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.
Full Convert to Immorality: Chris Dodd (D-CT) joins Al Gore and other Democrats who have embraced “same-sex marriage” despite the judgment of their own religion that homosexual acts are immoral and disordered. Dodd, a Catholic, is also strongly in favor of abortion-on-demand and received a 100 percent ranking from NARAL.
By Peter LaBarbera
I just saw this on homosexual activist Joe Jervis’ blog: Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) becomes the latest liberal Democrat to sell out his purported religious faith (Dodd is Catholic) to embrace the revolutionary, oxymoronic concept of homosexual “marriage.” More proof that the jump between “civil unions” and “gay marriage” is far shorter than the chasm between government recognition and non-recognition of immoral homosexual relationships. What motivates Dodd? It appears that it mostly comes down to the “principle of fairness” — a principle that seems to elude pro-homosexual advocates when faced with the quest of multiple-partner “truples” or “quadruples” (or whatever) to “marry.” (If marriage is gender-neutral and just about “love,” then why not allow “committed” polygamous “marriages”?)
The following letter regarding the proposed Hate Crimes Prevention Act was sent by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to Senate leaders:
June 16, 2009
Re: S. 909
Dear Mr. President and Distinguished Senators:
We write today to urge you to vote against the proposed Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (S. 909) (“MSHCPA”)
We believe that MSHCPA will do little good and a great deal of harm. Its most important effect will be to allow federal authorities to re-prosecute a broad category of defendants who have already been acquitted by state juries—as in the Rodney King and Crown Heights cases more than a decade ago Due to the exception for prosecutions by “dual sovereigns,” such double prosecutions are technically not violations of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the U.S. Constitution But they are very much a violation of the spirit that drove the framers of the Bill of Rights, who never dreamed that federal criminal jurisdiction would be expanded to the point where an astonishing proportion of crimes are now both state and federal offenses. We regard the broad federalization of crime as a menace to civil liberties. There is no better place to draw the line on that process than with a bill that purports to protect civil rights.
Folks, this article from the homosexual Washington Blade newspaper is a must-read. Note that pro-homosexual strategists in Washington fear a filibuster of a “stand alone” version of the bill. We’ve included the key portions below. TAKE ACTION: the anti-Christian homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign is pushing hard to get “Hate Crimes” passed. Call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to oppose S. 909 or any “Hate Crimes” legislation — as an amendment or a stand-alone bill. For more on the dangers of Orwellian “Thought Crimes” laws, go HERE, HERE and a legal analysis of the House version of S. 909 HERE.
____________________________
Excerpted from the Washington Blade:
Senate to pass hate crimes bill as amendment HRC calls for vote before summer’s end
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Jun 8 2009
Senate leadership has decided to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to another bill instead of a standalone piece of legislation, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Trevor Thomas, an HRC spokesperson, told the Blade in a statement Monday that the Senate settled on this method of passage.
“We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle,” he said.
Would Smarty Pants Lesbian U. be required to endorse an ex-gay evangelical campus club?
If Rachel Maddow were to form Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU), would it be forced to recognize a Christian ex-“gay” student club? At left, the openly lesbian MSNBC talker interviews Brian Diaz, head of a student Democratic club that was denied recognition by Liberty University. See YouTube video at bottom of this story.
By Peter LaBarbera
Nobody has mastered the art of snide inflections and biased liberal hit “journalism” as quickly and masterfully as MSNBC’s resident smarty-pants lesbian talker, Rachel Maddow (see this lesbian site’s story). Check out Maddow’s exaggerated pronunciation of “LGBT” in the YouTube video below as she attempts to skewer Liberty University for banning a campus Democratic Club. (Read the Democratic Party Platform HERE.) Now, at the risk of not knowing my place at the back of the bus as an Idiot Evangelical in Maddow’s World, I’d like to help her understand the principle of American liberty at stake in this case:
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the mannish Maddow and her female partner established the Smarty Pants Lesbian Liberal Party (SPLLP) for the purpose of mobilizing snarky lesbians and liberal fellow travelers to influence government and culture. Furthermore, the determined duo also create (with a Tim Gill financial assist) Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU) to train up annual cadres of mini-Maddows to permeate the media and other culture-influencing institutions. (We’re not sure if non-lesbian feminists or males would be admitted to SPLU.)
Now, here’s our questions for Ms. Maddow: let’s say a covert SPLLP member were to trick her way past Liberty U.’s faith-based admission process, become a Liberty student and then suddenly apply for recognition of her SPLLP club on campus. (I envision a special appearance on MSNBC and sympathetic interviews in all the liberal media.) Would Liberty U. be obligated to recognize the Smarty Pants Lesbian Party? Of course not — it would impinge upon and undermine Liberty’s right to propagate its own belief system to students. In fact, Liberty would be within its rights to expel the troublemaking student, at the risk of making her even a bigger star in Maddow’s World.
In the same vein, take a lesbian student who finds Christ at Maddow’s Smarty Pants Lesbian U. (someone smuggled a Bible to her inside a lesbian magazine). The reborn, ex-“gay” woman now desires to form an Ex-Lesbians for Christ Club (ELCC) on campus. Would Maddow and Smarty Pants Lesbian U. be required to recognize the evangelical, homosexuality-opposing Christian club? Certainly not. That would violate their right to propagate their bitter, snide, left-wing, pro-homosexual, Christian- and Republican-hating ideology — thus jeopardizing their master-plan to spawn Rachel Maddow clones across America! And yes, Smarty Pants U. would be within its rights to expel the righteous former lesbian.
Young Democrat Club president Brian Diaz does not understand the difference between liberty and (state-enforced) egalitarianism (“I think that you should definitely be equal and show both sides of the issue equally,” he tells Maddow). Apparently Liberty University accepts federal student aid and loan dollars (as Maddow mentions on air) but if that ultimately translates into being forced to accept groups like the Democratic Club that defy its foundational Christian beliefs, then we believe it would be time to refuse federal monies — like Hillsdale College does — for the sake of freedom. Now watch the Rachel Maddow video (conservatives: brace yourselves):
Does President Obama recognize that he has no mandate to repeal “Defense of Marriage Act,” which protects states from outside homosexual “marriages”
Obama: No “Gay” Agenda Mandate: President Obama’s website has removed his radical campaign promise to work for the repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama’s liberal homosexual/transsexual agenda was barely discussed in the election campaign, so he has no mandate to accomplish these goals: pro-homosexual/transgender federal “Hate Crimes” legislation; repeal DOMA; homosexualize the U.S. military (repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”); enact federal “civil unions” legislation; pass “ENDA Our Freedom” law (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), which would force businesses to conform to federal “superior rights” based on same-sex- and gender-confused “identities”; and homosexualizing the U.S. immigration process (treating homosexual couples like married couples). TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121, www.congress.org) and urge them to reject Obama’s homosexual agenda — including Hate Crimes. Tell them you oppose any bill that would establish the U.S. Government as endorsing immoral homosexual behavior or relationships, and that would invariably result in a loss of freedom for moral-minded Americans.
By Peter LaBarbera
Is President Obama indicating that repealing a law that protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages” — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by President Clinton and passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996 – is now a low priority for his administration? We hope so, given that support for traditional marriage, between a man and a woman, remains strong throughout the country.
The White House has stripped Obama’s anti-DOMA pledge(“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act …”) from its website, as part of new, tighter language under the “Civil Rights” section dealing with homosexuality. Already homosexual activists are chafing at the slow pace of “change” offered by Obama in support of their agenda; many will not appreciate the public scrubbing of his DOMA promise – even though most Americans probably are unaware of it in the first place, as it barely surfaced in the presidential campaign. (Obama hardly has a mandate on DOMA; in fact, in informally questioning voters, I have yet to find an Obama supporter who was aware that Mr. Obama even made the anti-DOMA promise.)
Augusta, ME – Today, Democratic Governor John Baldacci (right) signed into law LD 1020, which legalizes same-sex “marriage” in Maine. His decision follows yesterday’s vote of 89-57 in the House and a 21-14 vote in the Senate, both of which are controlled by Democrats. Now the people of Maine must act to amend the state constitution to affirm the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Gov. Baldacci had the opportunity to veto the bill, but instead signed it into law as quickly as possible, not giving the people of Maine any time to make their voice heard on the matter.
This is a very useful piece from my good friend, John Biver, who is doing outstanding work along with Jack Roeser and the guys at Champion News in holding Illinois’ consistently dysfunctional Illinois Republican Party leaders accountable. Of course, a similar principle might apply to pro-life and pro-family Democrats who are fed up with their party’s lock-step support of the homosexualist and abortion-on-demand agendas, with one key difference: the Democrat Party platform promotes government support for abortion and homosexuality, whereas the GOP’s, as John writes, does not. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
______________________________________
Does a Republican Precinct Committeeman have to support all GOP candidates?
Last week a good friend who is newly involved in his township GOP organization asked me if I thought he was obligated to work for Republican candidates he felt he couldn’t support. As an example, he said he can’t support Republican Congresswoman Judy Biggert because of her co-sponsoring of Republican Mark Kirk’s dangerous and wrong-headed H.R. 1913 [the “Thought Crimes” bill].
It’s a good question, since there seems to be some misunderstanding about the role of precinct committeemen, the party itself, and the people it elects.
Rep. Barney Frank, proud homosexual activist and Massachusetts Democrat, is the personification of modern American liberalism — corrupt, perverted, intolerant, smug and condescending. We’re surprised that Frank neglected to work an accusation of “homophobia” into his evasive response to a question from Joel Pollak, a well-spoken Harvard Law student who dared to publicly challenge Frank about his role in the current financial crisis. Watch this entire 6-minute segment from Greta van Susteren’s show on FOX yesterday — particularly the part where Pollak explains his exodus from liberalism. This guy is going places.–Peter LaBarbera
Full Convert to Immorality: Chris Dodd (D-CT) joins Al Gore and other Democrats who have embraced “same-sex marriage” despite the judgment of their own religion that homosexual acts are immoral and disordered. Dodd, a Catholic, is also strongly in favor of abortion-on-demand and received a 100 percent ranking from NARAL. 
