Why Is President Bush Helping to Promote Homosexuality in the Third World?

Tuesday, July 31st, 2007

Why is the “pro-family” Bush Administration voting to accredit international homosexual activist groups  — from Quebec and Sweden — that will use their new status to undermine traditional moral values in Third World Nations — in the name of “human rights”? We wonder why the President would alienate his conservative, pro-family base at this critical juncture. This continues Bush’s misguided policy of recognizing homosexuality-based “rights” organizations at the U.N.

TAKE ACTION:  Read the C-FAM alert below and contact the White House using their comment page or call the White House comment line today (202-456-1111).  (You also can e-mail a comment to the U.S. State Department HERE or call their comment line at: 202-647-6575.) Respectfully urge the President to stop using the authority and goodwill of the United States of America to promote the normalization of homosexuality abroad. Tell the Administration that you oppose the USA voting to approve coveted United Nations consulting status for organizations whose mission is to push a pro-homosexuality agenda — including radically redefining marriage and promoting dangerous GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual) “identities” to vulnerable youth — on unsuspecting nations.


HATE CRIMES/ENDA ALERT:  While you’re at it, e-mail or call your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121) and urge them to oppose the “hate crimes” bill and the pro-homosexual/transsexual employment ENDA bill — which we’re calling the “Transgender Bathrooms for Businesses Bill” — which threaten to federalize “sexual orientation” law, thus curtailing your “freedom to be moral.”  Call 202-224-3121 or visit

Certainly, we as a nation can and should support true human rights without crusading for the acceptance of immoral lifestyles. Genuine human rights — and civil rights — are not based on sex, especially deviant sex. Countries should have the right to regulate homosexual sodomy — as we did in America from our inception until 2003, when the Supreme Court reversed a 17-year-old precedent in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy law case. We should be careful as the world’s most powerful nation not to push the American Secular Left’s decadent values — abortion, homosexuality, condom “sex ed” — on poor countries. Radicals used to call that cultural “imperialism.”

Having America become a leading promoter of immoral-sex-based rights masquerading as “human rights” is a far cry from President Reagan’s vision for this nation being a “shining city on a hill.” Write or call President Bush today: 202-456-1111.– Peter LaBarbera


Friday Fax, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM)

July 26, 2007 | Volume 10, Number 32
Dear Colleague,

Radical homosexual groups are flooding the UN accreditation process for non-governmental organizations and they seem poised to cause serious problems for traditionally minded countries.

Spread the word.

Yours sincerely,

Austin Ruse
President, C-FAM
Controversial UN Procedures Lead to UN Status for Homosexual Groups

By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK — C-FAM) Overturning a prior decision by the NGO accrediting committee, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) voted to grant official consultative status to the Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Quebec (CGLQ) and the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights (RFSL) in Geneva last week.

The voting process was mired in confusion over unclear language. Several delegate requests for clarification interrupted the roll-call vote and led Pakistan to call for a point of order and ask for a re-vote. No re-vote was taken. The motion to grant ECOSOC status passed with 22 countries voting in favor, 13 against, 13 abstaining and 6 absent.

Read the rest of this article »

Colson on the Thought Police: What the Orwellian Hate Crimes Law Would Do

Tuesday, May 1st, 2007

By Chuck Colson, a Breakpoint Commentary

For further resources on this issue, go to the Breakpoint website. We encourage you to sign up for these excellent daily commentaries by e-mail.

In George Orwell’s classic novel 1984, the government Thought Police constantly spies on citizens to make sure they are not thinking rebellious thoughts. Thought crimes are severely punished by Big Brother.

1984 was intended as a warning against totalitarian governments that enslave and control their citizens. Never have we needed this warning more urgently than now, because America’s Thought Police are knocking on your door.

Last week the House Judiciary Committee, egged on by radical homosexual groups, passed what can only be called a Thought Crimes bill. It’s called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. But this bill is not about hate. It’s not even about crime. It’s about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Some say we need this law to prevent attacks on homosexuals. But we already have laws against assaults on people and property. Moreover, according to the FBI, crimes against homosexuals in the United States have dropped dramatically in recent years. In 2005, out of 863,000 cases of aggravated assault, just 177 cases were crimes of bias against homosexuals—far less than even 1 percent.

Another problem is that in places where hate crimes laws have been passed, hate crimes have been defined to include verbal attacks—and even peaceful speech. The Thought Police have already prosecuted Christians under hate crimes laws in England, Sweden, Canada, and even in some places in the United States.

If this dangerous law passes, pastors who preach sermons giving the biblical view of homosexuality could be prosecuted. Christian businessmen who refuse to print pro-gay literature could be prosecuted. Groups like Exodus International, which offer therapy to those with unwanted same-sex attraction, could be shut down.

In classic 1984 fashion, peaceful speech will be redefined as a violent attack worthy of punishment.

This is the unspoken goal of activist groups. We know this because during the debate over the bill last week, Congressman Mike Pence (R) of Indiana offered a Freedom of Religion amendment to this hate crimes bill. It asked that nothing in this law limit the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. The committee refused to adopt it. It also refused to adopt amendments protecting other groups from hate crimes—like members of the military, who are often targets of verbal attacks and spitting. They also shot down amendments that would protect the homeless and senior citizens, also often targeted by criminals. Nothing doing, the committee said—the only group they wanted to protect: homosexuals.

Clearly, the intent of this law is not to prevent crime, but to shut down freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought. Its passage would strike at the very heart of our democracy.

The full Congress may vote on this bill as early as this week. Unless you want Big Brother telling you what to say, what to think, and what to believe, I urge you to contact your congressman immediately, urging him or her to vote against this bill. If you visit the BreakPoint website, you’ll find more information about this radical law.

If we do nothing, 1984 will no longer be fiction, and Big Brother will be watching you and me—ready to punish the “wrong” thoughts.

Homosexual Activist Bob Schwartz Responds to AFTAH’s Question about Censorship

Sunday, April 15th, 2007

By Peter LaBarbera 

Bob Schwartz of the leftist Chicago homosexual group Gay Liberation Network responded to my e-note asking if he favored laws censoring pro-family group’s speech critical of homosexuality. The following is Schwartz’s response (we’ve put his response at the top rather than following my note, as it was in the original).

I certainly doubt the accuracy of Schwartz’s claim about the Nigerian bishop, as he and his group typically lop all Christians who stand for traditional morality in with those who committed indefensible acts (e.g., violence or death threats) against homosexuals. Schwartz also engages in hyperbole typical of many leftists when he claims that Christian groups are a threat to democracy. Schwartz’s flagrant name-calling of committed Christians as “fascists” is a callous and hurtful shibboleth that has no basis in reality and is deeply offensive to all people and groups, like Americans For Truth, that abhor the Nazis’ genocidal record.

As to Schwartz’s claim about “hate speech,” many on our side of the debate regard GLN’s standard rhetoric — e.g., calling the historic Moody Bible Church in Chicago a “house of hate” — as hateful in the extreme.

Finally, regarding his note about socieities in decline, we commend the work of  the (anti-Christian) Edward Gibbons (The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire), historian Will Durant, Pitirim Sorokin, and others who have documented the role of sexual immorality in the demise of great civilizations.

All this said, we are pleasantly surprised that the GLN leader is not an outright advocate of censorship. Here is Schwartz’s reply to my question:

Is The Big House Peter LaBarbera’s future home?

Sure, its tempting to want to enact laws like those in Canada and across parts of Europe that restrict the very kind of hate speech you and others dole out to gays, all under cover of “religious freedom.” But, I do not favor governmental restrictions on hate speech.
I reach this conclusion, not because I care one iota about speech rights for people who would like to push me back into the closet, restrict my rights or see me dead, but because governmental regulation of speech–particularly in the United States–would likely be turned against people of the left, not of the right.  I’m not about to cut my own throat.
What I will do is keep portraying right-wing outfits like IFI and Americans for Truth, along with more effective hate groups like Focus on the Family, the John Hagee “ministries,” and the Coral Ridge fascist James Kennedy as dangerous to democracy. Dangerous because they include extremists who want to substitute the bible for the US Constitution. Dangerous because they are hate mongers who go after vulnerable gays today, but have an agenda that includes rolling back gains won thru struggle by workers, immigrants, women, and African Americans, as well as support to American/Israeli wars for empire.*
This summer, Gay Liberation Network will host a Nigerian gay man who has had to flee his native land following death threats from thugs spurred on by Christian leaders such as the Anglican archbishop, Peter Akinola, a man held to be a hero by some American gay haters.
Finally, as you will recall, we are prepared to take our ideas into the street.
You and others of your ilk deserve to be isolated, and ousted from respectable society.  The fate of Don Imus hopefully awaits antigay bigots as well.
Gay Liberation Network
[* See the book by Kevin Phillips entitled “American Theocracy.” Phillips points out that elites of societies in decline often appropriate religious fervor as they attempt to stabilize the sinking ship, branding policy opponents as enemies, demonizing religious and sexual minorities, scapegoating “foreigners,” calling upon the deity to bless military adventures, etc.]

I got the following response from Peter LaBarbera after I copied him on the message I posted regarding the IFI campaign to defeat federal hate crime legislation.  My response to LaBarbera follows his message. 
LaBarbera posted my original message and his response on his website:
He can be reached at [email protected]
…. You’d love to censor groups like IFI and Americans for Truth, wouldn’t you? If you had the power, you’d want to shut us down or ban certain aspects of our speech and conduct? For example, would you favor a federal “anti-hate” law that would have made our last email (“Satan’s Talking Points”) illegal? Or am I wrong and you actually support freedom of speech in the USA on the homosexual issue (which does not include direct harassing threats or advocating violence)? Would you favor using anti-discrimination hate speech laws to curb anti-gay speech? Which speech if any would you censor? Do you support anti-“hate speech” laws in Canada and England that are rapidly criminalizing (“discriminatory”) speech critical of homosexuality and are resulting in Christians being sued for discrimination or being jailed because they publicly oppose homosexual behavior? Did you support the jailing of the pastor in Sweden, Ake Green (, or do you think he should not have been prosecuted and what the government did to him was an injustice?  Since you’re charging us with being fascists, don’t we have a right to know? Would you use state power to restrict anti-gay speech, or not, and if so, under what circumstances?
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth

Canadians Apologize to the World for Harm Caused by Legalized Homosexual ‘Marriage’

Wednesday, April 11th, 2007

This is great, but the real “apology to the world” should come from Canada’s homosexual activists, who put their own misguided sexial affirmation goals above protecting traditional marriage and the welfare of children. Add to that their role in the destruction of freedom in Canada, which of course is sublimated to their selfish goal of forcing the acceptance of all things homosexual. — Peter LaBarbera


April 11, 2007


To the world’s leaders and people,


We, the people of Canada who support marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, apologize to the people of the world for harm done through Canada’s legalization of homosexual marriage.


We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world.  We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be “married” here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for their homosexual relationships with the intent of returning to their own countries to challenge those countries’ legal definition of marriage.


We understand that Canada is seen by people around the world as a country in which public policy is developed carefully and judiciously.  It would, therefore, be a natural assumption that in legalizing homosexual marriage our government and courts thoroughly considered the implications of this action through proper and extensive study of social sciences and facts.   But it is essential that the people of the world understand that this was not the case.  Our government and courts only considered adult “rights.” Among other things, the impact on children’s rights, children’s education, parental rights, religious rights, adoption, the economy and family law were never fully considered.  Changes were thrust upon us by court actions followed by a vote that did not allow for a free vote of every member of our federal parliament.


Our warning to you, the people of the world, is to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them in your own countries.


Forewarned should be forearmed.




Canada Family Action Coalition

REAL Women of Canada

United Families Canada

British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life

Alberta REAL Women

Christian Heritage Party of Canada

Third Watch Ministries

United Mothers, Fathers & Friends

Sault Ste. Marie – CFAC

Dawn Stefanowicz – Author   

MY Canada Association

Father’s Resting Place


Media Release:  REAL Women of Canada

REAL Women of Canada
“Women’s Rights Not at the Expense of Human Rights” 

NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

 Media Release

For immediate release, April 11, 2007

Apology for Canada’s Same-sex Marriage Legislation

It is necessary to apologize to the people of the world for the difficulties caused in other countries by the legislation in Canada which permits same-sex marriages. 

It is unfortunate that some foreign same-sex partners have come to Canada to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies and subsequently applied to the courts in their own country to recognize this so-called Canadian marriage.  Canadian marriage law does not demand residency requirements and this is being used by activists to attempt to change the marriage laws in their own country. 

There are many Canadians who do not, and will not, accept the marriage of same-sex partners.  Such Canadians will continue to work to restore the traditional definition of marriage defined as being between a man and a woman only.  To do so is not to discriminate against same-sex partners, since their relationships are markedly different from those of opposite-sex relationships, regardless of what the law in Canada states.   

Read the rest of this article »

Quebec Prepares Assault on “Homophobia” and “Heterosexism” — Especially in Schools

Tuesday, March 20th, 2007

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.

Read the rest of this article »

Never Satisfied, Homosexual Activists Target Private Schools

Wednesday, February 28th, 2007

Excerpted from Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for “Homophobia”, by Gudrun Schultz published Feb 27, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control” over curriculum and staff hiring

Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for “homophobic” teaching stemming from the schools’ primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa’s homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.

[WARNING: The following link to the original story in a pro-homosexuality
publication is accompanied by extremely offensive advertising.]

In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa’s Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children “only their own values.”

The article quotes Tony Lovink, a homosexual Christian teacher in the Ottawa public school system, as saying,

“All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobic.”

[Note from AFTAH: Based on Scripture, we contend that it is not possible
to simultaneously engage in homosexual behavior and be a faithful Christian…
but change is possible in Jesus Christ.]

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial ministry of education wasn’t “exerting more control” over the curriculum used by private religious schools. Unless a school wants to grant students government-recognized Secondary School Diplomas, Ontario private schools are free to use their preferred curriculum. Even schools that do grant the government diplomas may teach any additional material they choose, so long as the required curriculum is covered.

As well, the CLGRO objected to provincial standards that permit private schools to hire teachers based on the school administration’s own qualification requirements.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

REAL Women Files Conflict of Interest Complaint Against Activist Judge

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

Excerpted from the Jan 23, 2007, press release from REAL Women of Canada:

On July 17, 2006, REAL Women of Canada laid a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council about the conduct of Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry in the same-sex marriage case, which was handed down in June 2003. We stated in our complaint that his actions in that case gave rise to an apprehension of bias for a number of reasons, including the fact that Chief Justice McMurtry’s daughter was a lesbian living in a homosexual union at the time the case was argued…

Further, two weeks subsequent to the court’s decision, the Chief Justice partied with two of the litigants and a photograph of the Chief Justice and the litigants together is widely available on the internet.

In the Judicial Council’s letter to REAL Women dated December 19, 2006, the Council claimed:

… the sexual orientation of a judge’s children, and indeed the fact that a judge’s children are married or living in a common law relationship are not, in Chief Justice Scott’s view, indicative of any bias on the part of a judge.

The Council, however, was well aware that the issue before the Court was whether same-sex unions should be legally recognized, i.e., whether they should be recognized and acquire legal rights. That is, the case dealt specifically with the legal rights of same-sex unions – a matter which directly related to Judge McMurtry’s daughter’s own personal relationship…

The Council, however, concluded that there is no basis to support the view that Chief Justice McMurtry should have recused himself on the basis of the personal relationship of members of his family.

This conclusion, however, flies directly in the face of the guidelines of the Canadian Judicial Council set out in its document, “Ethical Principles for Judges,” (1998), Chapter 6:

Conflicts of Interest

  • Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe they will be unable to judge impartially.
  • Judges should disqualify themselves in any case in which they believe that a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would have a reasoned suspicion of conflict of interest between a judge’s personal interest (or that of a judge’s immediate family or close friends or associates) and a judge’s duty.
  • The potential for conflict of interest arises when the personal interest of the judge (or of those close to him or her) conflicts with the judge’s duty to adjudicate impartially. Judicial impartiality is concerned both with impartiality in fact and impartiality in the perception of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person.
  • … a judge … should disqualify him or herself if aware of any interest or relationship which, to a reasonable, fair minded and informed person would give rise to reasoned suspicion of lack of impartiality.
  • …a judge should disclose on the record anything which might support a plausible argument in favour of disqualification ….

It seems clear that the Judicial Council chose to ignore its own guidelines in order to protect Chief Justice McMurtry.

Continue reading at REAL Women of Canada…

Canadian City Councillor Fined $1,000 for Saying Homosexuality “Not Normal or Natural”

Monday, January 22nd, 2007

What Would YOU Do if America Started Censoring Moral Speech like Canada?

In America, we bristle at the idea of speech –– even unpopular speech –– being censored or officially condemned by the government. But in Canada, it’s happening, and the shocking thing is that speech defending age-old, Judeo-Christian morality is the target. Unlike Canada, the United States has a First Amendment, so it will be much more difficult for the Gay Thought Police to prosecute moral and pro-normalcy speech here than there. But they will try. (Click HERE to read the ex-“gay” group Exodus International’s press release opposing new attempts to pass a “Hate Crimes” law that includes “sexual orientation.”)

Already in America, Christian speech against homosexuality has been censored and restricted by the government. (Click HERE to read about the “Philly 11” losing their civil rights case against the City of Philadelphia.) With respect to the story below about a Canadian city councilman who was fined $1,000 for saying, in accordance with his Catholic beliefs, that homosexuality is not normal or natural, I pose these questions to our readers:

I. To the conservative American legislator or Bible-believing pastor — If we ever reached the point where laws were passed banning and fining “anti-gay” speech (it would be termed “homophobic”), would you: A) comply and stop discussing the issue or B) go on voicing and defending your beliefs in public? If you lived in Canada and faced Mr. DeCicco’s predicament, would you pay the fine? Would you apologize to homosexuals to avoid facing a “human rights” tribunal, even if you knew you said nothing wrong?

II. To what extent in American are we buying into the Left’s definition of “hate speech” in the face of relentless pro-homosexual organizing and political correctness? That is, do many of us who oppose homosexual practice as destructive or sinful opt for silence rather than defend our beliefs, because we fear being called a name? Why do we so easily allow defenders of falsehood and historically wrong behavior to dominate the debate? Are we ashamed of or confused about our moral heritage on this issue? Why?

Pro-lifers are bolder in defending life than pro-family advocates are in defending the principled position that homosexual conduct is always wrong, yet changeable. Why? What can each of us who agree with God do to change public discourse so that we who defend natural (biblical) sexuality (in marriage) are as bold as the defenders of perversion?

P.S. To the homosexual activists who read this email — Would you renounce all pro-“gay” “hate speech” prosecutions (like that against DeCicco)?

To all: be honest in your answers and we’ll publish some of them. Write us using our web contact form. God bless freedom. -– Peter LaBarbera


Excerpted from Canadian City Councillor Fined $1000 for Saying Homosexuality “not Normal or Natural”, by John-Henry Westen and Gudrun Schultz, published Jan 19, 2007, by LifeSite News:

john-decicco.jpg A Catholic city councillor [John DeCicco, pictured left] in Kamloops, British Columbia, who was himself the victim of the crime of vandalism due to his faith, has been forced to apologize and pay a homosexual activist couple $1000…

Strangely, it was councillor who was shown true discrimination worthy of a human rights complaint. In June, the councillor opposed a homosexual pride proclamation, after which his barber shop was vandalized with “Homophobia Die” scrawled on the door of his business…

In August, homosexual activist couple John Olynick and Greg Koll filed a complaint against DeCicco with the human rights commission over remarks he made at the council meeting and repeated in media interviews. In line with Catholic teaching on the matter, he described homosexual acts as “not normal and not natural.”

In the June interview with he explained, “I’m not against lesbian and gay people, but I don’t agree that I should have to endorse it.” He also said that people can do what they like in the privacy of their own homes, but, he said in reference to gay pride parades, they shouldn’t “go out and flaunt it, in front of people who don’t necessarily agree.”

While DeCicco already apologized for the incident once back in October, that apology was not considered part of the settlement. In addition to paying $1,000 to Olynick and Koll, DeCicco will provide a statement saying his comments were “inappropriate and hurtful to some.” The settlement will allow the councillor to avoid a Human Rights Tribunal hearing…

DeCicco has said the settlement will not change his opposition to gay pride week. “I’m not going to change my view of my stand,” he said. “My public comments have to be a little more refined.”

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Support Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

Americans for Truth
P.O. Box 5522
Naperville, IL 60567-5522

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'

Americans for Truth Radio Hour

Americans for Truth Academy

Peter's Lifesite News Articles'