By Peter LaBarbera

Strange, very strange. You might even say queer. Obviously, in the minds of some homosexual activists, the gap between how much actual (violent) “hate” exists and what they BELIEVE exists is so great that they feel the need to manufacture “antigay hate crimes” against themselves. Now, you say, sure, there are fringy “gay” zealots who do this sort of thing, just like there are nutjobs in every movement. Agreed. But these phony “hate crimes” keep surfacing, again and again and again — to the point where they are no longer freak occurrences but rather a symptom of a bankrupt ideology built upon a counterfeit foundation of “gay” victimhood.

The serious side of this, as we’re debating federal “hate crimes” legislation, is that activists on the Left know they can get scads of police and media attention by crying “hate,” and blaming their manufactured “crimes” on — you guessed it — religious conservatives. In Detroit, a homosexual man allegedly claimed (before his death) that he was attacked by someone yelling anti-gay slogans — and immediately Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force issued a vicious statement blaming pro-family Michigan advocate Gary Glenn for the “murder.” As it turned out, there was no “hate crime”; an autopsy revealed that the man, who had mental health problems, died of natural causes. (We’re still waiting for the Task Force to apologize to Glenn. Ditto for the homosexual groups that years ago tried to blame Matthew Shepard’s murder on pro-family groups that were running an ad campaign featuring “ex-gays.”)

The Left — engulfed in its own brand of hatred toward wholesome, pro-family positions on abortion and homosexuality — may be going overboard in its crude attempts to manipulate the politics of “hate.” Too bad that it will probably take a few dozen more phone “hate crimes” for the liberal media to catch on that most of this “antigay” victimization is manufactured hype.

Here’s the AP story on the fake “hate crime” at Minnesota State-Moorhead:

Gay rights march canceled after police say attack wasn’t hate crime
 

MOORHEAD, Minn. (AP) — A gay rights group is canceling a planned rally on the Minnesota State University Moorhead campus.

 

This after police say a previously reported assault was not a hate crime.

 

The Fargo-Moorhead Ten Percent Society says it supports the decision of Moorhead police and it will be canceling it’s march planned for Thursday night.

 

Edina native Paul Marquardt had reported that he was taunted for his sexual orientation and attacked by four men last week.

 

But Moorhead Deputy Police Chief Bob Larson says investigators heard a conflicting story.

 

So they interviewed Marquardt again and he said he didn’t hear any anti-gay remarks and believes he was pushed down and injured by unknown assailants.

 Check out this revealing account in yesterday’s New York Post of an appearance by crass lesbian Rosie O’Donnell to a group of VIP women in New York City. The story here is not Rosie’s mouth — the Big Apple’s sewers are cleaner than that — but the lack of outrage from the assembled powerful women despite the presence of a group of high-achieving high school girls in the room. But why are we surprised: after all, most of these women probably endorse the “Vagina Monologues,” a vulgar feminist play that has women discussing their private parts on stage as part of their assault on the patriarchy. (VM wants to take its subversive act from America’s colleges to its high schools — another atrocity for beleaguered parents to fight.) Note how one shocked observer didn’t want to give her name to the press. In other words, she was ashamed to publicly criticize O’Donnell. Meanwhile, we doubt that “shame” is even in Rosie’s vocabulary — which makes her, come to think of it, the perfect spokesman for modern, pro-partial-birth-abortion American feminism.– Peter LaBarbera

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix_u.htm

April 24, 2007 — ROSIE O’Donnell’s blue humor made faces red when she emceed the Matrix Awards in front of 2,000 feting New York’s most accomplished women in media at the Waldorf-Astoria Grand Ballroom yesterday.

The loose-lipped lesbian dropped the F-bomb as Barbara Walters lowered her head on the dais and covered her face with her hand. O’Donnell concluded a rant about Donald Trump by grabbing her crotch and shouting, “Eat me!”

O’Donnell also said she was sad when Trump called her “disgusting” and “fat” because, “it was always my dream to give an old, bald billionaire a boner.”

The annual luncheon of N.Y. Women in Communications – which honored Cindy Adams, Meredith Vieira, Joan Didion, Susan Lyne, Arianna Huffington and Lisa Caputo, among others – featured as presenters News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch [See photo, facing page], Joy Behar, Nora Ephron, and Martha Stewart.

Also on hand were 17 sweet-faced high school girls who won scholarships to pursue their dreams of careers in media.

“I was offended by how vulgar and common O’Donnell was,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democrat active in progressive causes. “It was especially inappropriate with young people present.”

Brandon Holley, editor-in-chief of Jane magazine, said, “I wasn’t personally offended, but I thought it was fun to watch other people be offended.”

“I cringed and dove under the table when she said, ‘Eat me,’ ” said one woman attendee who declined to be identified.

Among those in the crowd were Judith Giuliani, her predecessor Donna Hanover, Judge Judy Sheindlin, Helen Gurley Brown, Sue Simmons, Geri Laybourne of Oxygen Media, Jane Friedman of HarperCollins, and Hearst president Cathie Black.

O’Donnell’s publicist, Cindi Berger, told us: “When you ask for Rosie, you know what you’re getting. She’s not a shrinking violet. She’s a stand-up comedienne. She says things that are provocative.”

N.Y. Women in Communications was evidently happy with O’Donnell. The group’s managing director, Beth Ellen Keyes, sent an e-mail to her handlers saying, “Rosie was fabulous. Please let Rosie know how much we appreciated her being there. She was just great.” [See Cindy Adams, Page 20.]

Below is the homosexual magazine OUT‘s list of its “Power 50” of influential homosexuals. OUT calls it “our first annual ranking of the homos who really make the world go round. These are queers you don’t want to mess with.the 50 most influential homosexuals in America.” (PC language lesson 101: they can use words like “homos” and “queers”; we can’t.)

We are intrigued by the fact that the same movement that once cried out for “privacy” and “to be left alone” feels free to publicly declare people’s homosexuality for them (Anderson Cooper, No. 2, and Jodie Foster, No. 43). On the other hand, if OUT is right, it might explain Cooper’s bias in his reporting on the homosexual issue: in a recent interview that the CNN host did with pro and con advocates on a “gay parenting” story, he blatantly favored the “gay” side in his questioning.

Regardless of whether Cooper practices homosexuality, as a professional he should be completely even-handed in his treatment of this controversial moral question. So, by the way, should the New York Times — Gay Mafia (No. 7) or no Gay Mafia. — Peter LaBarbera

1. David Geffen
2. Anderson Cooper
3. Ellen DeGeneres
4. Tim Gill
5. Barney Frank
6. Rosie O’Donnell
7. The New York Times Gay Mafia: Richard Berke, Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliott, Adam Nagourney, Stefano Tonchi, and Eric Wilson
8. Marc Jacobs
9. Andrew Tobias
10. Brian Graden
11. Jann Wenner
12. Andrew Sullivan
13. Suze Orman
14. Joe Solmonese
15. Fred Hochberg
16. Christine Quinn
17. Perez Hilton
18. Scott Rudin
19. John Aravosis
20. Sheila Kuehl
21. James B. Stewart
22. Nick Denton
23. Tom Ford
24. Nate Berkus
25. Adam Moss
26. Jim Nelson
27. Lorri L. Jean
28. Adam Rose
29. Annie Leibovitz
30. Simon Halls and Stephen Huvane
31. Bryan Lourd
32. Bryan Singer
33. Jonathan Burnham
34. Brian Swardstrom
35. Robert Greenblatt
36. Chi Chi LaRue
37. Dan Mathews
38. Neil Meron and Craig Zadan
39. Ingrid Sischy
40. Marc Cherry
41. Carolyn Strauss
42. Irshad Manji
43. Jodie Foster
44. Christine Vachon
45. André Leon Talley
46. Hilary Rosen
47. Matthew Marks
48. Benny Medina
49. Mitchell Gold
50. David Kuhn

By Sonja Dalton

According to a Reuters article published Apr 5, 2007, the Walt Disney Co. has changed its policy and will allow same-sex couples to “marry” using Disney’s popular and lavish “Fairy Tale Wedding” program.

“We are updating our Fairy Tale Wedding guidelines to include commitment ceremonies,” Disney Parks and Resorts spokesman Donn Walker said. “This is consistent with our policy of creating a welcoming, respectful and inclusive environment for all of our guests.”

Disney will be marketing a fantasy wedding indeed — after all, homosexual pairs cannot obtain a marriage license in Florida or California.

So deluded homosexuals may shell out over $8,000 for a wedding planner, feast, flowers and decorations, and a ride in a giant pumpkin, but, at the stroke of midnight, when the mist clears and the last fleck of glitter floats to the ground, the perverted pair will discover ’twas all merely an illusion. Two men or two women may play dress-up in tiaras and tulle and tuxes (respectively), but afterward they will remain immoral in the eyes of God and unmarried in the eyes of man; same-sex pairs can never experience the mystery of becoming “one flesh” nor the miracle of procreation.

But never mind that — Disney will profit handsomely from such facades, and so they have rationalized:

“We are not in the business of making judgments about the lifestyle of our guests. We are in the hospitality business and our parks and resorts are open to everyone,” Walker said.

One can’t help but wonder: Will Disney now accept “Fairy Tale Wedding” reservations from parties of three or four — now that they’re not making judgments (or upholding state law)?

TAKE ACTION — Walt Disney executives may lack discernment, but we encourage readers to exercise their own. Why not skip “It’s a Small World” and instead plan a family vacation or Bible school field trip to the “Creation Museum,” scheduled to open June 2007 just outside Cincinnati, Ohio — where, among the other “Answers in Genesis,” your kids will learn the Truth about God’s design for human sexuality and marriage:

Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” …So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man He made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. –Genesis 2:18-25

The following is excerpted from an interview by the homosexual magazine The Advocate (March 27, 2007) with actress Rachel Grifffiths (HBO’s Six Feet Under, ABC’s Brothers & Sisters, The Rookie). Griffiths pushes the tired “gay” activist analogy equating interracial and homosexual relationships:

Advocate question:Have you ever seen any homophobia in action?

Griffiths: This lady told me she loved Brothers & Sisters, then said, “But I hope you pass this on to the producers, that we could really do without all that gay kissing.” I told her a story my grandmother told me: She went to Paris in 1932 and saw a black man holding the hand of a white woman, and she felt so horrified she almost threw up. My grandmother told me she knew that reaction was wrong, but it was the way she had been brought up. So I told this lady, “Maybe when you’re 98 you’ll tell your granddaughter how you saw two men kissing one day, and how you felt, but you know that’s wrong, and that was just how you were brought up.” She was shocked. I said, “So I’m not going to tell the show’s creators that. That’s for you to work out.”

— Interview in The Advocate, March 27, 2007, p. 20., by John Griffiths, who is identified as the TV critic for Us Weekly.

Homosexual activists regularly try to steal the goodwill of the civil rights movement, but in truth, opposing homosexual behavior is common sense and has nothing to do with racism. In fact, black homosexuals complain frequently about white racism within the homosexual subculture.

Opposition to two men kissing and other perversions is a natural, moral revulsion. Only those with a seared conscience are not offended by deviant sexual acts. Insofar as past racism precluded and stigmatized relationships between people of different races, that was wrong. Interracial couples produce wonderful children and families. In contrast, homosexual behavior is a dead end; in fact, it often leads to disease and early death — at least for half the population (men).

Christians once abused the Bible to rationalize racism; secularists and liberal religionists today abuse the Bible to rationalize sinful homosexual conduct. It is wrong to equate skin color to aberrant sexual behavior.

Question for Christians and pro-family advocates: are you confident that you will still defend God’s plan for keeping sex in marriage, including His opposition to homosexual behavior, when you are 98, or will you bend to the culture like Rachel Griffiths? Don’t let liberals put you on the defensive when they have no moral foundation to stand on! — Peter LaBarbera

Excerpted from Girls Will Be Boys, by Mary Roach, published Mar 18, 2007, by The New York Times:

Michael Dillon wanted nothing more than to be invisible, to be one of the guys. Problem: he was born with a woman’s body. Everything he did toward realizing his humble dream — the cross-dressing, the hormones and surgeries and the chimera that resulted — pushed it further from his grasp. He went through life as the most visible sort of human being: a physical anomaly. He was the first person on record to undergo surgery (13 operations between 1946 and 1949) to change his gender…

Happiness eluded Michael Dillon. Isolated, depressed, hounded by the press, he traveled to India and, bizarrely, to a series of ever more remote Tibetan monasteries. He could not speak the language of his fellow novices, but with his shaved head and robes, he felt he fit in someplace. Sadly, he faced prejudice in the monasteries too, and his visa ran out before he was allowed to become a full-fledged monk. In 1962, he died impoverished near the border of Ladakh. He was 47, and had been trying to get back to the monastery where he’d felt at home.

Continue reading in The New York Times… 

At Americans For Truth, we are in an ongoing and very politically incorrect battle to restore the definition of homosexuality: homosexuality is behavior — changeable behavior, not an innate, unchangeable trait or identity.

Homosexuality is what you do,
not “who you are,”
as proved by the many ex-“gays” and ex-“lesbians”
now living joyful lives, whether celibate or in heterosexual marriage.

That battle is made tougher by the liberal media’s push-back from the opposite direction. Note how talk show host Larry King, in his CNN interview last week with a GOP presidential candidate, distorted Gen. Peter Pace’s statement against “homosexual acts”:

LARRY KING: “The chief of staff of the American military said, the joint chiefs, said that he believes that being gay is — I’m going to quote him exactly — ‘is a sin’ and that he’s opposed to gays in the service. Where are you?”

Quote him exactly? Here is what Gen. Pace actually told the Chicago Tribune: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts…” — you can listen to the Tribune interview with Gen. Pace HERE.

——————————

The following is taken from a transcript of yesterday’s CNN “Larry King Live” interview with a GOP presidential candidate dealing with homosexuality and “gay marriage”:

LARRY KING: The chief of staff of the American military said, the joint chiefs, said that he believes that being gay is — I’m going to quote him exactly — “is a sin” and that he’s opposed to gays in the service. Where are you? ….

From The View from the Bottom, by Robert Knight, published Mar 16, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

The girls on “The View” are unanimous: Homosexuality is not only morally right but probably ought to be encouraged if we want to keep our military strong.OK, maybe mandating homosexuality in the military won’t fly just yet. For now, the ABC morning show’s talkers will have to be content fighting amongst themselves as to who is more outraged by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace, who told the Chicago Tribune that homosexuality, like adultery, is immoral.

The gals were in good media company. Not one of Tuesday’s morning or evening news shows on ABC, NBC or CBS featured a single person defending the general’s remarks. The tone was overtly hostile, with stories moving smartly through a laundry list of talking points found on homosexual activist groups’ websites. The Washington Post managed a March 13 trifecta: an editorial, “The Right to Serve,” an op-ed by Republican homosexuality booster and former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson, “Bigotry That Hurts Our Military,” and a news article by Ann Scott Tyson, “Sharp Drop in Gays Discharged From Military Tied to War Need.”

It’s not as if the American people are clamoring for the military to welcome open homosexuality. Despite some profoundly distorted polls like the recent Zogby survey of military personnel, a large segment of the American people believe, as Gen. Pace does, that homosexual behavior is immoral. According to the Cultural and Media Institute’s National Cultural Values Survey released on March 7, which polled 2,000 demographically representative Americans, 49 percent say flatly that homosexuality is “wrong.” Only 14 percent of Americans say homosexuality is “right.” The stampede to end the ban isn’t coming from the public, but from the media and some liberal politicians backed by the homosexual lobby.

On “The View,” the ladies opened the March 13 program by trashing the general, who wasn’t there to defend his honor.

Nor was anyone else inclined to do so, even designated “conservative” Elizabeth Hasselbeck. She openly wondered whether Pace harbors vices of his own that drove him to say what he did. This is a standard homosexual propaganda technique: Attribute dark motives to anyone who won’t salute the rainbow flag. You can look it up in their strategy manual, a book entitled “After the Ball.”

Rosie O’Donnell, a famous out lesbian, predictably came unglued. Over the past few years, she has defined herself primarily by her sexual behavior, and then claimed that people with moral qualms about homosexuality are bigots who are assailing her identity.

Here are portions of the five-minute discussion:

Joely Fisher: “We need to open General Pace’s closet and see what’s in there.”

Joy Behar: “Do you think people who are homophobic are gay closeted cases themselves?”

Fisher: “Or sexually repressed or uncomfortable with their own sexuality in any way?”

O’Donnell: “So if you are a gay person you are immoral. You are innately bad. You are less than, because you are gay. It’s like saying all lefties are witches.”

Hasselbeck: “He likened it to adultery, an adulterous person in the armed services would face some sort of punishment or some sort of slap on the wrist. …”

Fisher: “But it’s OK to kill people.”

Behar: “If you’re saying it’s immoral the way adultery is, then let gay people get married. Then it won’t be immoral.”

O’Donnell: “Can you be a straight person who is a horrible person, who is adulterous and has no morals?”

Fisher: “And have a leg up”

O’Donnell: “But it’s impossible for a gay person ever to be treated equal, which is the premise of this country, that all men and women are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, all people, even the gay ones. (Bares her teeth, shouts) General Pace, wake up! It’s 2007. There’s a war on! Leave the gays alone!” (applause)

After Rosie’s outburst, Hasselbeck explained why everyone doesn’t just go ahead and cheerfully accept homosexuality as moral:

“What happens is there’s this group of, you know, religious believers, be it Christian or whoever, who believe certain sins are worse than others. They do believe homosexuality is a sin, because they are not guilty, guilty of it, then they say, ‘It’s not my sin so I will focus on that,’ then pretty much hide the fact that I’m guilty of some other things as well.”

Later, she opined that, “We should not judge one another. I feel that’s the root of Christianity. You shall not judge.”

Does that mean we’re not to judge adultery? Promiscuous sex? Polygamy? Prostitution?

Inquiring Viewers want to know.