TAKE ACTION:  Help counter the pro-homosexual lobby’s smear campaign attempting to “Bork” Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General. Here’s how: 

1. Call your U.S. Senators at 202-224-3121 or write them (http://www.congress.org/) and politely urge them to support Dr. James Holsinger, Jr. as Surgeon General; the members of the Senate Health Committee, which will first consider Holsinger, can be found HERE (e-mail the committee at: help_comments@help.senate.gov) — but Holsinger’s nomination will likely be voted on by the whole Senate, so tell your Senators to use their influence to insure that he is treated fairly;
2. Thank the White House (202-456-1111 or -1414; e-mail: comments@whitehouse.gov; www.whitehouse.gov/contact) and urge the President to stand by Dr. Holsinger and not to be swayed by the pro-homosexual lobby’s distortions and anti-Christian bigotry;
3. Tell your friends to support Dr. Holsinger with a quick e-mail or call.

Click HERE TO READ DR. HOLSINGER’S 1991 PAPER, “PATHOPHYSIOLOGY OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY,” which liberal, pro-homosexual groups are distorting to discredit him.

 __________________________

Dear Americans For Truth Reader, 

By Peter LaBarbera 

Folks, anti-Christian homosexual activists and their liberal allies are out again in force to take down another good man — Dr. James Holsinger, Jr., President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General — who happens to agree with the ancient Judeo-Christian moral understanding of homosexual practice as unnatural, unhealthy and wrong.

The ABC report below is Orwellian in its framing of the campaign against Dr. Holsinger — a Christian medical doctor (cardiologist) who also holds a doctorate in anatomy and physiology. Holsinger is being vilified because he wrote in 1991 that male homosexual sex practices are unhealthy, and because he believes that men and women can abandon homosexuality.

The ABC report below — which includes a politically correct quote by the spokesman for the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — implies that Holsinger’s writings, such as his 1991 paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” are obsolete and way outside of the scientific mainstream. Hello… Has there been some change in human anatomy (perhaps some hyperactive “evolutionary” mutation in the last 16 years) that suddenly makes rectal sex between men natural and good for the human body?

Please take a few minutes to read Dr. Holsinger’s 1991 paper, reprinted on our website. It was written for a United Methodist Church committee studying homosexuality. See for yourself if the paper has the ring of extremism. Here’s an excerpt:

From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. “Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with hig gel la species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)” (Owen, 1985).

We erred in blaming the liberal media (USA Today) for the caption describing the photo (above) of Dick and Lynne Cheney and their new grandson, Samuel David, born to self-identified lesbian Mary Cheney.

It turns out that the caption — identifying both Mary Cheney and her lesbian partner Heather Poe as Samuel David’s “parents” — was the official work of the White House, a point eagerly seized upon by homosexual blogger John Aravosis. In the link below, Aravosis exults in the White House photo as proof of President Bush’s official embrace of “gay” parenting. Of course, the Cheneys’ grandson does not have two lesbian “parents” but one — Mary Cheney, whose lesbian partner, Heather Poe, only creates an artificial, fatherless “family.”

And what was Aravosis thinking when he wrote the the Bush administration “prides itself on being so anti-gay”? This is a White House that refused to defend Gen. Pace when he voiced his belief that homosexual acts are “immoral”; that refused to overturn a single Clinton administration Executive Order mandating “sexual orientation” policies in the federal government; and that has disappointed pro-family conservatives in its lackluster promotion of a Federal Marriage Amendment (despite the fact that Mr. Bush practically owes his re-election to that issue).

The misleading White House photo caption is only the latest disappointment. If only the Administration DID “pride itself” on taking principled stances to slow down and reverse the homosexual agenda!

Click HERE to read ex-gay Stephen Bennett’s take on the White House Cheneys-and-grandson caption. The following is the excerpt of Aravosis’ blog entry:

John Aravosis Is : White House officially recognizes legal status of gay couples and parents

Link: AMERICAblog, by John Aravosis

Something rather historic happened this past week. The White House, for the first time every on its Web site (that I know of), recognized the legitimacy of gay couples as both married and as parents. It was done, innocuously enough, when the White House published a photo of Vice President Dick Cheney’s new grandson, the child of the VP’s lesbian daughter and her lesbian spouse. The White House not only published a photo of the child with the VP and his wife, but the caption was even more telling:

Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcomed their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, Wednesday, May 23, 2007. He weighed 8 lbs., 6 oz and was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C. His parents are the Cheneys’ daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. White House photo by David Bohrer

Did you catch that last sentence? The White House officially recognized a lesbian couple as co-equal parents of a child. That not only is a recognition of the legitimacy of gay parents – i.e., if one person is the birth mother and the other the mother’s partner, both are the parents of the child, per the White House — but the White House is also, implicitly, recognizing the legitimate couple status of two gay people in love, i.e., they are not simply two unrelated gay people, they are parents, akin to your parents, akin to a married couple. Why do I say that the White House is de facto recognizing gay marriage? Because either Mary or her lover, or both, are not the biological mom of this child – with two women, only one can be the biological parent. For the White House to recognize both as parents means that they are recognizing the legitimacy of the two women as one entity, the parent. Anyway, it’s a hell of a statement by any White House, let alone one of the most conservative in history, and one that prides itself on being so anti-gay.

The Parents Group press release. Contact: The Parents Group National Office, 203-926-6960

HUNTINGTON, Conn., May 30 /Christian Newswire/ — On May 23, 2007, the White House, silently and without any fanfare, released an official White House photo of Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcoming their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, into the Cheney fold.

The beautiful little tyke weighed in at 8 lbs., 6 oz. and was born at 9:46 a.m. at Sibley House in Washington, D.C.

That is extremely troubling is the official White House caption that appears underneath the photo on the official White House website:

… His parents are the Cheney’s daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe. White House photo by David Bohrer.

Since when have two homosexual women been able to naturally procreate?

Fact is Mary Cheney, the Vice President’s daughter – in one way or another – received a male’s sperm. She is the biological mother, parent number one, and some man, somewhere out there, is Samuel David’s real biological father, parent number two.

Unlike the official White House photo caption, a man and a woman, a Daddy and a Mommy, are Samuel David Cheney’s REAL biological parents.

Then who is Heather Poe?

Heather Poe is Mary Cheney’s live-in lesbian lover. She may act like a parent, she may treat the baby as a parent, she may love this baby with all of her heart, but in this reality we all live in, Heather Poe is NOT the baby’s real parent. She has NO biological connection to the child whatsoever. Some man, the baby’s real Daddy, is the child’s other REAL parent.

By Sonja Dalton

What better gift for our military on Memorial Day Weekend: Disney-ABC has announced an early departure from The View for Rosie O’Donnell. Perhaps now this moronic daytime television program will return to obscurity and irrelevance, where it belongs.

By now, nearly everyone is aware of the blowout on Wednesday’s episode. Joy Behar (former high school teacher and alleged comedienne) opened with a list of complaints against President Bush which, in her view, merit impeachment and a vigorous beating with wet noodles. We’re talking serious offenses like “choking on a pretzel” and being incapable of pronouncing “nuclear.”

That last one has always annoyed me, too, almost as much as when I heard it from Jimmy Carter, who was actually supposed to be a “nucular” engineer (not just a Yale history grad with a Harvard MBA). Back then, my frustration was assuaged by working for Reagan in the 1980 election. Ronnie knew how to pronounce “nuclear” and he knew how to deal with radical Islamic fascists and communists, too. But I digress…

Joy suggested that Al Gore is just the man to lead us out of Iraq, which raised the issue of the Iraq War, which opened the door for Rosie (high school graduate) to confront Elisabeth Hasselbeck (Boston College alumnus). On May 17th, Rosie attacked Elisabeth for using the word “terrorists” and posed a question that offended many Americans (even liberals):

O’DONNELL: … 655,000* Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?
HASSELBECK: Who are the terrorists?
O’DONNELL: 655,000 Iraqis — I’m saying you have to look…
HASSELBECK: Wait, who are you calling terrorists now? Americans?
O’DONNELL: I’m saying if you were in Iraq, and the other country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed 655,000 of your citizens, what would you call us?…
O’DONNELL: I believe there is government-sponsored terrorism by every nation in the world, including ours.

* Rosie’s casualty figure is preposterous, much like Joy’s list of President Bush’s capital offenses.

Shockingly, the media interpreted Rosie’s remarks as an indictment of our troops. Rosie still doesn’t know how they got that idea. (Hint: Elisabeth asked her three times “Who are the terrorists?” but Rosie never answered.)

Somehow Rosie was hurt and angry because she expected Elisabeth, as her “friend,” to defend her against “those crappy cable shows — the ones Elisabeth watches.” As her “friend”? Let’s review a sampling of the “friendly” remarks Rosie made to Elisabeth in the last ten months:

Sept , 2007 — “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam…”
Feb 18, 2007 — “”You’re very young, and you’re very wrong.” And later in the conversation: “I know, but it’s the way that I’m able to be on this live broadcast and love and support you in spite of the fact that I disagree so abhorrently with most of the things you believe, so it is what I tell myself in order to not get into the RAGE I feel at at some of the IGNORANT comments, so that’s what I have to do!”
May 21, 2007 — “Are you not able to hold two concepts at once?”
May 23, 2007 — “You’re going to double-speak…” and later “…that was cowardly.”

Is that the way you talk to your friends?

At long last, Elisabeth had enough of the insults and finally stood up for herself: “Defend your own insinuations!…Defend your own thoughts!…”

Why would Rosie want to be defended by someone she characterizes as a nitwit? Why does she think she can verbally abuse a friend over and over, and still have one?

“Like most bullies, Rosie is clueless how to respond when she is challenged.”

After provoking and degrading Elisabeth for months, Rosie did what bullies always do when someone has the courage to fight back: She took her Barbies and went home to pout (while her chief writer, Janette Barber, being equally mature and professional, stayed behind to draw mustaches on all the photos of Elisabeth). And Rosie won’t be back because she doesn’t have a punching bag anymore.

Rosie O’Donnell was once a light-hearted and funny entertainer, but after years of living in sexual depravity (first with a man and now as a lesbian), she is consumed by rage. The emptiness and misery which result from wickedness are evident in her countenance. It is a very sad thing to watch a precious human being self-destruct. (And what is the impact on children of a “mother” so angry, so combative, constantly arguing and striving and attacking?)

The Bible says that those who persist in homosexuality are given over by God to a debased mind. Do you wonder how Rosie can possibly believe that our own president helped destroy the World Trade Center? Are you perplexed at her insistence that her own understanding of physics is superior to those “ignorant” engineers at Popular Mechanics? Answer: Because her mind is not healthy. And it won’t be as long as she lives in defiance of the Almighty.

But where I lose patience with Rosie and others like her, God does not. Peter says that our Father does not want anyone to perish, but for everyone to come to repentance. In her deep unhappiness, Rosie may yet humble herself and acknowledge God’s divine power and authority over her and repent. Rosie has a generous heart that could be used to glorify Christ — so let us pray that an epiphany is at hand.

But don’t stop there… Look around at your church, at your child’s school, in your neighborhood. Where you see a child missing a mom or a dad (whether through illegitimacy, divorce, or death), you have an opportunity — and an obligation — to fulfill James 1:27. Greet them with a smile and a hug and ask them what they’re up to, how school is going. Ask their parent if you could take them shopping for a new outfit or a pair of school shoes or help them with a school project — because that will accomplish two goals: It will help the single parent and it will begin to build a relationship with the child whereby you may become a powerful influence for righteousness.

Imagine how much comfort a compassionate Christian woman might have provided to Rosie O’Donnell during her adolescent and teen years. How sad that she was neglected when she needed love — the love she is still desperate for but will never find in lesbian sex. Every child has sinful inclinations; every child faces challenges as he/she matures. Kids need godly, trustworthy adults to care about them, guide them, and correct them from time to time. If you aren’t there when a vulnerable child is dealing with self-consciousness, confusion, sexuality, and temptation, homosexual activists and their “allies” at school will be glad to fill your shoes and drag an innocent child to hell.

Associated Press reports:

Gay men remain banned for life from donating blood, the government said Wednesday, leaving in place — for now — a 1983 prohibition meant to prevent the spread of HIV through transfusions.

The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its long-standing policy on its Web site Wednesday, more than a year after the Red Cross and two other blood groups criticized the policy as “medically and scientifically unwarranted.”

“I am disappointed, I must confess,” said Dr. Celso Bianco, executive vice president of America’s Blood Centers, whose members provide nearly half the nation’s blood supply.

Before giving blood, all men are asked if they have had sex, even once, with another man since 1977. Those who say they have are permanently banned from donating. The FDA said those men are at increased risk of infection by HIV that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

A critic, Michael, writes regarding our statement on Mary Cheney’s baby:

The Undeniable Truth about Making Babies 

     [We wrote:] “And yet, the truth remains: two homosexuals cannot create a baby. Heterosexuals – the people derided in the early days of “gay liberation” as ”breeders” — must be involved.”

     Totally incorrect, Pete! A gay man and gay woman can easily make a baby. Try again.

OK, technically, Michael, yes, a “gay” man and a lesbian can unite (physically or through modern technology) to produce a child, but that’s called heterosexual procreation. Egg and sperm from opposite sexes must unite: two women alone or two men alone cannot create a child without help from the opposite sex. Biology 101. — Peter LaBarbera

Today’s USA Today reported the birth yesterday of Samuel David Cheney, with the following caption under the White House photo at right above (click HERE to enlarge):

“U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and wife Lynne Cheney hold their sixth grandchild, Samuel David Cheney, born Wednesday in Washington. His parents are the Cheneys’ daughter Mary, and her partner, Heather Poe.”

There should be no touch of sadness when a healthy baby boy is born into a home with two parents, but in this case, we’re afraid, there is.

While we celebrate new life, we cannot celebrate homosexual parenting –– which involves intentionally denying a child either a mom or a dad. In this case, young Samuel David –– who, as a Cheney, will surely enjoy privileges and comforts greater than most children born in 2007 –– will be missing an irreplaceable one: a father, to have as a loving guide, male authority, friend and role model as he grows from boy into man.

The pro-“gay” media have an odd way of reporting stories like this, as if both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe were involved in the baby’s conception. To do otherwise, I suppose, would call unwanted attention to the unnaturalness of the enterprise known as “gay parenting.” And yet, the truth remains: two homosexuals cannot create a baby. Heterosexuality — i.e., the people derided in the early days of “gay liberation” as “breeders” — must be involved.

The USA Today reports that Vice President Dick Cheney has “bristled at questions on the topic.” But he and Mrs. Cheney, an ardent foe of political correctness, and a conservative, should know that there is nothing wrong with asking critical questions about something so patently wrong –– and against Nature, common sense, and God’s wonderful design of the family itself –– as parenting that is fatherless or motherless by design.

We will keep on asking those tough questions, all the while praying for this boy, and that both Mary Cheney and Heather Poe will join Charlene Cothran and the many women who have come out of homosexuality, which surely is not God’s plan for their lives. — Peter LaBarbera

Americans For Truth contacted homosexual activist icon Frank Kameny and he e-mailed us the following response to our report about that he spoke at a NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) meeting in 1981. Our report was based on an account in NAMBLA’s 1997 publication, “A Way Forward”; see excerpt in our story; we have no further information about what he said because NAMBLA did not include any information about Kameny’s talk to them.

We certainly don’t share Kameny’s assessment that this is a “tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing” — as NAMBLA is about as sick as it gets in this world. But I will reserve comment on his note until later. — Peter LaBarbera 

P.S. There was a typo in our original story and we neglected to include the name “Mel Boozer” (a Democratic “gay” activist who also spoke at a NAMBLA meeting) in the NAMBLA excerpt. You can read the corrected story HERE.

Kameny, who turned 82 on Monday (May 21), writes:

Peter:

In your website I have found no actual quotations supposedly made by me at this 1981 Baltimore meeting which I supposedly attended.

1.  The mere addressing of a group says absolutely nothing about the content of that address, and does not in the least necessarily imply support.

2.  Starting about 1966 and continuing until very roughly 1985 or a bit earlier, (and to a lesser degree through to the present), I was making some 100-150 public appearances per year — radio, television, panel discussions, private groups, political contexts, formal testimony, schools at various levels, etc.,etc, etc.  So few of them stand out individually.

I have no memory of actually appearing before NAMBLA, but that does not constitute a flat denial.  I just don’t remember an actual appearance.