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.
From today’s AFTAH e-newsletter; go HERE for contact info for Chili’s and parent company Brinker International — which is a “National Corporate Partner” of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:
Dear Readers,
This is not just another e-mail about boycotting yet another irresponsible corporation. It’s about educating the nation on the incredibly extreme and unhealthy agenda of the pro-Homosexuality-Bisexuality-Transsexuality Lobby — and holding company executives accountable for financing that agenda. Last week in Minneapolis, I and a few other pro-family advocates went undercover at the annual “Creating Change” grassroots homosexual conference put on by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. There were more than 2,000 LGBT activists in attendance! Some of the “change” we heard advocated in the various workshops, and which we will document in the days and weeks ahead, was shocking. Yet this agenda is one that the left-leaning media refuse to examine, much less expose. So AFTAH will do the media’s job for them by laying out the Gay Task Force’s extremist vision, which includes:
Taxpayer-financed “sex change” operations for transsexuals (not to do so is “discrimination” against “transgenders”);
Using polling, focus groups and emotional arguments to persuade evangelical Christians to ignore Scripture and accept homosexuality-based “rights”;
Using the tragedy of homosexual youth suicides to shame Christians into stop calling homosexuality sinful;
Celebrating sadomasochism (consensual sexual violence and degradation) and “kinky”/fetish sexual behaviors
Pro-homosexuality lessons for grade school kids (because waiting until middle school is too late to reach them);
“Non-judgmental condom advocacy for young men in the name of HIV prevention — and even being non-judgmental in “safe sex” training when it comes to bizarre/disgusting “fetish” behaviors
Predicting not just a future “gay” president of the United States but also a “bi” and a “transgender” president! (I’ll withhold the jokes…);
Using “gender identity” laws to pressure businesses to bend to the transgender agenda of “Gender-Neutral Restrooms” — to replace the old-fashioned variety with an “M” or an “F” on the door.
There is much, much more — the homosexual Task Force puts the “D” back in “Deviance,” that’s for sure. Stay tuned as we lay out the “change” that this high-powered organization and “Friend of Barack Obama” is promoting for America — with help from Chilis restaurants, Wells Fargo, Southwest Airlines, and other major corporations. God bless you and thanks for standing with us! — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth, www.aftah.org; americansfortruth@gmail.com.
Five Republicans vote Yes and 26 Democrats vote No on House vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), an ex-combat-Marine, opposes the effort to repeal the ban on open homosexuals in the military.
Folks, note the bias in this Politico article reprinted below reporting the legislative action Thursday on Capitol Hill to end the ban on open homosexuals serving in the military. Perhaps a large part of the reason that many Americans have changed their opinion on “gays in the military” is that they have been bombarded for the past 15 years with biased media treatment of the issue. (And this Politico article is more “balanced” than most media stories dealing with homosexuality.) I sent Politico reporter Jen DiMascio this short note:
Letter to Politico.com, May 28, 2010
Re: your story on the House repeal of DADT
Dear Ms. DiMascio,
Why did you include no quotes from (non-governmental) pro-family or conservative lobby groups in your story today on the repeal of DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] — seeing that you quote both SLDN [Servicemembers Legal Defense Network] and HRC [Human Rights Campaign] spokesmen?
Fair is fair.
Peter LaBarbera
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
What price will America pay to celebrate “gay pride” in our Armed Forces?
Aubrey Sarvis of the homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) said it was "not a big deal" serving in the Army as a homosexual way back in the 1960s. The gays-in-the-military debate is NOT about discreet homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, but the desire of homosexuals to be "out and proud" even in the conservative military culture.
Folks, note how homosexual activist and former Army infantry sharpshooter Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN) — the “gay” organization lobbying for homosexuals in the military — answers this question by MSNBC host Chris Matthews on his show Feb. 2, 2010:
MSNBC’s Matthews: “As a gay man, what was it like [serving in the Army]? You were not out in the open, obviously. What was your experience in that regard? What did you learn in terms of this issue of whether gay people should be allowed to serve openly?
Sarvis replies: “Well, by and large, even in the ’60s, Chris, I found that gays and lesbians serving — and most were serving in silence then — it was not a big deal. But all gays and lesbians want to serve openly. They want to be honest about their service to their country. And as Adm. Mullen said today, it comes down to integrity, and every servicemember counts — gay or straight.” [more analysis follows video….]
Sarvis’ comment is most reasonably interpreted to mean that it was “not a big deal” for homosexuals like himself to serve — i.e., they were not harassed or persecuted, presumably as long as they kept silent about their homosexuality. By extension, he may also be asserting that it was “no big deal” to the majority of straight soldiers that there were (discreet, non-public) homosexuals in the Army.
Like Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council, I believe that “homosexuals” [for purposes here: people who practice homosexuality or claim a (deviant) sexual attraction to members of the same sex] should not serve in the military. That is the law. But think back to the days of Arvis’ youth 40 years ago — when homosexuality was much more condemned by society than it is today. If men or women were capable of serving (as secret homosexuals) then — without major difficulties — what is behind the current, politically manufactured “gays-in-the-military “crisis” that supposedly necessitates a revolution in our military conduct policy during wartime?
Most are unaware that during the Revolutionary War George Washington was a staunch advocate for allowing “gays” in the military. In fact, he boldly commissioned the little-known “Fabulous Pink Brigade,” which once infiltrated a British camp and –– while the redcoats slept –– covertly redecorated in eye-popping pastels.
No, although Washington was a revolutionary, he wasn’t a radical. The idea of open homosexuality within our armed services has long been considered preposterous.
The following is reprinted from an excellent article by Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. We hope that it gives pause to liberal activists who are pushing for a rapid change in the military’s policy on homosexuality under the new Obama Administration. CMR’s Donnelly is the nation’s most influential conservative opponent of further homosexualization of American Armed Forces and other liberal social experiments involving our men and women in uniform.
TAKE ACTION: Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators at 202-224-3121 (find them at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov) and — citing this new survey information — urge that they oppose all further attempts to homo-sexually liberalize the military (during wartime). Homosexuality and good military morale don’t mix — see this AFTAH story pointing to the extraordinary homosexual male interest in “gay” military pornography. Keep in mind, as Donnelly states below, that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy introduced by President Clinton (and “enforced” under the Bush Administration) does not reflect the actual law pertaining to the issue; if the law were to be enforced, homosexuals would be counted completely ineligible to serve in the military. — Peter LaBarbera
_________________________________
Military Times Poll: Troops Oppose Gay Agenda for the Military
By Elaine Donnelly
The Military Times, a liberal Gannett publication favoring inclusion of professed homosexuals in the military, has just released an astonishing poll of active-duty subscribers. Results of the 2008 annual survey indicate that success for that cause essentially would destroy the volunteer force.
As in previous years, the annual Military Times Poll (linked on Drudge today) reveals that approximately 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repeal what the survey described as the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.” The catchphrase incorrectly labels the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, which clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to be in the military.
The 2008 Military Times Poll asked a new question that produced jaw-dropping results: “If the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy is overturned and gays are allowed to serve openly, how would you respond?” The article emphasized that 71% of respondents said they would continue to serve. But almost 10% said “I would not re-enlist or extend my service,” and 14% said “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” Only 6% expressed “No Opinion.” Before voting to repeal the law, Section 654, Title 10, members of Congress, and President-elect Barack Obama, ought to do the math.
I have heard from many friends who missed the live CSPAN broadcast of the testimony I gave before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on July 23. Those who did see the program recognized that my opening statement, concentrating on the consequences of repealing the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, confronted the committee members with serious issues that they did not want to hear. My fellow witness, retired Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, also talked about concepts that he knows well as a former Army Ranger and Delta Force soldier. Those matters seemed beyond the understanding of liberal members who berated us with absurd questions and diversionary insinuations that were repeated in hostile news reports.
“Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines?” — Elaine Donnelly positing the common-sense poll question that liberal media polls refuse to ask.
_________________________________
Open homosexuality will undermine military morale. Straight soldiers should not be forced to cohabitate with people who define themselves as sexually attracted to the same-sex.
The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released on July 19, 2008, is typical of recent polls of civilians on this issue. Surveys such as this both reflect and help shape public opinion, as part of a relentless perception management campaign that has been going on for years.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll is less than persuasive because it includes two questions that demonstrate how misinformation and diversionary questions can affect the results of polls. Question #33 reads:
“[D]o you think homosexuals who do NOT publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 78%, No, 18% No Opinion, 5%)
Question #34:
“[D]o you think homosexuals who DO publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?” (Responses: Yes, 75%, No, 22%, No Opinion 3%)
These two inquiries do not frame the real issue: Should the military require, as a matter of policy, forced cohabitation between heterosexuals and homosexuals in all military units, including the infantry, Special Operations Forces, and submarines? Instead, the questions use confusing double negatives, which end with the phrase “or not?” It is difficult to find a clear statement in the poll on which to state an opinion.
The questions suggest that the main issue is being “undisclosed” or “disclosed” as a homosexual in the military. On the contrary, the true key issue is eligibility to serve, not disclosure of homosexuality. Inquiries also use the permissive word “allowed,” not the more accurate term, “required,” as in “Should members of the military be required . . . ?” Instead, the poll focuses only on the desires of homosexuals who want to serve in the military. The issues of military discipline, morale, and readiness are not mentioned at all.
MILITARY MEN AS HOMOSEXUAL SEX OBJECTS? Above is an ad for one of the many “gay” military-oriented porn websites: American male soldiers do not bunk and shower with women; should they be forced to shower and bunk with men who identify themselves as sexually attracted to other men? TAKE ACTION: call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or contact your U.S. Representative and Senators online to voice your opposition to opening up the military to homosexuality. Read below about how homosexual men with their same-sex attractions compromised the Catholic practice of priestly celibacy.
Allyson Smith of AFTAH sends along this compelling essay with obvious parallels to putting homosexual men in the military. Rev. James Haley’s logic presumably would extend to (public) restrooms — not just for the “transgendered” but for all suffering from what some are calling “same-sex attraction disorder.” Rev. Haley of The Roman Catholic Faithful writes in “The Real Story about Celibacy”:
…By assigning religious men to live only with men, and religious women to live only with women, the bishop or abbot is apparently also following the tradition and moral prudence, or one can more properly say, the moral necessity, of keeping religious men and women separated from one another – a very prudent practice because, in the words of an honest speaker concerning human nature and Christian love: “There is nothing more naturally attractive for a Christian man in love with God, than a Christian woman in love with God.”
But that same-sex living assignment quickly and clearly runs seriously afoul when the sexual orientations and desires are reversed from their norm and, even more so, when those sexual orientations remain hidden from the outside world – that leads to the very improper, imprudent and secret situation that the Church was trying to prevent. In other words: There is nothing more “naturally” attractive for a homosexual man in love with God, than another homosexual man in love with God.
So ironically, tragically, inexplicably, it is the Church itself, the model and guide to moral life, that is encouraging, advocating and requiring the perpetual near occasion of sin for homosexual priests, and, in turn, creating an extremely uncomfortable situation for the heterosexual priests who are not interested in forming one of those personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men. And this non-interest from the heterosexual priest is a frequent cause of alienation, resentment and bitterness from the homosexual priests who would prefer to live with, and associate with, other homosexual priests, especially when so many other homosexual priests are afforded that “secret” privilege. In simple terms: the straight priest is neither wanted nor welcome among the homosexual priests….
From today’s AFTAH e-newsletter; go HERE for contact info for Chili’s and parent company Brinker International — which is a “National Corporate Partner” of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force:
