TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators at 202-224-3121 and tell them to actively oppose “hate crimes” legislation (H.R. 1592: the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act). And help Janet Folger and Faith2Action’s StopHateCrimesNow.com campaign run national ads to educate Americans on the dangerous specter of federal “Hate Crimes” legislation.

Take a minute to watch both online ads about two grandmothers who were arrested under Pennsylvania’s pro-homosexual “Hate Crimes” law for sharing the Gospel at a Philadelphia “gay pride” event. Please help buy more airtime for these ads. Janet Folger is doing her part to preserve our freedom: are you doing yours? — Peter LaBarbera

                                                   ——————————————————

Rep. Conyers’ ‘Hate Grandma’ Bill Introduced in House 

By Janet Folger 

t’s all about hate. And judging by the introduction of H.R. 1592, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., must hate free speech. He must hate equality. And he must hate…grandma. And I think it’s a crime. You see, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee just introduced the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act” which would not only restrict our speech and remove equal justice, but it would give senior citizens (and the rest of us) less protection than homosexual activists.

So, if you’re going to mug someone, better make sure it’s grandma (unless she’s become a lesbian) – because if the guy whose money you steal happens to be a homosexual, you’re looking at a triple sentence. Go after grandma, and it’s one-third off! Hey, why don’t we save everyone a lot of time and just hand out “Conyers’ Coupons for Criminals!”

Besides it’s way cheaper than the blank check (“such sums as are necessary”) that’s included to “increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to alleged violations.” Here come the thought police. HR 1592 mandates that the Department of Justice “shall award grants” to “state and local programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.” Here come the re-education camps….

Read the rest of Folger’s article in WorldNetDaily by clicking HERE

To express your appreciation to Indianapolis Colts Coach
Tony Dungy for his firm stand, click HERE.

From Dungy Affirms Opposition to Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, by Kevin Jackson, published Mar 21, 2007, by The Christian Post:

Tony Dungy, the Christian coach of this year’s Super Bowl champions, clearly laid out his position against same-sex “marriage” Tuesday night.

In front of a crowd of 700 at the Indiana Family Institute (IFI)’s banquet, the Indianapolis Colts coach agreed with IFI’s position of defining a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

“I appreciate the stance they’re taking,” he said, according to the Indianapolis Star, “and I embrace that stance.”

Before the awards dinner, several pro-homosexual and gay rights groups had criticized Dungy for attending the event. IFI, which has affiliations with Focus on the Family, has been a major voice in supporting a marriage amendment that is currently in the Indiana House, legally defining marriage as one man and one woman. The gay rights groups felt the professional football coach should stay away from all politics.

“We’re not anti-anything else,” explained Dungy, according to USA Today. “We’re not trying to downgrade anyone else. But we’re trying to promote the family – family values the Lord’s way.”

The coach went on to say that his comments should not be looked at as “gay bashing,” but that everything he said should be looked at from his foundation on faith.

Dungy attended the banquet held in Carmel, Ind., about 20 miles north of Indianapolis, to receive the group’s “Friend of the Family” award. Past recipients include Shirley Dobson, co-founder of Focus on the Family, and former federal independent counsel Kenneth Starr.

During his speech, the night’s honoree said he was not ashamed to be at the event.

“IFI is saying what the Lord says,” explained Dungy, according to USA Today. “You can take that and make your decision on which way you want to be. I’m on the Lord’s side.”

Excerpted from Brazilian Priests Could Face Jail-time for Saying that Homosexuality is A Sin, by Meg Jalsevac, published Mar 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Brazil’s Senate is currently engaged in a debate over proposed legislation that would criminalize anything deemed a condemnation of homosexuality.  The new legislation, labeled the ‘homophobia law’ would demand jail time for violations of the law and would not provide for any religious exception.

…According to ZENIT, priests who preached against homosexuality could face 3 to 5 years in jail and seminaries would not be permitted to reject applicants based on their sexual orientation.

…Exodus Brazil, the Brazilian branch of the international ex-homosexual ministry, has expressed grave concern about the law saying, “It will extinguish ex-gay ministry in Brazil for all practical purposes.”

Brazil has been a recent leader in pushing for gay rights and trumping traditional family values.  In 2005, Brazil legalized homosexual adoption.  As previously reported by LifeSiteNews.com, Brazilian ambassadors have been the driving force behind a 2006 proposal to the Organization of American States to designate sexual orientation an “inalienable right” with full human-rights protection.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Excerpted from Outlawing Conscience, by Chuck Colson, published Mar 20, 2007, by Breakpoint:

…The persecution against the Church has taken a decisive turn in the cradle of civil liberty—the United Kingdom (UK). And it will happen in America, also, if we do not wake up to the danger.

In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral…

And we know about this. Last summer, the British government closed down our IFI unit because we teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the government say? “Too bad.”

Luke Gormally, a fellow at London’s Linacre Centre, a Christian bioethics institute, put it this way:

“The Committee could not be clearer in saying that they believe the freedom to live a practicing homosexual lifestyle trumps the freedom to live a religious lifestyle.”

…Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the Blair government’s refusal to allow a full debate in the House of Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The regulations were upheld.

Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

On that day, many Christians will be found at a prayer vigil in Old Palace Yard near the entrance to the House of Lords. [TAKE ACTION –] We need to be praying with them, because it is going to take a miracle to keep this law from passing.

Continue reading at Breakpoint…

Excerpted from School Disciplines Students for Using the Term ‘Gay’, by Allie Martin and Jody Brown, published Mar 20, 2007, by One News Now:

…Last month, administrators at Gibson Elementary in Fresno informed parents that students would be disciplined for using the word “gay” in a negative fashion. A fourth-grader at the school has already been suspended for saying “that’s gay” during a soccer game — a phrase school administrators claim constitutes “sexual harassment” — and another student was sent to the principal for a similar infraction.

Continue reading at One News Now…

Will it go this far in America before we wake up?

From Quebec Readies All out Fight Against “Homophobia” with Pro-Gay Gov’t Ministry, Ads, Education, by John-Henry Westen, published Mar 16, 2007, by LifeSite News:

A report issued at the behest of the provincial government of Quebec directs the government to fight homopshobia and heterosexism in every sphere of public life and especially in schools.  Quebec’s Justice minister asked the Quebec Human Rights Commission to create a task force in 2005, and that group has published its report called “From legal equality to social equality: toward a national strategy to fight against homophobia.”

The report ascribes to homophobia negative consequences of what many acknowledge as problems associated with disordered sexuality.  The report says that homosexual, bisexual and transsexual persons are “a population at risk,” noting that they experience higher rates of psychological distress, depression, illegal drug use, alcoholism, and suicidal tendencies.  The report claims that these afflictions are the result of heterosexist “social stigmatization” and “homophobia.”

While psychologists who assist people to overcome disordered sexuality see many of the afflictions mentioned as symptoms of the homosexual disorder, the report uses the plight of the many people who find themselves in such heart-rending situations to urge for political action which will threaten freedom of religion and freedom of speech regarding the immorality and dangers of the homosexual lifestyle.  “The despair felt by too many young people of sexual minorities at the very significant stage of their coming out is alone enough to demand urgent action,” said Marc-Andre Dowd, vice-president of the Commission, in a press conference on the release of the document.

The report defines homophobia as “feelings of fear and aversion which certain people have toward homosexuality and people of homosexual orientation, or toward any person whose appearance or behavior does not conform to the stereotypes of the masculinity or of femininity.”

The report defines heterosexism as “the assertion that heterosexuality is the social norm or superior to other sexual orientations.”

The report calls for an all out assault on homophobia and herterosexism, going so far as to demand a separate government ministry be established to oversee the fight against homophobia.  It recommends that the new administration to fight homophobia be granted adequate resources to ensure development and implementation, and that the government engage in media campaigns to promote positive attitudes towards homosexuality and lesbianism.

By Peter LaBarbera

Flee from sexual immorality.
Every other sin a person commits is outside the body,
but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
— I Corinthians 6:18

Warning: Honest yet offensive descriptions of supposedly “moral” homosexual sex acts follow.

I am fascinated by the media debate launched by Gen. Pace’s simple and true statement that homosexual acts are immoral. Post-modern (read: post-Christian) liberals — who think they’re smarter than the rest of us — are apoplectic, but my heart is lifted. Isn’t moral clarity wonderful? The alternative to Pace’s honest agreement with God’s morality (no polls here) is Sen. John Warner’s and other pandering politicians’ — and the media’s — moral confusion.

If homosexual acts are not immoral, then are they moral? I know it’s disgusting, but think for a moment about what homosexual sodomy is: Dr. John Diggs says it’s almost as if anal sex “was created to spread disease.” “Gay” writer Jack Hart states that “some practices common among gays — especially rimming [“orally stimulating the anus,” according to another “gay” enthusiast] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.”

Highly efficient at transmitting disease… makes sense. What is immoral and unnatural is also often very dangerous. Turns out that deviant sex and normal sex are not “equal.”

Yet our schools are telling kids that “being gay” is fine — come join our “Gay/Straight Alliance” school club! Now that’s immoral.

We should demand answers from the equivocating politicians and agnostic media: is it moral for men to engage in anal sodomy with one another? Is it moral for a man to stick his sex organ in the anus or mouth of another man? What about licking another man’s anus, as an act of pleasure? (Again, “rimming” … yuck…. no wonder “gay” advocates call this the “ick factor” and avoid publicly discussing actual homosexual behaviors like the plague.)

Is “sex” between women — sadly, a popular feature in straight male pornography — moral? Is it moral when lesbians use “sex toys” to mimic normal sex or anal sex?

Are you starting to see why the other side would rather be talking in euphemisms — equality, discrimination, “sexual orientation,” “same-sex love” and “gay” — rather than the morality of homosexual acts?

And do you see why they are desperate to block messages about healthy and happy ex-“gays,” like my friend Stephen Bennett or ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran, from reaching the public?

Of course, typical of situational ethics, the same “gay” activists who scold us for “inequality” and “discrimination” have no problem — at least for now — discriminating against the “polyamory” activists who yearn for multiple-partner marriages.

Upon what authority?

Another question for the “gays” and their allies: on what basis do you declare sex acts between persons of the same sex moral (not immoral)? Please tell us so we can instruct our children and appropriately re-configure our Bibles — like “gay” actor Ian McKellen, who rips out the parts of the Bible condemning homosexuality from the Gideon Bible when he stays at hotels.

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality,
but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”
— I Corinthians 6:13

The liberals’ and libertarians’ folly is that they pretend to have greater authority than God to decide these issues. (Sadly, a large chunk of America has also lost its fear of God: a new Culture & Media Institute survey found that only 52 percent of U.S. respondents “say they believe the Bible is God’s authoritative word” on how to live.) But the secularists have nothing to substitute for Biblical truth but lies and ideologies that hurt people. (Another “gay” activist, Bob Hattoy, who made a famous anti-Reagan, anti-Bush speak at the Democrats’ ’92 convention, died prematurely of AIDS — at 56 — last week.)

We spend so much time crafting palatable “public policy” positions that we almost forget that homosexuality is first and foremost a moral issue. Clear messages like Gen. Pace’s, backed by reason, will turn idealistic young people’s minds back toward the truth. Let’s make our policy arguments, to be sure, but shed our defensiveness and be clearly moral, yet humble, like Gen. Pace.

Moral-minded people owe the good general a debt of gratitude for having the courage in this cowardly and confused age to speak the Truth and publicly agree with God about immoral homosexual acts.

Excerpted from The Crime of Conviction, by Chuck Colson, published Mar 15, 2007, by Breakpoint:

…While the world should be applauding a man who proposes that one of the most important institutions in our country should have moral integrity, instead we hammer him for having a conviction.

But I believe this goes far beyond the whole question of homosexuals in the military and the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. This cuts to the core of the question of whether anyone in public office is free to speak his deepest religious or moral convictions. The Constitution says there will be no religious test for office, and yet we are applying one. We are basically saying that if you are the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, you are not allowed to express your moral or religious views — especially on matters of sexual preference and behavior.

This is another sign that we live in an age that no longer believes in objective truth or a moral order. Moral relativism is the rule, and personal preference trumps all. And government is there to ensure that no one place any restraint on the pursuit of our own desires.

I have long said that C. S. Lewis was prophetic when in 1943 he wrote about the irony of our education system, saying, “Such is the tragicomedy of our situation — we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. . . . In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

Ironic that today, the head of our Joint Chiefs of Staff argues that the military should have consistent policies of moral integrity, and the world demands an apology. Maybe it is time to lock him up: General Pace is guilty. He has committed the intolerable crime of our day: He has stated his conviction in a value-free society that respects only so-called “tolerance.”

As for me, well, General Pace makes me proud that I am a former Marine.

Continue reading at Breakpoint…