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.
“Detection of HIV infection is particularly challenging when very low levels of virus are present in the blood for example during the so-called ‘window period.’ The ‘window period’ is the time between being infected with HIV and the ability of an HIV test to detect HIV in an infected person….FDA’s MSM policy reduces the likelihood that a person would unknowingly donate blood during the ‘window period’ of infection. This is important because the rate of new infections in MSM is higher than in the general population and current blood donors.”— Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
In the book And the Band Played On: Politics, People and the AIDS Epidemic, homosexual journalist Randy Shilts documents how homosexual activists originally fought the effort to ban "gay" male blood donations, saying it was discriminatory. This caused a delay in starting the ban, which led to the needless deaths of many innocent people. Shilts himself died of AIDS.
Folks, thankfully, sanity has prevailed and the political attempt to weaken the FDA ban on blood donations from “men who have had sex with men” (MSM) failed in a 6-9 vote Friday by the FDA committee mentioned in Cliff Kincaid’s article below. (Note the American Red Cross’ condemnation of the vote, along with “gay” activist organizations; contact the Red Cross HERE.) I only wish the homosexual activists and their liberal allies (most importantly the CDC) would redirect their energies toward shutting down homosexual bathhouses and sex clubs — i.e., the venues that encourage the anonymous hyper-promiscuity that facilitates the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. (See our story: “CDC: Gay Men’s HIV Rate 44 Times that of Other Men; Syphilis Rate 46 Times Higher.”) But this would run contrary to the history of homosexual activism, which elevates deviant sex and “rights” based on same above the public health and other interests of the public. TAKE ACTION: Contact the Food and Drug Administration HERE; Contact the Red Cross HERE; and you can reach Congress at 202-224-3121.— Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org,
____________________________________
The Battle Over Blood
By Cliff Kincaid, Reprinted with permission of Accuracy in Media, www.aim.org | June 9, 2010
With the public focused on the calamity of the Gulf oil spill, another disaster that could affect millions of lives is in the making. The federal Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability (ACBSA) is holding meetings on June 10 and June 11 to consider lifting the ban on gay blood.
In this battle, if the gays win, you lose.
Gay activists, who are expected to dominate the proceedings and intimidate federal policy makers, insist that the ban is discriminatory and homophobic and are demanding the “right” to donate blood. The lifting of the ban on gay blood is seen as a necessary prerequisite to lifting the ban on open gays in the military. After all, how can gays be on the battlefield, where they could be called upon to provide a blood transfusion to a fellow soldier, if they cannot legally donate blood?
What this means, if politics is played with the blood supply, is that that the five million Americans a year who receive blood transfusions, in addition to soldiers on the battlefield, could be exposed to the AIDS virus or other infections in the diseased blood of sexually active homosexuals.
New York City homosexual activist Joe Jervis recklessly claims that the Americans For Truth Academy "will train young people how to properly hate faggots and dykes and foster violent crimes against them." Jervis, here protesting California's pro-traditional-marriage amendment, routinely conflates moral opposition to homosexuality with hatred.
Jervis wildly claims that the Americans For Truth Academy “will train young people how to properly hate faggots and dykes and foster violent crimes against them.”
Folks, it didn’t take too long for homosexual activists to smear the Americans For Truth Academy, which will be held in Carol Stream, Illinois, August 5-7. Here is one particularly inane and mean-spirited post by atheist “gay” leatherman Joe Jervis, who runs the blog “Joe.My.God.” With clockwork-like regularity, homosexual activists resort to their favorite lie: that civil speech opposing homosexuality in the public square leads to violence against homosexuals. (Such claims form the basis for demands to banish said speech; of course, vicious and nasty attacks on Christians somehow do not qualify as “hate” nor lead to violence against people of faith….)
Per Jervis’ piece below, “Porno Pete” is a smear term against yours truly invented by another hypocritical homosexual militant, Wayne Besen, and circulated by fellow “gay” activists (who simultaneously condemn name-calling against homosexuals — go figure). One of the things we will teach at the ongoing AFTAH Academy is that while homosexual activists demand respect and tolerance from others, they consistently dish out vitriol and invective against their opponents — all the while cynically equating historic, Judeo-Christian moral truths with hate, bigotry and “homophobia.”
“It is important to say that under Rehoboth law this was not against the law … In this case, they had male genitalia; therefore, they are not guilty of a crime.”– Rehoboth, Del., Police Chief Keith Banks
If transgender 'she-males' go topless, is it public nudity? Cops in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, say "No." Above, a male-to-female transsexual bares his presumably hormone-induced breasts while riding atop a float at the 2007 Chicago Gay Pride parade. The "she-male" rode for blocks in the parade as police took no action against him. Covered photo: Americans For Truth.
God help us. We have become a sick and very weird culture. In the good old days (before “she-males” existed), they would just call such people “perverts.” America was better off then. Check out in the piece below the anger of the local homosexual activist at the end of this story: no, Steve, what is truly “horrific” is that men are pretending to be woman, growing hormone-induced “breasts,” demanding “rights” based on their twisted gender choices, and then making even a bigger circus out of it all by going “topless” in public.
Can you see the misogyny in action here? In many ways, male transsexuals create in their reconstructed image a crude and deviant caricature of women (what they imagine being a woman is all about). I suppose in this case (and that of the “gay pride” photo above), we see men attempting to “live out” their fantasy — or delusion — of “being” slutty women. Too weird. Besides, in our depraved culture, aren’t there enough slutty women out there already that we don’t need men to “create” some more?
Only a nation that has kicked God to the curb would be on the verge of creating federally-guaranteed employment “rights” based on such unbelievable gender confusion. (That’s what ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would do.) Imagine all the trouble that activist “trannies” could cause for employers once they figure out the special treatment they can get merely by crying “discrimination!” Heck, they might show up at the company picnic in a low-cut halter top with lots of (fake) “cleavage” showing — just for the fun of it. The rest of us will have to bite our tongues or risk a Lambda Legal lawsuit. Don’t tell me this is what Martin Luther King died for! — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
P.S. Big surprise: Rehoboth is a popular “gay” destination.
(delawareonline.com) June 3, 2010– Rehoboth Beach and the local Internet have been buzzing for days after a few transgendered men caused a stir on the beach over the holiday weekend by removing their tops and revealing their enhanced breasts.
Police there were called to the beach after lifeguards requested that the sunbathers replace their tops.
“Passers-by came up to the lifeguard and said they were alarmed and unhappy with the females showing their breasts,” Police Chief Keith Banks said. “The lifeguard responded and saw that they were males.”
Banks said police were called because the men originally refused to put their tops back on, but had consented before police arrived. Officers made sure the situation was under control, and no citations were issued.
Banks said it could have been difficult to issue a citation because Rehoboth law defines indecent exposure two ways:
“A male is guilty of indecent exposure if he exposes his genitals or buttocks under circumstances which he knows his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person.
“A female is guilty of indecent exposure if she exposes her genitals, breasts or buttocks under circumstances which she knows her conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm to another person.”
So the men’s behavior may have been upsetting, but it was not illegal.
President Barack Obama's promotion of a government-enforced homosexual and "transgender" agenda will lead to the loss of liberties for those who espouse and defend the natural, historic Judeo-Christian conception of marriage and family.
CORRECTION: Well folks, looks like we’re a year behind in covering President Obama’s declaration of “Pride” in that which is shameful. I accidentally published President Obama’s 2009 “Gay Pride Month” Proclamation instead of the current 2010 version. So below we have included both years’ proclamations so you can compare them. Note that in the 2010 version, Obama calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he is now circumventing piecemeal through “domestic partner” executive orders for federal workers. I apologize for the mistake. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
_______________________________
Original AFTAH commentary:
America’s pro-homosexual Panderer-in-Chief is at it again….When President Obama proclaims [2009 “Gay Pride Month” statement], “As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit,” I wonder if he’s ever heard of Matt Barber — who was fired by Allstate Insurance Co., after Obama’s “gay” allies over at the Human Wrongs Rights Campaign complained that Matt had written an online article critical of homosexuality (on his own time).
(I don’t recall Matt being comforted at the idea that it was for the cause of “gay equality” that he was cruelly and suddenly thrown into unemployment by Allstate….)
Or how about Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer who was fined by the courts under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law because she would not take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony? (Pro-gay-agenda Libertarians: take note; Huguenin is appealing the decision.)
Wasn’t religious liberty and freedom of conscience one of those “principles upon which our Nation was founded”?
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?
Progressive Insurance and other big corporations now fund and promote immoral “gay pride” parades
Why should you spend your hard-earned consumer dollars on the products of a company like Progressive Insurance that promotes "pride" in immoral homosexual behavior? Progressive lists the various big-city "gay pride" parade dates on its special, pro-homosexual "Faces of Pride" website.
[The following message was sent out to AFTAH e-subscribers May 20, 2010:]
Folks, Jamil Adair of Horizon City, Texas, has given us permission to reprint his excellent letter to Progressive Insurance, which he sent after reading our article, “Progressive Insurance Co. Promotes Homosexuality.” (And Jamil approved the printing of his full address: here is one American who does not cower in fear of homosexual activist bullies.) Click HERE to read Jamil’s letter.
This is how we regain our culture: taking one principled stance at a time, and using our considerable power as consumers to defend morality and truth. In the last decade or so, the corporate world was essentially ceded to the “gay” lobby without much of a fight — while pro-family advocates were busy opposing the homosexual activist political agenda in Washington, D.C. Now look at the tragic result: major corporations are using their immense resources to promote sexual immorality and gender confusion throughout society. And the agenda they are financing wars against Biblical values and directly threatens YOUR religious freedom.
One wonders: what have the Christian employees been doing all these years at companies like Progressive? Why haven’t more people of faith spoken up in their place of employment — urging their superiors not to waste valuable corporate resources to fund and promote the homosexual and transsexual agenda? And why aren’t more Christians and moral advocates demanding true corporate “diversity” — which includes respecting those employees who support real (man-woman) marriage and who oppose homosexual practice and gender confusion?
Once-size-fits-all federal bill would impose gender-confusion-based “rights” on all 50 states
This gender-confused man who identifies as a "woman" ("Donna") deserves our pity, but does he also deserve special job protections based on his extreme gender confusion? Should he be given the "right" to be your child's teacher? See his YouTube interview below.
TAKE ACTION: contact your U.S. Representative and Senators to OPPOSE ENDA (“Employment Non-Discrimination Act”; HR 3017; SB 1584) — which would put the United States government behind the reckless idea of granting special employment “rights” and protections based on extreme gender confusion, as well as homosexuality and bisexuality. Contact Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or through www.congress.org. Pass on this e-mail to your network of friends and co-workers; ask them to watch the short (1:21) YouTube video below and to contact Congress on ENDA. Also ask them to oppose the homosexualization of our Armed Forces (through the repeal of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”), another goal of liberals and President Obama.
Dear Readers,
The homosexual-bisexual-transsexual push for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is in “full-court press” mode. Homosexual groups are furiously pushing the House Democratic leadership to bring ENDA to the floor for a vote — and one “queer” website (Queerty) quotes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as promising that ENDA will be called very soon, followed by an attempt to homosexualize the U.S. military with a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, a homosexual pressure group, 38 states do not protect employment “rights” based on “gender identity” (read: gender confusion). So the question is: if you live in one of the 38 states that does NOT grant special “‘transgender” protections, should you be forced by the federal government to hire this severely confused man…
as a child care worker?
as a “hostess” at a restaurant?
as a teacher at your public grade school?
Here is the definition of “gender identity” under ENDA:
GENDER IDENTITY- The term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.
ENDA represents the most radical departure from a traditional understanding of “civil rights” that this nation has ever seen. Help stop this misguided transformation of America’s employment landscape by contacting Congress today 202-225-3121; 202-224-3121; www.congress.org.
