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.
USS Predator? When Harvey Milk was 33, he had a sexual “relationship” with a 16- (or possibly 17-) year-old boy, Jack Galen McKinley (right). This photo appears in the hagiography of Milk, “Mayor of Castro Street,” authored by homosexual journalist Randy Shilts. Click to enlarge.
Folks, we’re catching up on our “AFTAH in the media” posts. Here is an interview I did August 1, 2016, with the Milwaukee-based VCY America’s “Crosstalk,” hosted by Jim Schneider. Below is a rundown of the program provide by Crosstalk, which continues beneath the MP3 link. Note that this discussion occurred prior to the Navy following through and formally naming a “Cruiser” ship after assassinated homosexual activist Harvey Milk:
Peter LaBarbera is the founder and president of Americans for Truth.
Last Friday news came forth that the U.S. Navy is planning on naming a ship after LGBT activist Harvey Milk.
Who was Harvey Milk? According to a source cited by Peter, as a 33 year old man, Milk appears to have been involved in a sexual relationship with an under age boy. Peter noted that while not the first open homosexual to be elected to public office, he was the first to mobilize the so-called, gay constituency. This makes Milk the first “gay” power politician elected as a city supervisor in San Francisco.
Listen here:
Pederastic Postage? Under Obama, the US Postal Service placed Harvey Milk on a stamp–identifying him as an American icon and hero. This despite the sex-obsessed Milk’s record of lying, predatory behavior, and anti-Christian rhetoric.
Milk was killed when someone went after the mayor and Milk was also in the government building. Due to his death, Milk has received near martyr status among homosexual activists. This led to a Harvey Milk Day in California, students are being taught about him as he’s treated as a civil rights hero and now we have a U.S. Navy ship about to be named after him.
Peter went on to explain that Milk himself was in the Navy. At that time he tried to seduce sailors into sodomy in his San Diego apartment. So if the Navy names a ship after him, Peter feels they’ll be naming it after a sexual predator.
During the recent Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia there was a global LGBT summit that took place. Jim noted that the Daily Signal reported that more than 25 prominent leaders of the national LGBT movement gathered for this 4 day event called, The Equality Forum.
The forum sought to establish four goals and Peter commented on them:
Pass the Equality Act. This act would say that rights based upon homosexuality and gender confusion would take precedent over religious freedom. Peter indicated that the way it’s written right now, it explicitly negates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to homosexuality.
Defeat state and local laws. The biggest threat that LGBT leaders claim to face is what they call anti-LGBT legislation proposed by conservatives in state and local government.
Going to court. The summit panelists said they have their eyes set on a number of court cases that they believe could impact the future of the agenda of their movement.
Partnering with Black Lives Matter and others. Peter noted that the Black Lives Matter movement is very pro-homosexual in their platform. This is important as he described the homosexual movement as being basically a leftist movement.
Interestingly, PayPal founder Peter Thiel, who’s described as proudly gay, spoke at the Republican National Convention. According to Peter LaBarbera, Thiel mocked the culture war and mocked those who are fighting transgender rights.
When you review this Crosstalk broadcast, there will be much more to hear on this issue, including comments from listeners.
From de-criminalization of the “great moral evil” of homosexuality to a “powerful, clamouring, threatening, vengeful” Homosexual Lobby
“Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended up with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamouring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental – and to most of us horrifying – changes to civilised patterns of sexual behavior.” – British historian Paul Johnson, The Quest for God
Corrupting Children: As opposed to jaded Americans, Jamaicans are still shocked by the radical homosexual agenda — including pro-homosexual “children’s” picture books like the above, “King & King,” about a “gay” prince who “marries” another prince rather than a princess. Historian Paul Johnson describes how what began in the U.K. in the name of “compassion” for homosexuals (rescinding anti-sodomy laws) morphed into a vengeful “monster in our midst” — the powerful Homosexual Lobby. Today’s homosexual activists will even corrupt the minds and souls of the very young in their desperate quest to rationalize their sinful behavior, which God condemns.
By Peter LaBarbera
Folks, when I was in Jamaica I took time in my presentations to share this compelling passage from British historian Paul Johnson, from his book, The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage. (Hat tip to Paul Cameron of Family Research Institute for bringing this to light.) I have found nothing that better explains the inevitable slippery slope of indulged pro-homosexual activism — from the repeal of anti-sodomy laws (motivated by well-intended but misguided compassion toward homosexuals as “victims”); to demands for “tolerance” of homosexuality; to the steady growth of a “gay rights” movement winning passage of laws granting affirmative “rights” based on sexual perversion (and gender confusion); to homosexual and transgender advocacy in schools (targeting even the very young [see book photo]); and ultimately, to the rise of a powerful, well-heeled Homosexual/Transgender Lobby that achieves dominance in society at the expense of biblical truth, religious tradition, public health and the rights of others to disagree.
Note that Johnson correctly calls homosexuality a “great moral evil” – something I think even many committed Christians – neutered by political correctness and decades of “gay” propaganda – today would have a hard time admitting (to their shame). Johnson, writing in 1996, had not yet experienced the attachment of this moral evil to the noble institution of marriage itself (as is now legal in the U.K and in 16 American states). Sin’s advance – like an insatiable, devouring monster — destroys people and cultures, and displaces virtue with man-centered notions of wrong as right (Isaiah 5:20).
But God’s Truth – our Creator’s standard of righteousness – is unchanged – despite fanatical efforts by religious homosexuals to co-opt even Christianity itself. Like homosexual (mis)behavior, the ideology of homosexualism – proud homosexuality aggressively defended as a “civil right” and moral good – is an egregious sin before God. (For if, as the Word of God teaches, homosexual practice is detestable and always sinful in God’s sight, how can a movement based on condoning and celebrating it be any less so?) [See Leviticus 20:13 (note the context), Jude 7 (a verse liberals conveniently ignore in distorting the meaning of Sodom and Gomorrah), Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:7-11.]
Of course, we in America have our own arrogant and vengeful “gay” (LGBT) “monster in our midst” — and I warned the Jamaicans that they, too, will have one if they give in to Western powers by opening up the Pandora’s box of homosexual “rights” in their country. The smart and resolute Jamaican leaders and pastors whom I encountered understand the tragic lesson from Britain and the United States: all attempts to appease this self-justifying Sin Movement are doomed to fail, as each concession leads only to further, and more radical, demands.
Jamaican Pastor Rev. Everal Edwards (left) of Church of the Open Bible in Kingston, with AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera, who was a guest speaker at the church. “Right is right, and wrong is wrong,” said Edwards, in response to international pressure on Jamaica to repeal its anti-buggery law banning homosexual conduct. The law is largely unenforced but repealing it is only the first in a long chain of homosexual activist demands in the island nation.
It was the Irish statesman Edmund Burke who famously said: “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.” Let us hope and pray that the Jamaicans (and Russians, Czechs, Poles, etc.) succeed at stopping the LGBT juggernaut and avoiding our tragic fate. Please pass on this excerpt to others – especially those who naively – or cravenly – counsel “compromise,” retreat or surrender in the face of escalating homosexual activist demands. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
_____________________________
Johnson “Monster in our Midst” Passage:
Excerpt from The Quest for God: A Personal Pilgrimage, by Paul Johnson (pages 28-29) [emphasis is added, and for readability I have also broken in half the paragraph beginning, “I believe…”]:
…after a section in which Johnson discusses radical, worldly movements – race, sexual, environment and health politics — that collectively present an alternative to God and traditional religion:
“The radical agenda …with its strong appeal to the idealistic, as well as the materialistic, instincts of mankind, especially among young people, does constitute an alternative religion. Like any other form of humanism, it replaces God by man, and the welfare – or supposed welfare – of man, rather than the worship of God and obedience to his commandments, as the object of human existence and the purpose of society. That, of course, is its defect. The Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner once argued that it is the consciousness of God, the acceptance that there is power outside and above ourselves, to whom we owe allegiance and whose guidance we must follow, which essentially distinguishes mankind from other creatures. If belief in God were ever to fade completely from the human mind, we would not, Promethean-like, become masters of our fate; on the contrary, we would descend to the status of very clever animals, and our ultimate destiny would be too horrible to contemplate.
I believe this argument to be profoundly true, and corroborated by history, and what worries me about the new radical agenda is the danger that it will dehumanise man just as the totalitarian alternatives did, though no doubt in rather different ways. But there are further, related objections. All the items on the agenda lend themselves to extremism. Take, for instance, the issue of homosexuality, an important part of the sexual politics item. There were many of us, in the 1960s, who felt that there were grave practical and moral objections to the criminalisation of homosexuality, and who therefore supported, as happened in most Western countries, changes in the law which meant that certain forms of homosexual behavior ceased to be unlawful. Homosexuality itself was still to be publicly regarded by society, let alone by the churches, as a great moral evil, but men who engaged in it, within strictly defined limits, would no longer be sent to prison. We believed this change to be the maximum homosexuals deserved or could reasonably expect.
Paul Johnson
We were proved totally mistaken. Decriminalisation made it possible for homosexuals to organise openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality, and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance in schools, children’s homes, etc., became progressively more difficult. This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytise, and not least the privilege of special programmes to put forward their views – including the elimination of the remaining legal constraints – on radio and television. Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended up with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamouring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental – and to most of us horrifying – changes to civilised patterns of sexual behavior.
Here indeed we have sexual politics in action. And, as with other alternatives to God, the result is not human happiness, but human misery. The homosexual community, as they now styled themselves, by their reckless promiscuity during the 1970s and 1980s, helped to spread among their members the fearful scourge of AIDS, a killer disease of a peculiarly horrible nature, for which there is no cure, and no immediate likelihood of a cure….
As a 33-year-old homosexual man, Harvey Milk entered into a homosexual relationship with a 16-year-old boy, according to his late biographer. The age-of-consent in California was 18.
“Gay” activist icon Harvey Milk was a lot of things, including the first openly homosexual elected official in the United States. But he was also a sexual predator, as my friend and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber writes below. Somehow I doubt that schoolchildren will be learning about Milk’s sexual interest in underage boys in their “Gay History Month” or “Harvey Milk Day” lessons. Credit also goes to another AFTAH friend, Randy Thomasson, founder of SaveCalifornia.com, who more than any other pro-family advocate has worked to get out this and other politically incorrect truths about Milk. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
______________________
Sexual Predator Honored With U.S. Postage Stamp
By Matt Barber
Benjamin Franklin famously quipped, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
Franklin evidently failed to envisage today’s postmodern left. For the conservative, there exists at least one other certainty, and it is this: The degree to which “progressives” attack you corresponds precisely to the degree with which you challenge any among their assorted, distorted and sordid sacred cows.
What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.)
What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual preference, his own friend and biographer confessed, “Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems”?
In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man “demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys.”
But you can call him Harvey Milk.
Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.
And a “progressive” martyr was born.
Merriam Webster defines “pederast” as “one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.” It defines “statutory rape” as “the crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified by law.”
Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a statutory rapist. After I publicly addressed this objective reality in the above-mentioned interview, the liberal blogosphere reacted in, shall we say, an informatively defensive manner.
Societies that reject ‘absolute monogamy’ (one-man, one-woman) bring about own demise
If history is a judge, the United States of America, awash in sexual immorality and celebrating sexual and gender deviance, is a civilization in steep decline. Here we have placed our own commentary on the obnoxious and indecent TIME magazine cover (April 8, 2013), which aimed to further desensitize Americans to the perversion of homosexuality. Click on photo to enlarge.
The other day I stumbled upon this wonderful essay by my good friend Brian Fitzpatrick – which appeared in the Lambda Report on Homosexuality (in 1996), the precursor to and flagship publication of Americans For Truth. I encourage you to read it very carefully – and forward it to your family, friends and co-workers. Maybe even print it out; it’s that important.
So often the debate over homosexuality-based “marriage” is shallow, fearful — and driven by polls, strategic talking points, and politically correctness — or it bends to the demands of selfish homosexual activists and their newfangled “rights.” Brian’s piece goes much deeper – and reading it again after all these years led me to think about how much we have missed in our discourse surrounding the normalization of homosexuality. Tragically, since he wrote this 16 years ago, America’s grave moral crisis has only grown much deeper.
The modern U.S. homosexual (“gay rights”) revolution (pre-Stonewall riots) is all of about 60 years old – a mere deviant blip on the screen of human history. The scholars referenced by Brian take a much longer view, and we ignore them at our peril. Their bottom line: the societal embrace of sexual immorality – which of course includes homosexuality and related perversions — brings about the downfall of civilizations. America will be no exception. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Brian Fitzpatrick writes:
______________________________________
Gay ‘Marriage,’ Distant Consequences
By Brian Fitzpatrick, Lambda Report*
In his book , On Character, eminent social commentator James Q. Wilson defines virtue as “habits of moderate action; more specifically, acting with due restraint on one’s impulses, due regard for the rights of others, and reasonable concern for distant consequences.”
Alarm bells should ring when prominent commentators start talking seriously about decidedly immoderate notions like homosexual “marriage,” without considering the consequences. William Raspberry recently [in 1996] noted in his Washington Post column that gay and lesbian couples of his acquaintance are “not dangerous,” wondered why some people believe allowing homosexuals to “marry” could threaten their own relationships, and suggested that opposition to “gay marriage” springs from prejudice. He asked, “What are we afraid of?” The answer, of course, is the distant consequences. The health and survival of our civilization is at stake.
To understand the danger posed by homosexual “marriage,” you must join the great scholars in asking some fundamental questions. Why do some civilizations flourish? Why do others perish?
Perhaps the definitive work on the rise and fall of civilization was written back in the thirties by an Oxford anthropologist. In Sex and Culture, a study of 86 human civilizations ranging from Rome to Tahiti, J.D. Unwin found that a society’s destiny is tied inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression. The highest levels of social development are reached only by cultures that practice what Unwin called “absolute monogamy,” in which marriage is limited to one man and one woman, sexual outside marriage is not tolerated, and divorce is prohibited.
