Mayor Naugle is pictured above to the direct left of President Bush (he is facing the camera). At left, homosexual activists’ “Flush Naugle” website mocks his stand against homosexual public bathroom sex.

TAKE ACTION:  Watch yesterday’s Sun-Sentinel video of Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle’s press conference in which he apologizes for not doing more to stop homosexual “sex” in the city’s public and beach restrooms. Naugle also opposes housing a homosexual library collection containing hard-core pornographic items in a public library.  E-mail Mayor Naugle at mayorjames@aol.com, and thank him for refusing to be intimidated by a vocal fringe and the liberal media. And contact the Ft. Lauderdale city commissioners and urge them to support the Mayor’s push to protect children and uphold decency.

A note on the Naugle story: will the day ever come when LEADERS of the proud “gay” lobby apologize for their community’s own excesses — e.g., tolerating or encouraging men to commit anonymous sodomies with other men in public restrooms, parks, and bathhouses (sex clubs)?

Kudos to Mayor Naugle. I almost fell off my seat watching this video. Finally, a public servant with the courage to stand up to the homosexual militants and their fellow travelers in the media. Imagine: a big-city mayor tries to stop gross perversions from occurring in public places — and the pro-“gay” lobby says HE is the problem and is embarrassing the city! — Peter LaBarbera  

_________________________

From today’s Florida Sun-Sentinel Newspaper:

Fort Lauderdale mayor issues apology, but not to gay community 

FORT LAUDERDALE — Mayor Jim Naugle issued a public apology on the steps of City Hall Tuesday afternoon, but it wasn’t the apology the gay community was looking for.

Naugle apologized for underestimating the problem of men having sex with each other in public restrooms, and urged people to call police to complain when they come upon it. He also said Broward County leads the nation in the incidence of new AIDS cases involving men having sex with men, and questioned whether the county tourism office should be welcoming them here.

Naugle alerted the media that he was holding a news conference that would include “an apology.”

Gay activists and others have been calling for a public apology form the mayor, and for his resignation, since the South Florida Sun-Sentinel published Naugle’s comments earlier this month about gays. In article about a proposed self-cleaning, automatic toilet the city was going to buy for the beach, Naugle said an added benefit would be that it would deter men from using it for “homosexual activity,” which he said was a problem in public restrooms.

Click HERE to read the rest of the Sun-Sentinel story (and watch Mayor Naugle’s press conference)

MTV’s “gay” LOGO network is sponsoring the homosexual presidential debate August 9th.

By Peter LaBarbera 

In trying to put into perspective the stunning yet sad news of the first-ever “gay” activist-sponsored presidential “debate” — to be held in Los Angeles on August 9, and aired over the MTV-owned homosexual network LOGO — we ask: when is the follow-up debate for those advocating sex outside marriage? (After all, people once said to be “living in sin” are now a sizeable minority in America.) How about one tailored specifically to the pro-drug legalization crowd? Is a Planned Parenthood-sponsored debate, complete with Gloria Steinem as lead questioner, around the corner?

Pardon our dismissive tone, but homosexual behavior is wrong — at least half the country still regards it as such.  It is one of several sexual sins opposed by God (can I still say that without being charged with a “hate crime”?).  Because same-sex acts are so unnatural, they can be highly destructive — witness the high percentage of AIDS cases — 71 percent — linked to MSM (“men who have sex with men”).  Homosexuality is also changeable, as testified by the many men and women who once proudly identified as “gay” or “lesbian” but who have walked away from homosexuality and are living happy lives today.

We know that it’s not Politically Correct to say these things.  Fine, but last I heard, God is not rewriting His moral code according to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Or the GOP, or even the smug scribblers on the Washington Post’s editorial pages, for that matter. For the record, He hasn’t declared unborn babies mere blobs of tissue, either — though many politicians and reporters would love to be rid of that moral irritant.

So why does the homosexual lobby get its own special presidential lovefest … er, debate? Because the Democratic Party has sold its soul on homosexuality. And we fear some in the Republican Party are rushing to catch up.

The “gay presidential debate” is so wrong on so many levels. The country is still divided on homosexuality — despite the media’s best efforts — yet all the questions presumably will come from ardently pro-“gay” advocates — that is, proud, practicing homosexuals.

One of the reported questioners is lesbian rock star Melissa Etheridge.  Another is Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the world’s biggest “gay” lobby organization and a group that regularly disparages people of faith opposed to homosexuality as haters and bigots. Yep, lots of journalistic objectivity here.

Will there be a corresponding, “gay”-positive GOP presidential debate — hosted by the Log Cabin Republicans?  Where does the pandering end?  Who represents the tens of millions of Americans who morally object to homosexuality, and who stand to lose their religious and First Amendment freedoms if HRC’s radical agenda is enacted? (I hereby volunteer my services as a conservative questioner if the organizers care to make a pretense of journalistic objectivity.)

Even if one could conceive of a reason to have a “homosexual presidential debate,” why would the questioners all be of the liberal-left persuasion? (I confess I don’t know much about Etheridge’s political leanings, but how about at least including a “gay” libertarian like Rick Sincere to mix things up?) Is there any doubt that HRC is sponsoring this debate to push the candidates further toward embracing its radical statist agenda, including “gay marriage,” “hate crimes” and “transgender rights”?

“We’re honored to give the presidential candidates an historic opportunity to share their views directly with the LGBT audience,” says Brian Graden, President, Entertainment, MTV Networks Music Group, and President of LOGO. “This forum continues MTV Networks’ tradition of engaging vital niche audiences with voting and the electoral process.”

Three clues as to which oversized “niche audience” is getting the shaft this presidential campaign season. (Here’s one clue: LOGO’s and HRC’s websites will be taking questions from the public for the debate, but somehow I don’t think a social conservative’s question will make it on air.)

The MTV-LOGO debate is a sham, but the sad thing is: if “mainstream” journalists were substituted for the homosexual activist questioners, the tenor of the evening likely would remain the same. Because these days it’s getting harder and harder to distinguish between the “gay”-cheerleading media and “gay” activists themselves.

 Will the Church of England be forced to hire John Reaney, a homosexual man, as a youth worker despite its beliefs about sex and marriage?

We’ll have much more on this case and other cases evincing the growing threat of homosexual legal activism to basic religious freedoms:

Bishop Loses Gay Employment Case

BBC, July 18, 2007 

A gay man has won his case for unlawful discrimination after he was refused a youth official’s job by a Church of England bishop.

The employment tribunal said John Reaney, 42, was discriminated against “on grounds of sexual orientation” by the Hereford diocesan board of finance.

Mr Reaney, from Colwyn Bay, Conwy, said he was “delighted” at the decision.

The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was “naturally disappointed” and may appeal.

During the tribunal in Cardiff in April, Mr Reaney said he was questioned by Bishop Priddis on his previous gay relationship during a two-hour meeting on 19 July 2006

It came after he was told he had emerged as the outstanding candidate for the job during an eight-man interview, the hearing heard.

Mr Reaney, whose case was supported by Stonewall, also told the tribunal he was left “very embarrassed and extremely upset” following the meeting and said he felt like “a total waste of space”.

During his evidence, Bishop Priddis said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post.

But the tribunal found that the bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his future relationships.

Delivering the judgement, the tribunal said the case would now be listed for a remedy hearing.

“The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation,” said the judgement.

To read the full BBC story and watch related BBC videos on the case, click HERE

TAKE ACTION:  Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or e-mail them at www.congress.urg and ask them to reject the “Hate Crimes” amendment that Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) cynically added to the National Defense Authorization Act.   

 Mary Stachowicz: not the right kind of victim to the media

We favored the death penalty for alleged homosexual Nick Gutierrez for murdering Mary Stachowicz — and then effectively blaming her for “attacking” him (see story below) — just as we called for the death penalty for Matthew Shepard’s killers. But isn’t it interesting how the media have devoted so much coverage over the years to the heinous crime against Matthew, and so little to that against Mary? (Associated Press failed to even cover Gutierrez’s trial.)

How can reporters, producers and editors justifty their double-standard? These days it can be presumed that the Fourth Estate will lavish coverage on “gay” victims, while pious victims like Mary often get ignored. And it seems the media have even less interest in the latter when the murderer is a homosexual — imagine AP ignoring a story about a ‘christian’ who killed a lesbian and stuffing her in his crawl space? I cannot.

In a way, the media’s blatant pro-homosexual bias in covering terrible crimes shows the perils of the “hate crimes” concept in general — both affirm a politically correct hierarchy of victims that is unjust and un-American, no matter how well-intended. Surely, press bias also helps to perpetuate the lopsided prosecution of “hate crimes” against approved classes of victims (like Shepard) by mobilizing government resources through the pressure-generating power of the media spotlight. 

The homosexual lobby named its “thought crimes” bill the “Matthew Shepard Act” — even though he wasn’t killed “just because he was gay,” as the liberal myth goes. But there will never be a “Mary Stachowicz Act” because in the eyes of the same liberals, she was not the right kind of victim.

Call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or e-mail them at http://www.congress.urg/ and ask them to reject the “Hate Crimes” amendment that Sen. Ted Kennedy tacked on to the Naional Defense Authorization Act.  — Peter LaBarbera

____________________________

Nicholas Gutierrez, murderer of Mary Stachowicz, deserves death penalty but gets life in prison 

By Allyson Smith, Americans For Truth

CHICAGO — Nicholas Gutierrez, who in November 2002 gruesomely murdered Mary Stachowicz, a devout Chicago Catholic mother of four, was sentenced July 3 to life in prison, even though his crime made him eligible for the death penalty. The sentence was handed down by Cook County Circuit Judge William Lacy following sentencing arguments made by defense and prosecution attorneys the previous week.

“I think the judge was fair, but as the daughter of the victim, knowing what he [Gutierrez] did to my mother, he absolutely, 100 percent deserved the death penalty,” Angie Ruffolo, Mrs. Stachowicz’s daughter, told the Chicago Tribune.

Last November, Gutierrez, who had worked with Mary Stachowicz at the F. J. Sikorski Funeral Home on Chicago’s Northwest side, was convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering her. Days after her murder, authorities found Stachowicz’s raped, battered, stabbed and strangled body in a crawl space beneath the floorboards of Gutierrez’s apartment above the mortuary.

From American Family Association’s OneNewsNow news. Click HERE for a link to OneNewsNow where there is an audio link to this story:

A pro-family activist says the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination are “pandering to the gay lobby” by agreeing to take part in a televised debate moderated by homosexual activists.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates … plan to take part in a one-hour debate August 9 devoted solely to “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” (GLBT) issues. The debate will be televised live from Los Angeles on the Viacom-owned homosexual television network “LOGO.”

According to Peter LaBarbera, director of Americans for Truth Action, Joe Solmonese — president of the Washington, DC-based Human Rights Campaign, one of the country’s most powerful homosexual activist groups — will be moderating the debate. HRC is coordinating the debate through a partnership with LOGO.

“The whole thing is structured to be pro-homosexual — and one wonders what candidates are doing to be sensitive to the pro-family people who still believe homosexuality is wrong,” exclaims LaBarbera.

The family advocate notes that polls that are “probably politically correct” show that half the country still believes homosexual behavior is wrong. “[The percentage is] probably much higher than that,” LaBarbera says, “but this is just astonishing that this development is happening and it’s being treated as a serious debate.”

The White House hopefuls will be asked questions by a panel that includes Solmonese and lesbian singer Melissa Etheridge. Questions will reportedly cover topics such as same-sex “marriage,” “hate crimes” legislation, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. One news report indicates individuals will also be able to submit questions online.

LaBarbera calls the debate “one of the most extraordinary developments in our country’s history.” He laments the societal mindset from which such an event would even occur.

“A debate framed from a pro-homosexual perspective — when homosexual behavior, for centuries, [for] thousands of years, was regarded as deeply sinful by Christians and people who believe in God,” he says. “It’s just astonishing. I’m waiting for the adultery presidential debate or maybe the pro-drug use presidential debate.

“Who ever heard of framing a presidential debate around a sin?” he asks.

We hope that openly lesbian Detroit News Columnist Deb Price is correct and that her homosexual activist comrades have much to fear in the direction of the Supreme Court. However, it is frightenng to think that so much is riding on decisions of swing Justice Anthony Kennedy — who in his opinions (e.g., Lawrence v. Texas) has often seemed more interested in pleasing the editorial writers at the New York Times than being faithful to the Constitution.– Peter LaBarbera

From Price’s column July 16:

Court threatens to burn fragile protections

In 1992, vacationing on the big island of Hawaii, I walked toward a river of blood red lava shooting over a cliff and into the sea. I recall looking for a sign, rope or “Hawaii Five-O’s” Steve McGarrett to warn me to stop.

But a giant caution sign wasn’t necessary. The instant I knew not to step a hair’s breadth farther was when I felt the soles of my tennis shoes starting to soften.

A similarly red hot warning — “Tread closer at your own peril” — poured out from the U.S. Supreme Court this term to gay Americans.

The Roberts court — whose votes in nongay cases strongly signaled that Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito can be expected to join Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in opposing almost any imaginable gay-rights plea — is moving frighteningly close to having the five votes it would need to weaken the groundbreaking rulings of 1996 and 2003 acknowledging that gay Americans are protected by the Constitution….

“This term confirmed a lot of our fears,” says Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

What alarmed gay rights litigators? A string of 5-4 decisions against the powerless or minorities: Rulings blocking workers from suing over sex discrimination if it’s not discovered immediately; ignoring public school students’ free-speech rights, and hampering efforts to create racially diverse schools.

To read Price’s full column, click HERE

Fox News reports the following:

Deductive Reasoning

 

A 63-year-old Boston resident is suing the IRS because it is refusing to allow a $25,000 deduction — for a sex-change operation.

 

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain was a married father of three — when he underwent the operation at age 57. The IRS rejected the write-off — saying the tax code does not allow deductions for cosmetic surgery unless it is medically necessary. O’Donnabhain says the surgery follows a medical diagnosis of gender identity disorder, and advocates say it should be treated like other medical procedures. They say the IRS ruling is motivated by politics and prejudice.

 

O’Donnabhain’s case could set a precedent for the up to 2,000 people a year who undergo sex-change surgery in the U.S.

 

—FOX News Channel’s Martin Hill contributed to this report.