truth about Homosexuality.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the website. I am trying really hard to figure out why Christians are so obsessed with letting the world know the truth behind homosexuality. If I felt like they were doing it because they cared deeply about the people who live the lifestyle, and want desperately for them to experience the life that God designed for them, I would not have a problem with all of it. However, that is certainly not the vibe I am getting from these sites. They are more concerned about winning their debate than facilitating life transformation in the hearts of homosexuals. It’s basically saying “we don’t care about you, but we want you to know that we completely disagree with your lifestyle.”

And why is it just homosexuality. They act as if that is the BIG sin in the scriptures, dismissing all other destructive behaviors and choices. So, I will faithfully be waiting for the following websites to emerge, if these people are really trying to get biblical truth out there:

Americans for Truth about Lying

Americans for Truth about Gossip

Americans for Truth about Bitterness

Americans for Truth about Slander

Americans for Truth about Poverty

Americans for Truth about Widows

Or maybe these groups are not at all concerned about people who are far from God connecting to, and living out the life that God dreams for them, but simply condemning those they disagree with. Unfortunately we are now warring over truth, and not warring for the hearts of people. I don’t think that’s what God was hoping we would become.

_________________________

AFTAH’s Response:

By Peter LaBarbera 

Dear Nathan, to turn your words around, I wonder if you are concerned at all about us (Americans For Truth and those who share our viewpoint). Perhaps you might have asked us directly why we do what we do — or accurately reported the many articles evincing our Christian care for the homosexual struggler — rather than merely offer your own (distorted) speculations as to our motives.

Yes, we are deeply concerned about people practicing homosexuality, which is why we offer people the loving Gospel of Jesus Christ, Who, we sincerely believe, has helped thousands of people overcome entrenched homosexual sin, just as He has helped people overcome — and be forgiven for — those other besetting sins you mention.

(Incidentally, I believe Christian “born again” conversions, despite being ridiculed by many gay activist and media cynics, are responsible for many more people leaving the homosexual lifestyle than ex-gay “reparative therapy”; however, the latter also has helped many change: see www.narth.com)

As to merely castigating gays, I have no basis for pride or a sense of superiority in that I — as one who struggles with my owns sins — am in need of the same grace of Christ as they are. Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Mark 2:17)

As to why we focus on homosexuality, the simplest answer is that we are trying to counter (albeit with considerably less resources) the huge pro-”gay” movement, which seeks to normalize and build acceptance for homosexuality in the culture. Here are a few of the homosexual activist groups, each of which focuses solely on promoting GLBT (gay, lesbian, bi, trans) issues:

Human Rights Campaign
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Lambda Legal
Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network
GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
PFLAG (Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)

The list goes on and on. Now I doubt you would deny that in a democracy, if these groups have a right to promote the acceptance of homosexuality — which we as Christians and adherents of other religious groups, and even many nonreligious people, believe is immoral — then we also have a right to organize and stand up for our point of view. It’s called the battle of ideas.

Moreover, the proliferation of groups rallying around the celebration of homosexuality is in marked contrast to the lack of groups devoted to the other sins you mentioned above. As far as I know, there is no Pro-Gossip Task Force, or even an Americans For Divorce Committee, so the homosexual agenda does stand out in that sense. (It seems the closest analogy would be the pro-abortion-on-demand and pro-pornography lobbies.)

Yes, we put out lots of articles defending historic Judeo-Christian norms on homosexuality, etc., but it pales in comparison to the information — we would call it misinformation — expounded by the overall GLBT movement.

We are simply trying to RESPOND to the other side’s crusade on this issue, just as pro-life groups are responding to Planned Parenthood, NOW [National Organization of Women], etc.. In other words, if we are “obsessed,” then our “gay” and “trans” opponents are all the more so, in that they spend far more time and money — specifically on the homosexual/transgender issue — promoting their ideology than the collective pro-family movement does opposing them. There are many, many more “pro-gay” activists than “anti-gay” activists — although I use that term advisedly in that we are ‘anti-gay’ only with regard to behavior. (We do not believe in “gay” personhood, i.e., as an inborn, natural or intrinsic identity.)

I personally believe that every homosexual “coming out” is a tragedy because it embraces the lie that “being gay” is “who I am.” Conversely, every “ex-gay” testimony is a wonderful sign of God’s goodness, His forgiveness, and His power. The growing “gay christian” movement denies the power of Jesus Christ to change lives, which is tragic in that we all know of people who have overcome terrible sins and addictions through Christ.

Funny how the same “gay” movement that gained such power and cultural acceptance through people communicating personal stories to others of their “gayness,” now spends so much time and effort questioning the existence of ex-gays.

To paraphrase Queer Nation (a very aggressive “gay” group in the 90′s), former homosexuals are “here, they’re no longer ‘queer,’ get used to it.”

As to your comment about “warring over truth, and not warring for the hearts of people. I don’t think that’s what God was hoping we would become” — what does this mean? We battle for truth in America and across the world. Christians seek to convert Muslims to the Truth of Christ’s Gospel, while Muslims seek to convert others to “their” truth. Both religions cannot be true; I believe Christianity and the Bible are true but, sadly, it seems many Muslims are more offended than Christians by sexual immorality. Our witness is tarnished.

In the same way, both the “gay” side and our side are in a struggle over truth, and how to define it. With the media mostly on the pro-homosexual side these days, groups like ours are in an uphill struggle, to be sure, but we are as convinced of our position as the “gay” activists are of theirs. And we shouldn’t be condemned for defending truth — God’s truth — in the public square.

The battle for Truth and the battle for men’s and women’s hearts is one and the same. We can do it in a spirit of the love of Christ — and that is what we try to do at Americans For Truth. Are we perfect? Far from it. But we’re trying to get some information out there in a culture where the media glamorizes sexual behaviors (homosexuality, sex outside marriage) that our Lord opposes as sinful. Perhaps we will step aside when the Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the other “gay” organizations fold up shop.  Best — pl

Peter LaBarbera
President, Americans For Truth about Homosexuality
www.americansfortruth.org 

Friends, heads up: ABC’s “Boston Legal” tonight (10:00 P.M. EST) will help further the radical “gay” agenda of opening up the America’s Armed Forces to open homosexuals — during wartime, no less.
 
The homosexual-bisexual-transsexual movement hypes its victimhood but it has incredible power and money as a small special interest group in society. At bottom, a well-heeled homosexual activist group, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), touts the “Boston Legal” episode, which probably could have been written by the SLDN itself, such is the propagandistic nature of pop culture today. If I were a gambler, I’d wager that the script advances the bogus “gay” activist analogy to ending racial discrimination and makes conservative opponents of homosexuals in the military out to be a “bigots” and irrational “homophobes.”

Crazed military “homophobes” have been a favorite target of liberal Hollywood snobs for years — remember Chris Cooper’s character in “American Beauty” — who of course turned out to be a repressed homosexual himself?

To read some outstanding articles clarifying current military policy and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deviously put in place by President Bill Clinton in 1993 — it does not conform to U.S. law — I recommend Elaine Donnelly’s Center for Military Readiness. Start with “Why the Law Did Not Get a Name of its Own.”  Elaine is a hero for truth on this and other military issues.

Aren’t you tired of the media’s and Hollywood’s round-the-clock promotion of all things homosexual? I am. And yet, remember this: they have the money, the influence, the elite network of behind-the-scenes and public backers of their cause. But we have the truth: homosexual behavior will always be wrong, and those who defend and practice it are fighting their own “war” — against a Creator who lovingly made man and woman to enjoy each other and beget children in marriage.

[Note to readers: the preceding paragraph was falsely attributed to Elaine Donnelly as a quotation by Ed Brayton, a homosexual advocate, writing for the Michigan Messenger.]

Meanwhile, the unheralded stories of changed EX-homosexuals like Charlene Cothran, an African-American who, with God’s help, overcame 29 years of lesbianism, expose as a lie the homosexual activists’ central “civil rights” premise of inborn “gay” identity. This debate is really over behavior, not “orientation” — and If homosexual behavior does not belong in the military, why would we allow in people who define themselves by that behavior?
 
Stay strong and don’t let the media decide YOUR morality. God bless,
 
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth
www.americansfortruth.org
 
P.S. You can see Charlene’s and David Parker’s exciting testimonies at Americans For Truth’s recent banquet by ordering the DVD below. All proceeds will benefit AFTAH as we seek to counter the rich and powerful homosexual lobby:
 
Order Cothran’s and David Parker’s Testimonies on DVD and support AFTAH!
To order a complete DVD (or CD) of both Charlene Cothran’s and David Parker’s outstanding talks at the recent Americans For Truth banquet, make an online donation of at least $25 postpaid to Americans For Truth (please use the online form to specify ’2007 Banquet DVD’). You can substitute an audio CD but you must request this specifically. To order by regular mail, send your check or money order specifying “2007 Banquet DVD” (or CD) to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

Bulk orders available: 2 for $40; 3 for $55; 4 for $70; add $10 for each additional DVD or contact us (630-717-7631) for large bulk order pricing.

____________________________

Here’s the SLDN e-mail promoting “Boston Legal’s” pro-homosexual episode:

Emmy-Winning Series Boston Legal Tackles “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Tonight on ABC    The Emmy Award-winning drama Boston Legal tackles discrimination, homophobia and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” tonight on ABC.     Tonight’s episode, titled Do Tell, involves the case of law partner Denny Crane’s Army buddy, General “Fitz” Fitzgerald.  Fitz shows up at the law firm of Crane Poole & Schmidt to tell Denny that he is gay . . . and he’s being discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  While Denny grapples with the surprising news about his friend’s sexual orientation, Shirley Schmidt (played by Emmy winner Candice Bergen) takes up Fitz’s case, suing the Army and challenging “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in court.    For more information, visit ABC’s official Boston Legal website, or read more about tonight’s episode at Frontlines or The Bilerico Project.  And check back on SLDN’s blog tomorrow morning for a full analysis of Do Tell.      Boston Legal airs tonight at 10pm EST on ABC.

As at past NLGJA conferences, conservative-leaning Fox News Network was among the sponsors and recruiters.

Titled “Breaking Stories, Breaking Waves,” the convention, held in downtown San Diego’s Westin Horton Plaza hotel, featured a one-day LGBT media summit, six receptions, and more than 50 sessions and workshops ranging from “Covering LGBT Conservatives” (oddly, the Christian-conservative-bashing Wayne Besen was a panelist), to “Will Gays Matter in ’08?” to “Sex Writing for Fun and Profit.”

Attendees included print and broadcast professionals from top U.S. mainstream news agencies such as CNN, Associated Press, ABC/Primetime, NBC, CBS, Fox News Network, Hearst Newspapers, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bloomberg News, Newsday, the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, CNBC, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Time Warner/Turner Broadcasting, Washington Post, Hartford Courant, People Magazine, NPR, Clear Channel Communications, Wired Magazine, Cox Enterprises, and USA Today.

Among major homosexual media outlets represented were the Washington Blade, Dallas Voice, San Diego’s Gay and Lesbian Times, GO Magazine, Gay News Watch, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Bay Area Reporter, IN Los Angeles Magazine, Sirius OutQ Radio, CBS News on LOGO, and here! Networks.

Other organizations who sent employees to the convention, according to an attendee directory distributed with the registration package, included Cirque de Soleil; MGM Mirage; USC Annenberg School of Communications; Human Rights Campaign (HRC); Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); Arizona State University Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication; JetBlue Airways; Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard; several Canadian tourism agencies; Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN); Lambda Legal; Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation; Out and Equal Workplace Advocates; Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Bureau; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The convention included plenary sessions on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and immigration issues affecting homosexuals, as well as a general session featuring a conversation with Larry Kramer, founder of the AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power (ACT UP), a radical, “in your face” demonstration group that made headlines in December, 1989, for disrupting a Catholic Mass and destroying a consecrated Communion host at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.

The Canadian Tourism Board was the presenting sponsor for the convention. Other sponsors included JetBlue Airways, CBS News, CNN, ESPN, General Motors, Toyota automobiles, Orbitz, Bloomberg, Coca-Cola,  the Gill Foundation, Sony Pictures and Television, visitBritain, ABC News, Fox News Network, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Washington Post.

Among “Career & Community Expo” participants were the Associated Press, Dow Jones, Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, MGM Mirage, Reuters, Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau, the New York Times, Fox News Network, and NBC Universal.

Other events occurring during the convention included a student projects, a documentary film screening, a “not so silent” auction, 12-step meetings, and a “San Diego Night Out.”

Americans For Truth sent reporter Allyson Smith to the convention for three days, where she attended more than a dozen sessions and raised issues of concern to pro-family advocates — including the biased manner in which “mainstream media” covers homosexuality-related issues. A full report about the sessions that Smith attended will follow in coming days.

“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces… It is inappropriate for the Chairman to condemn those who serve our country because of his own personal bias. He should immediately apologize for his remarks.” — C. Dixon Osburn, Executive Director of the pro-homosexuality Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Excerpted from Top General Calls Homosexuality ‘Immoral’, by Aamer Madhani, published Mar 12, 2007, by Chicago Tribune:

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Monday that he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving in the military because homosexual acts “are immoral,” akin to a member of the armed forces conducting an adulterous affair with the spouse of another service member.

Responding to a question about a Clinton-era policy that is coming under renewed scrutiny amid fears of future U.S. troop shortages, Pace said the Pentagon should not “condone” immoral behavior by allowing gay soldiers to serve openly. He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said in a wide-ranging discussion with Tribune editors and reporters in Chicago. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.

“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” Pace said.

Continue reading in Chicago Tribune…

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the new Speaker of the House, is considered one of the strongest gay rights supporters in Congress and has signed on as a co-sponsor to all 10 gay- and AIDS-related bills dropped in the hopper in recent years.

“She has said ENDA [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and the hate crimes bills have received widespread, bipartisan support,” said Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill. “She said they would be expected to come up quickly.”

It is urgent that pro-family citizens–Republicans, Democrats and independents alike–contact their U.S. Representative and Senators, as well as President Bush, to state their opposition to passage of all pro-homosexuality “sexual orientation” bills in the new Congress. At the top of the “gay” wish-list is ENDA, which we are calling the “ENDA-Our Freedom” Bill because it would use federal power to force businesses to support and subsidize homosexuality and gender confusion (“transgender”: think men in dresses, using female restrooms).

Also on the homosexual docket is a homosexuality/gender-inclusive “hate crimes” bill, which will be the precursor to the homosexual lobby’s ultimate goal of using the state to curtail anti-”gay”/”homophobic” (read: Christian and conservative) “hate speech.”

Beware the Democratic leadership’s bait-and-switch on Capitol Hill. The media reported how key Democrats in “swing” districts–like Christian pro-lifer and former NFL quarterback Heath Shuler (D-N.C.)–won by running away from liberalism and appealing to conservative values. Curtailing precious American freedoms in the service of a “gay” agenda that seeks to radically redefine the family and marriage–and punish people for living out their religious beliefs about sexuality and marriage–was not pominent in their campaign rhetoric. Please start making your voice heard to your elected legislators and President Bush today. – Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Contact the White House and your U.S. Senators and Representative with your opposition to these bills.

——————————-

The following is excerpted from New Congress Expected to Consider Gay Bills in ’07, by Lou Chibbaro Jr, published Dec 15, 2006, by the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade:

Top 10 gay bills in Congress

Gay-supportive members of Congress have introduced these bills at the request of gay rights or AIDS advocacy groups in recent years. All of them have died in committee after Republican leaders in the House and Senate refused to bring them up for a vote. The new Democratic-controlled Congress is expected to be more sympathetic toward the 10 bills, but Democratic leaders chose not to place any of them on their agenda for their first 100 days in office.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Calls for banning private sector employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act: Calls for giving the federal government authority to prosecute hate crimes based on a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Military Readiness Enhancement Act: Calls for repealing the U.S. military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy so that gay male, lesbian and bisexual troops would be allowed to serve openly.

Uniting American Families Act: Calls for amending the U.S. Immigration & Nationality Act to allow foreign nationals who are same-sex domestic partners of U.S. citizens to apply for the same immigration rights offered to foreign nationals who legally marry U.S. citizens. Similar to the existing law’s application to heterosexuals, the bill calls for prosecution of same-sex couples who fraudulently form a partnership to enable a foreigner to obtain immigration rights.

Domestic Partner Health Benefits Equity Act/Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act: Introduced respectively in the Senate and House, the identical bills call for amending the Internal Revenue Code to end taxation of health insurance benefits for domestic partners. Under the current IRS Code, legally married employees do not pay taxes on their employers’ contribution to their health insurance benefits that cover their spouses and dependent children. But gay and lesbian employees must pay taxes on similar benefits as if they were ordinary income.

Domestic Partners Benefits & Obligations Act: Calls for providing health insurance and other benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners of federal government employees. Under current law, these benefits are only available to legally married spouses of federal employees. The bill sets various requirements to define a domestic partnership, including an affidavit that the partners live together, are not relatives, are over 18 and are not married.

Clarification of Federal Employment Protections Act: Declares that, “federal employees are protected from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” and “[repudiates] any assertion to the contrary.” Gay-supportive members of the House of Representatives introduced the bill to overrule a controversial decision by U.S. Special Counsel Scott Bloch not to enforce a longstanding federal employment policy banning sexual orientation discrimination against federal workers.

Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act: Calls for amending the Family & Medical Leave Act of 1993 to allow government and private sector employees to take leave to care for a domestic partner who has a serious health condition. The bill also would allow medical leave for the care of a same-sex married partner or the parent-in-law, adult child, sibling or grandparent of a same-sex partner who has a serious health condition.

Responsible Education About Life Act: Calls for creating a $206 million federal grant program to award funds to states for comprehensive sexuality education that is not linked to advocacy of abstinence-only-until-marriage. Supporters say the bill is needed because existing sexuality education programs funded by the federal government are linked to abstinence-only policies.

Early Treatment for HIV Act: Calls for allowing low-income, childless adults with HIV to become eligible for Medicaid coverage before they develop full-blown AIDS. Under current law, people who meet the income requirements for Medicaid are ineligible for the federal health program if they have HIV but are not “disabled” by having AIDS.