Children who love the Harry Potter series character Dumbledore now may be less inclined to oppose homosexuality, or see it as an important moral issue. Of course, the media had a field day with the “news.” Here, Michael Gambon plays the beloved character in ‘Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.’  

Q:  How does Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling’s announcement that her beloved Dumbledore character is ‘gay’ fit in with a larger strategy to normalize homosexual behavior in the culture — even to children — through manipulative associations?

Laurie Higgins’ Answer:  In case you haven’t heard, J.K. Rowling, who wrote the Harry Potter series, just announced before a large audience of fans at Carnegie Hall that one of the most beloved characters in the book, Dumbledore, is homosexual. Now some perhaps many of the children who love this character will feel ambivalent about regarding homosexuality as deeply sinful. Young children, adolescents, and even many adults fall victim to the specious syllogistic reasoning that goes something like 1. Kindness is good, 2. Homosexuals are kind, 3. Therefore, homosexuality is good. It is clearly a faulty syllogism, and yet it’s wildly successful.
 
The “gay” manifesto After the Ball written in 1989 describes a number of strategies to be used to transform cultural views of homosexuality, one of which is “conversion” (how very darkly ironic). The authors Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen write that “In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot’s good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label ‘gay,’ either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype.” Whether Rowling is aware of this process or not, she is employing it.
 
This is one of the most significant problems with repeated exposure to positive portrayals of homosexuals in films, television show, plays, novels, textbooks, and speakers. Unsophisticated thinkers come to believe that somehow good behaviors or traits are inherently exculpatory in regard to others. But we should no more say that the sin of homosexuality is effaced by a homosexual’s compassion, generosity, or good humor than we would say that a polygamist’s sin is effaced by his compassion, generosity, or good humor.
 
The movement is afoot to include positive portrayals of homosexuals and the transgendered in all textbooks from kindergarten on up. I have no objections to textbooks including the important invention or discovery of a homosexual or transgender person so long as their homosexuality or transgenderism is not mentioned. To mention it suggests that somehow their deviant sexual impulses are connected or relevant to their discovery, invention, or contribution to learning. And supporters of subversive sexuality know this. They know that associating the deviant sexual orientation or identity with something positive will irrationally transform society’s perception of the deviant sexuality. Concerned citizens must strenuously oppose the identification of the sexual orientation or sexual identity of figures discussed in textbooks.
 
Another problematic way by which cultural values are being transformed is through the exposure to the stories of suffering shared by homosexuals and those who experience the psychological disorder of transgenderism. It is not uncommon in public high schools for LGBT (lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) students to share their stories of suffering with their peers. The result is that children, teens, and even adults who, of course, do not want to increase the suffering of others, retreat from making moral judgments. In so doing, they fail to make the critical distinction between suffering that results from harassment or abuse, and discomfort that results from an encounter with reasonable judgments about morality.
 
Parents and concerned taxpayers must be aware of and oppose these kinds of manipulative stratagems.

Laurie Higgins works full-time in a suburban public high school writing center in the Chicago area.

Below is an American Family Association E-Alert responding to the latest example of callous liberalism — the City of “Brotherly Love’s” outrageous act of charging the Boy Scouts $200,000 to use their city-owned headquarters:

AFA: Philadelphia punishes Boy Scouts because of their beliefs

Dear Reader,

The city of Philadelphia has decided to punish the Boy Scouts of America because it will not allow homosexuals to serve as Scout Leaders. City officials said they will charge the Cradle of Liberty Scouts Council $200,000 a year to use the city-owned headquarters. The Council was paying $1 per year (since 1928). The city owns the land on which the Council’s 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.

The city says it is charging the scouts $200,000 a year because the scouts discriminate against homosexuals. But the city finds nothing wrong with their discrimination against the scouts because of the scouts’ belief.

The action by city officials means that 30 new Cub Scout packs won’t be organized, and that 800 needy kids will not be going to the Council’s summer camp if the city charges them $200,000.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the scouts, as a private group, have a First Amendment right to bar homosexuals from membership. Philadelphia officials, in an effort to appease the homosexual activists, began searching for a way to punish the scouts. The rent increase was the vehicle to do that.

The Cradle of Liberty Council serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs.

Take Action

Send an e-mail to Philadelphia officials protesting their discrimination against the Boy Scouts. Forward this to friends and family and ask them to send the e-mail.
   
Thanks for caring enough to get involved. If you feel our efforts are worth supporting, would you please make a tax-deductible donation to help us continue? Click here to make a donation [to AFA].

Sincerely,

Don Wildmon

P.S. Please help us get this information into the hands of as many people as possible by forwarding it to your family and friends.

Breaking News: White House helped craft religious language for pro-homosexual ENDA bill; AFTAH urges Bush to pledge to veto bill in any form

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was written in 2007. Four years later, passage of the ENDA bill — now HR 1397 — is a high priority of the Obama administration. Go HERE for a GovTrack report on the 2011 version of this dangerous bill. — Peter LaBarbera, May 16, 2011. 

AFTAH has learned that White House staffers helped negotiate the new religious exemption language for the radical homosexual employment bill ENDA, H.R. 3685. Will that make it harder for President Bush to veto ENDA should it pass Congress? Call or contact the President (202-456-1111; www.whitehouse.gov/contact) and urge him to veto ENDA in any form should it pass Congress.

By Peter LaBarbera 

BREAKING NEWS/URGENT UPDATE: Americans For Truth has learned that a White House official has boasted to pro-family leaders attending a private Administration briefing that White House staffers were involved in the negotiations to craft expanded religious exemption language for the new ENDA bill, H.R. 3685 (discussed below). Call President Bush at 202-456-1111 or 202-456-1414 (www.whitehouse.gov/contact) to urge him to publicly pledge to veto the dangerous ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act) bill, H.R. 3685 in ANY form should it pass.

At the briefing, the White House official did not commit to the assembled evangelical leaders that the President would veto H.R. 3685, saying that they will wait to see the bill’s final language, according to our source. This is troubling in that vetoing ENDA in any form is regarded as a “no-brainer” by pro-family activists, who are counting on Bush to stop it. Failure to veto ENDA would be a devastating defeat for pro-family forces and a huge gift to homosexual lobbyists. Call the President (202-456-111) and urge him to “please publicly pledge to veto ENDA, H.R. 3685, in any form if it passes Congress.”

Some religious leaders take comfort in ENDA’s exemptions; we do not (see Points 8 and 13 below).  White House involvement in negotiations over ENDA is problematic in that makes it more difficult for President Bush to veto the bill. As you can read below, H.R. 3685’s current religious exemption will hardly affect the many ways in which ENDA would erode and destroy the freedom of Americans to act on their deeply-held moral beliefs about homosexuality.

Also, CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN and SENATORS today and next week to oppose H.R. 3685, which is a watered-down version of a more radical version of ENDA, H.R. 2015 (see Point 10 below). Like H.R. 2015 — for which homosexual and transsexual activists are still crusading — H.R. 3685 has tremendous potential to criminalize Christianity in the United States by creating federal “rights” based on wrong and destructive lifestyles.
 
Yesterday, H.R. 3685 was voted out of the House Education and Labor Committee by a vote of 27-21 (some Democrats voted “no” because it wasn’t liberal enough; see Point 10 below). It is now headed for a House floor vote, possibly early next week. Call 202-224-3121 or go to http://www.congress.org/ to reach your Representative and U.S. Senators.

Here are 14 good reasons to oppose the revised ENDA, H.R. 3685:

1. ENDA and H.R. 3685 would create federally-protected “rights” based on immoral, unhealthy and changeable homosexual/bisexual behavior — masquerading as “orientation” — setting a dangerous legal, moral and spiritual precedent. Homosexuality is not a “civil right”; it is a human wrong — one that is redeemable as proven by thousands of contented former homosexuals and ex-lesbians. Our Founding Fathers, infused with a Biblical view of fallen man, created limited government that sought to restrain the sinful outworking of men’s hearts (including the lust for power, hence our system of checks and balances). The law once punished sin (e.g., sodomy and anti-abortion laws), so it is preposterous to say that homosexuality-affirming laws are necessary to uphold basic, “constitutional rights.” ENDA represents the complete rejection of the Judeo-Christian Western legal tradition by creating newfangled legal “rights” that actually reward errant lifestyles and sexual misbehavior.
2. ENDA/H.R. 3685  would be used to defend the placement of openly homosexual and bisexual teachers in our nation’s public schools in ALL localities (see # 7). For the more activist-minded homosexual teachers who are already in schools, H.R. 3685 could lead them to more boldly promote and discuss their lifestyle in the classroom, as schools could be sued for discrimination if they dared to discipline activist “gays.”
3. ENDA/H.R. 3685 would punish Christians and religious traditionalists by leading directly to the loss of freedom for tradition-minded business owners with 15 or more employees. Take the example of an Orthodox Jewish owner of a for-profit day-care business who would NEVER hire an avowed homosexual, lesbian or bisexual as a supervising adult care-giver, because he believes Scriptural teachings that homosexual practice is immoral and reflects poorly on one’s character. This religious man would qualify for the exemption to ENDA if he has 14 or less workers. But God forbid that his business grows to 15 or more employees, because then, under ENDA, he could no longer apply his religious and moral beliefs about same-sex sin in his hiring and firing decisions . It must be remembered that top homosexual strategists now assert that their “moral” claim (the right not to be treated differently based on their “sexual orientation”) trumps our religious/moral obligation to oppose homosexuality.
4. ENDA is unnecessary: there is no outbreak of homosexuals getting fired; in fact, it is Christians defending their faith in the public square who are getting fired  and mistreated  — like Matt Barber, who was terminated by Allstate Insurance in 2005 after writing an online article on his own time critical of homosexual “marriage.”  Moreover, private companies are racing to create pro-homosexual policies on their own: Kodak now gives special preference to homosexually-owned subcontractors as one of several “minorities” receiving favored consideration. We strongly disagree with these “gay”-affirmative-action-type policies, but corporations have the right to pursue them. However, with the proliferation of such corporate programs, there is no need for the heavy hand of government to act as a corporate Big Brother, forcing all companies to affirm homosexuality in their hiring and firing decisions. Let the free market decide this issue.
5. ENDA/H.R. 3685 would dramatically expand the power of the federal government and would put it behind ONE SIDE of the homosexuality debate: the politically correct and unbiblical claim that homosexuality is about “rights” and innocuous “orientations.” Therefore it would override traditional understandings of homosexuality as a changeable sin. Federal authority will be asserted to enforce homosexual “rights” over traditional Americans rights to operate their business according to their moral beliefs. At the very least, with half the nation still believing that homosexual behavior is wrong, the government should be neutral on this issue.
6. ENDA is a “gay” lawyer’s dream: it would be abused by litigious homosexual activists, who seem to have a special gift for lying about conservatives and exaggerating their own victim status. If history is a guide, ENDA will lead to “gay” harassment lawsuits against people like the theoretical day-care entrepreneur above. Homosexual activists have already used dirty tactics to harass and take down pro-family leaders like Larry Cirignano, Scott Lively, and Gary Glenn — all victims of trumped-up “gay” charges. Glenn was falsely accused by a homosexual activist group, the Triangle Foundation, of favoring the murder of homosexuals (this writer has also been falsely accused of this). Cirignano recently had “civil rights” charges against him dropped after a lesbian invaded his Catholic group’s rally and then claimed that he assaulted her. Lively, founder of Abiding Truth Ministries, was hit with a highly-publicized lawsuit in 1991 based on similar trumped-up charges. Oregon Republican writer Betty Freauf describes what happened: “At one of the O.C.A. meetings, a photo journalist and homosexual-rights activist by the name of Catherine Stauffer attended the [pro-family] meeting uninvited. When asked to leave, she refused. Scott Lively then O.C.A. [Oregon Citizen’s Alliance] executive director, escorted her out of the meeting. She then had her frivolous assault and battery lawsuit which had been the plan all along. Judgments were granted to the plaintiff Stauffer in the amount of $30,000 each against O.C.A. and Scott Lively.”    Certainly, some homosexual activists will not be able to resist using frivolous, ENDA-inspired lawsuits to intimidate conservative business owners into submission — especially those who speak out publicly against “gay marriage,” or oppose the homosexual lobby. Is it really hard to imagine homosexual activists sending “plants” into conservative-owned companies and then suing when the person is not hired, or is fired? Of course, the same might be attempted by apolitical yet greedy “gay” employees and lawyers seeking to manipulate the system through “discrimination” lawsuits.
7. ENDA would trample on the rights of the 30 states without homosexuality-based “sexual orientation” laws — including conservative “red” states like Oklahoma and Texas where there is little voter interest in passing such laws — by turning the whole nation, including all public schools (see #2), into a “special-protections-for-homosexual-workers” zone.
8. ENDA’s “religious exemption” is extremely limited and narrowly tailored: of course, it does NOTHING to protect the freedom of moral-minded small businessmen to hire and fire based on THEIR values system, not the government’s. But beyond that, ENDA’s “religious exemption” is also carefully circumscribed so as to box in non-church, religious-oriented groups, rather than liberate them (see points 12 and 13). Here is how H.R. 3685 defines “religious organization”:
    
   RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION – The term `religious organization’ means–
   (A) a religious corporation, association, or society; or 
   (B) a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning, if– 
   (i) the institution is in whole or substantial part controlled, managed, owned, or supported by a particular religion, religious corporation, association, or society; or
   (ii) the curriculum of the institution is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion
    
   Now think of all the businesses, associations and schools that would NOT be covered by that definition: private, non-church or non-religious schools, day-care centers not directly tied to a church; small secular businesses (15 or more employees, including part-timers) owned by Christians; etc.               Moreover, Matt Barber (see #4), Policy Director for Cultural Issues at Concerned Women for America and AFTAH Board Member, makes this excellent point on the constitutionality of ENDA’s religious exemption: “For any religious exemption to pass constitutional muster, [it] would have to follow the individual business owner.  The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion which applies to all individual citizens, not just to a church, religious organization or corporation.  It is unconstitutional to prevent, by force of law, an individual business owner from considering his sincerely held religious beliefs while determining how to best own and operate his private business.”
9. Even though ENDA proscribes quotas, H.R. 3685 would create de facto preferential status for “gay” employees – or those who claim that status (which is another issue: how does a company “prove” that an employee is or is not “gay”?). Especially for corporations and businessmen who fear lawsuits, ENDA would create a new category of “affirmative action” – for a group of people who, far from demonstrating a history of being disadvantaged economically, rank among the more affluent and privileged groups in society (for example, “gays” travel internationally at rates far higher than other groups) . (See #4 on existing private “gay affirmative action.”)
10. H.R. 3685 is merely the camel’s nose under the tent: even though homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) “threw tranny off the train” as it were – by backing a watered-down ENDA that does not explicitly cover transsexuals (“gender identity”) – the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) lobby is united in pushing for the even more radical version of ENDA, H.R. 2015, which fully covers “transgenders.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has agreed to bring that bill to the House floor for a vote if the bill’s sponsors can show they have enough votes to pass it.  Passage of H.R. 3685 would make passing H.R. 2015 — what we’re calling the “Transgender Bathrooms for Business” bill — easier.
11. H.R. 3685 would advance the “same-sex marriage” agenda. It would be cited by activist judges as evidence that America is moving towards pro-homosexual “equality” (read: state-sponsored “inequality” for people of faith). The homosexual agenda always advances incrementally, but federalizing “sexual orientation” law is a long-sought goal of “gay” activists and liberal social engineers seeking to break down our Judeo-Christian traditions by normalizing homosexuality through the law.
12. H.R. 3685’s exemption for “religious organizations” would divide society further by effectively creating a two-tiered system of rights.  Some Christians and religious people operating in exempted religious groups would get the “special right” to factor in their opposition to homosexuality in their hiring and firing decisions — but morality-conscious secular groups and business owners would lose their freedom to similarly defend heterosexual norms. This is not fair. Many nonreligious people oppose homosexual behavior and creating “rights” based on immoral, aberrant sex: why should they have any less freedom to act on their beliefs than religious citizens?
13. ENDA/H.R. 3685 will lead to further compromise in the Church: its religious exemption would mollify pastors and make them LESS likely to stand on principle and fight the aggressive homosexual agenda, since they would be “protected” (for now) from ENDA’s oppressive mandates. Of course, homosexual activists would later seek to tighten or eliminate religious- and church-based exemptions (there’s that incrementalism again). If homosexual activists truly respected people’s freedom to oppose homosexual behavior, would they constantly be complaining about “religious-based discrimination”? Would they be relentlessly attacking the Boy Scouts and have tried to make it illegal for the Scouts not to hire homosexual (and atheist) scoutmasters? Many “gay” advocates view Christian opposition to hiring homosexuals as simply another form of invidious discrimination to be overcome through law, academia and cultural mobilization.
14. ENDA confuses the issue of civil rights in America and trivializes African Americans’ struggle against discrimination. H.R. 3685 insults African-Americans and confuses the civil rights equation considerably by taking the 1964 Civil Rights Act — designed with the noble goal of redressing institutional racism in America — and refitting it to put the U.S. Government officially behind the false concept of homosexuality as a “civil right.” Blacks cannot change their skin color. Homosexuals can leave that lifestyle behind, as many have. (Conversely, people can become “gay” by embracing that ideology and lifestyle. Nobody can “become African American”; that’s how you are born.) Being black is not a moral issue. Embracing sinful and destructive homosexual behavior is. It has long been the goal of “gay” activists to exploit the noble Black civil rights movement — even appropriating its language of “equality” and drawing bogus analogies between ending legal bans on interracial marriage (a good and just reform) and the campaign to legalize homosexual “marriage” (a revolutionary attack on a sacred institution). ENDA would put government muscle behind this exploitation, and make it much easier to teach schoolchildren that homosexuality is a civil rights issue, not a moral one.

The following is excerpted from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade. For the full story, click HERE:

GOP Reps save ENDA in close committee vote
Kucinich, others vote ‘no’ citing lack of trans protection
By LOU CHIBBARO JR., Washington Blade | Oct 18, 8:14 PM

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) cleared a pivotal hurdle in committee today after four gay-supportive Republicans joined the Democratic majority to save the bill from defeat.

Four pro-gay Democrats, including [a presidential candidate and Congressman], voted against the bill, saying they did so because a provision protecting transgender persons had been removed.

The bill passed in the House Committee on Education and Labor by a vote of 27 to 21, with 23 Democrats and four Republicans voting for the measure, which calls for banning job discrimination based on sexual orientation, a category that includes gay men, lesbians and bisexuals. Seventeen Republicans and the four Democrats voted against the bill.

If the Republicans voting for the measure had voted the other way, it would have lost by a vote of 23 to 25.

“We have never been able to pass a gay rights bill with only Democrats,” said gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the lead sponsors of ENDA. “We’ve always known we need some Republicans.”

The bill is scheduled to go to the full House for a vote next week.

Click HERE for the full Blade article

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.”

Wows Americans For Truth Audience with Testimony of Leaving Behind 29 Years of Lesbianism 

___________________________ 

Get a DVD of Cothran, Parker Speeches at AFTAH Banquet!

All proceeds will go to help the work of Americans For Truth 

To order a complete DVD (or CD) of both Charlene Cothran’s and David Parker’s outstanding talks, 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 (all postpaid): 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. 

____________________________ 

NOTE:  What better occasion than the homosexual activists’ misguided “National Coming Out Day” (October 11th every year) to publish Charlene Cothran’s testimony — representing a “coming out” story that we who agree with God on homosexuality can get behind? To contact Charlene, write editor@venusmagazine.org.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, Americans For Truth’s banquet Friday night was a wonderful event that exceeded our expectations. We packed out our banquet room at the Embassy Suites Hotel – which was actually a fallback location for our event after another hotel had abruptly cancelled our reservation – and everything went smoothly, despite the small “gay” protest outside.

(Click HERE to read about how Gay Liberation Network and other homosexual activists – obsessed as they are with smearing Americans For Truth – are now lying about our banquet numbers, saying that as few as 30 people attended our banquet (do I hear 20?…) when our room was actually packed out with more than 110 attendees.)

Our two keynote speakers, Charlene Cothran and David Parker, were riveting and held the audience in rapt attention until the evening’s end – as I have rarely seen at such an event. Charlene’s heartfelt testimony (portions of which are excerpted below) about how God drew her from her (very “successful”) lesbian lifestyle had so many wonderful lessons to teach: the faithfulness of God; the answered prayers of a faithful mother; the possibility of radical change in the life of even a longtime homosexual (Cothran had lived 29 years as a lesbian); and the need of loving Christians to reach out to homosexual strugglers trying to leave the lifestyle.

Charlene had the Americans For Truth audience laughing right off the bat when she said:

If you had told me two years ago that I would be a featured speaker at the Americans For Truth about Homosexuality banquet, I would have laughed in your face! Because I was one of those girls who would have been outside across the street with the gang trying to prevent this from happening. But God has a way of bringing us full circle, doesn’t He?  

Full circle, indeed. As a leading African-American homosexual activist and the most successful minority publisher in the “gay” world with her Venus Magazine – which she now uses to spread the Gospel of Christ — Cothran once partnered with a host of homosexual activist groups to advance that cause: Human Rights Campaign (back then it was called Human Rights Campaign Fund); the National Black Gay and Lesbian Leadership Forum; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; and PFLAG (Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays), to name a few.

Many of those groups do everything they can to hide the truth from the public that men and women like Charlene are walking away from homosexuality.

Cothran continued:

“It was right here in Chicago … back in 2003 at a ‘gay pride’ event – out in Bryant Park, on a sunlit afternoon where I should have been the proudest lesbian out there….At any other pride event, I was always very proud to be there. … But on this day a shame fell on me, and something spoke in my spirit and said: ‘This is that road that’s leading to destruction, and you are on it.’ And it was such a loud voice that I could no longer ignore that what I was doing and how I was living was wrong.

 The same Gay Liberation Network that lied about Americans For Truth’s banquet numbers and tried to pressure the Embassy Suites Hotel to drop our reservation once called Chicago’s historic Moody Church (in background) a “House of Hate” — because Moody pastor Dr. Erwin Lutzer wrote a book critical of “same-sex marriage.” The anti-Christian GLN claimed that “40-50” people attended AFTAH’s banquet, when in truth over 110 showed up, packing the room. Photo courtesy Illinois Family Institute. 

By Peter LaBarbera 

The same homosexual activist group, Gay Liberation Network (GLN), that led a pressure campaign to oust Americans For Truth from the hotel where it held its successful banquet Friday night, is now spreading lies about the number of attendees — saying that “40-50” people came when in actuality over 110 people packed out the banquet room at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Lombard for the successful event.

GLN’s lie has surfaced on lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding’s site and presumably others as well. (We’re anxiously awaiting “The Pam’s” correction….) As you might imagine, the prodigious Gay Fib Machine is quite busy when it comes to smearing Americans For Truth, about which they are quite obsessed.

The GLN’s Andy Thayer — who led a contingent of what looked like about 10 or fewer scruffy protesters at our event Friday, somehow determined that “There were only about 40-50 people in attendance” at our banquet. But Thayer and his small band of followers were kept off the Embassy Suites property; they were forced to hold their protest signs (one slammed the “Bigot Banquet”) on the nearest big road (Butterfield Rd.), at least 50 yards from the hotel — so we’re not sure how they got their curious crowd estimate.

A couple of homosexual men did come to the banquet room to harass us after the event had ended and many people had left, so maybe that explains it.

The Gay Liberation Network has some warped priorities, to be sure: while it crusaded against the “hateful” Americans For Truth — even trying to knock us from our hotel — it recently praised Miller Beer for sponsoring the deplorable, sadomasochistic “Folsom Street Fair,” at which hundreds of men walked around totally nude and where orgies on the streets and various “consensual” beatings went undisturbed by San Francisco police.

Here’s more falsehoods from GLN’s Thayer, as relayed by Spaulding:

I doubt they were getting anywhere near $50/person from their paltry attendance, as one of our people went in to scope it out and was told by a person at the door that all that was needed to get in was a free reservation.  No way they covered their overhead, let alone raised any money.  

Truth be told, all of our guests paid their $50, and many much more, so thankfully we had a good night raising funds for our cause of answering “gay” activist lies in the culture.  

I did have an interesting conversation with one GLN protester. As I was in the parking lot, a woman popped out of her car, hugged me and proclaimed — smirk on her face — that she loved me. I hugged her back and told her that I loved her, too. But when I touched her, another woman (perhaps her partner?), still sitting in the car, called out: “Don’t touch him, he’s diseased.”

Diseased? I wish that poor, deluded woman would have come in to hear Charlene Cothran’s wonderful presentation about overcoming homosexuality rather than stand outside with the GLN’s ridiculous signs: she’s welcome to call me any time and I’ll put her in touch with Charlene, who once, too, let anger and ideology keep her from the truth.

By Katherine Tomasi and Allyson Smith

Despite millions of dollars in sexual abuse claims–the vast majority of which are homosexual in nature–that have bankrupted some U.S. Catholic dioceses, and in defiance of a recent U.S. Bishops’ document stating that Catholic ministers must not advocate behaviors contrary to Church teaching, a San Francisco parish notorious for its promotion of homosexuality participated in that city’s “gay pride” parade Sunday, June 24.

Catholic blogger ‘Catherine of Siena’ of the Threshing Grain blogspot reported that Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in San Francisco’s homosexual Castro district planned to march in the perverted procession, with the theme “Pride Not Prejudice,” now in its 37th year  and unarguably the mother of all “gay pride” parades.

Most Holy Redeemer’s home page at http://www.mhr.org/ greets visitors with the message, “During the month of June we welcome in a special way our many LGBT visitors to MHR . . . Happy PRIDE!”

According to its June 17 bulletin, MHR planned several events in conjunction with the pride parade, from asking for volunteers to man an AIDS support group beverage booth near the main stage to hosting a “pride parade dance rehearsal” and sign-making party for its young adult group.

An MHR parade contingent “send off” occurred after the Sunday 10:00 a.m. Mass, on the same day Catholics worldwide celebrated the Solemnity of the Birth of Saint John the Baptist, who called sinners to repentance and was beheaded for publicly rebuking King Herod and his brother’s wife Herodias for adultery. Most Holy Redeemer was the only Catholic parish listed on the 2007 pride parade lineup.