If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
"Autumn" Sandeen, here pictured in a skirt, is a man who left his wife and family to pursue his twisted "transgender" dream of living as a "woman." The federal ENDA bill would create employment rights based on such gender confusion in all 50 states. ENDA's expansive definition of "gender identity" nondiscrimination, would likely force companies to build "transgender" restrooms to protect women from having to share a restroom with men pretending to be women.
“GENDER IDENTITY- The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”— definition of “Gender Identity” in the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
Haven’t we learned as a nation about the danger of Washington’s “one size fits all” legislation to “fix” nonexistent “crises”? The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) [H.R. 3017, S.B. 1584] – which would federalize homosexuality-, bisexuality-, and transsexuality-based special protections in the workplace — is one such bill. AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera appeared as a guest today on the WVCY program “Crosstalk” to discuss ENDA, which could soon come to the House floor for a vote. (Lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) said action on the bill could come soon after the Easter recess.)
Peter LaBarbera is the President of Americans for Truth, a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda.
The effort to force certain aspects of “change” on Americans continues. This time the “change” is being attempted through legislation known as ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR-3017 & SB-1584).
ENDA would force businesses in all 50 states with 15 or more employees (part- or full-time) to avoid discrimination of potential job candidates or current employees due to their gender identity.
Sends ‘Confusing Message to Troops,’ says conservative military expert
Defense Sec. Robert Gates seems more concerned with satisfying President Obama's pro-homosexual views than following the existing 1993 law banning homosexuals in the military, says leading expert Elaine Donnelly. Congress has the final say, she says.
The following news release was put our Thursday by the Center For Military Readiness, based in Livonia, Michigan [to support the Center’s unique mission and CMR President Elaine Donnelly’s excellent work, go HERE]:
___________________________________
CMR Press Release: Continued Confusion About 1993 Gays-in-Military Law
Thursday, March 25, 2010
In response to an announcement by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the results of a 45-day review of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:
“Secretary Gates has sent a confusing message to the troops. By applying new regulations applying only to the small number of discharges that occur for homosexuality, he has invited noncompliance with the extant 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, in future cases and those that are still pending.”
“Instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the meaning and intent of the law, Secretary Gates seems to be condoning unwarranted delays. Local commanders who are trying to do their duty by enforcing the law deserve support, not second-guessing by higher-level officials who seem more concerned about President Obama’s views than they are about the terms and intent of the law.”
Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak did an about-face Sunday night and voted for the healthcare reform bill — and at least one pro-life Michigander isn’t surprised.
Stupak has been touted by the national media as a leading combatant against using tax dollars for abortion. But when the bill was finally put to a vote and Stupak voted in favor, many of his constituents were not surprised. Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan explains why.
“We issued a news release months ago calling Bart Stupak a fraud, because what happened at the last minute from a national perspective was no surprise at all to those of us actually here in Michigan,” says Glenn.
Barber blasts Choi as “insubordinate” and “reckless, self-serving ideologue”
Enough already. Lt. Dan Choi (activist website HERE) is more than a distraction to the military: he’s a misguided “gay” militant who needs to follow his true calling — crusading for the acceptance of immoral sexual behavior. We’re quite sure there’s a job waiting for him at the leftist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force or perhaps the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The liberal media may love Choi (note CNN’s Rick Sanchez’s somber and deferential tone) but I’d hate to count on the media to defend America. See additional comments after the break and following the video:
Navy Capt. Jim Jefferis in uniform shortly before his retirement. He says the inevitable homo-sexual relationships that would occur in a homosexual-welcoming Navy would lead to preferential treatment that "can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale."
Folks, the following letter from Ret. Navy Captain Lawrence “Jim” Jefferis to Admiral Mike Mullen — President Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a proponent of his plan to allow open homosexuals in the military — is one of the most compelling documents I have ever read against that terribly misguided idea. In an e-mail to AFTAH, Capt. Jefferis verified his authorship of the letter, which has been making the rounds via e-mail. He said that he had sent it to a few people with no intention of it going public, but now that it has, he is willing to have it published online.
Like me, I’m sure you feel a deep sense of sorrow that men of principle and common sense like Capt. Jefferis are being replaced in America’s military leadership by a new cast of politically correct officers like Adm. Mullen, who put dubious trends and expediency above principle and morality. Please read this letter carefully and then share it with your children, all of your elected representatives, and as many people as possible. God bless you, Capt. Jefferis, and thank you for your service to our country. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.com
TAKE ACTION: Send a copy of this letter by regular mail or fax (or e-mail) to your Congressman and Senators; go to www.congress.org to get their information. Or call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and urge them to oppose President Obama’s attempt to do an end-run around Congress to force open homosexuality on our Armed Forces. Also urge your elected representatives to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, which we’re calling the Homosexualize Our Military Act–a dangerous bill that would impose a “sexual orientation” non-discrimination order on the military.
One need not rely on this disturbing item from NRO to conclude that American jurisprudence is in big trouble given the expanding number of judges who are, to use modern parlance, “openly gay” (which is to say: proudly practicing or inclined to practice perversion). If they regard their homosexuality as (part of) “who they are” and, by extension, view foes of homosexuality as akin to racists, it is difficult to imagine them being truly impartial on “gay”-related cases.
Having said that, given the ferocity with which many straight liberals promote homosexualist ideology today, there surely is plenty of left-wing judicial bias to go around without laying all or even most of the blame at the feet of America’s homosexual judges. A straight liberal who regards homosexuality as a pure “civil rights” issue is just as capable of being a reactionary, anti-religious bigot in his approach toward moral opponents of homosexuality as an openly homosexual judge. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”
In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay. It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially. I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.
Focus spokesmen said homosexual “orientation” would not have been stumbling block for potential Obama Supreme Court pick
“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of ‘moral retreat.’ ‘It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,’ Glenn argues. ‘[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.'”
It's hard to imagine former longtime Focus on the Family leader James Dobson saying that pro-family groups should not consider a homosexual judge's "sexual orientation" as a factor in evaluating that judge.
The issue of openly homosexual judges is back in the news, providing us the opportunity to publish this 2009 One News Now piece and agree with our friend Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan on a very significant “moral retreat” by Focus on the Family. Back when there was talk of President Obama possibly nominating a lesbian judge to the Supreme Court, two Focus analysts asserted that a judge’s homosexual “sexual orientation” would not be a major consideration for Focus in evaluating such a judge. It is precisely this sort of naïveté that helps explain why aggressive homosexual lobby groups are winning major battles against their pro-family opponents.
I’ll issue the same challenge to Focus that I have made to Grove City College’swayward, “gay”-affirming prof Warren Throckmorton: show me where you can find (benign) “sexual orientation” or (in Throckmorton’s case) “sexual identity” in the Bible, and I’ll change my tune that you are selling out Christian, biblical principles. After all, Focus launched a “Truth Project” that teaches believers how to have a “biblical worldview” — and it’s a huge leap from “abomination” to “sexual orientation.” Surely committed Christians should understand how the latter term has been used to strip morality out of the homosexuality equation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?
by Jim Brown
Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. “Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” Hausknecht said. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.”
“This anti-military, left-wing policy misadventure must be stopped in its tracks by the American people standing up and shouting a collective ‘NO!’ to the Democratic/Obama plan to homosexualize the military.”
Barack Obama's campaign promise to "gay" activists to homosexualize the military -- like much of his far-left agenda -- did not receive wide coverage in the general election. Will Congress now allow him to unilaterally undermine the law banning homosexual servicemen?
TAKE ACTION: Oppose President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing and politicizing our American Armed Forces. One homosexual lobby group plans to spend $2 million to pressure Congress on “gays in the military.” Contact your Congressman and Senators by phone (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) AND in writing (preferably in a regularly mailed letter or a fax as opposed to e-mail) and urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283 — which we’re calling “Homosexualize Our Military Act.” The act, mischievously titled the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” would impose a pro-homosexuality “non-discrimination” policy on our Armed Forces. Also, tell your representatives to resist President Obama’s reckless plan to homosexualize the military non-legislatively — as the release below describes. President Obama does not have the right to do an end-run around Congress and undermine U.S. law on military conduct!
BACKGROUND NOTE: Did you know that “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land? Here’s the truth on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and the law from Center for Military Readiness.
AFTAH Condemns Sec. Gates’ and Adm. Mullen’s Capitulation to Obama’s Radical Plan to Homosexualize the Military
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera issued the following statement in response to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s testimony yesterday in favor of President Obama’s plan to allow open homosexuals in the military:
“At a time of recession and a potentially long-lasting jobs crisis — and the ongoing national security crisis presented by worldwide Islamic terrorism — most Americans do not view homosexualizing our military as a top priority. And yet that is the course that President Barack Obama, and apparently some of his sycophantic military advisers, have chosen.
