Hateful Savage Earns Nomination for ‘Gay Grinch 2009’

WARNING: Offensive Descriptions, Web Links

Dan Savage, anti-Christian activist, deviant sex advice columnist, prolific hatemonger -- and 'Gay Grinch 2009' candidate. See his "gay marriage" YouTube video below.

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, we have heard from a few readers who suggested that prolific homosexual writer and sex advice columnist Dan Savage be added to our “Gay Grinch of the Year” 2009 contest, and so he is. Only a perversion activist as twisted as Savage could stage a contest with his readers to come up with a sickening definition to associate with “santorum” — because he was upset that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum (R) made comments critical of homosexuality (in 2003). (And how appropriate that the winner of Savage’s little nastiness competition was a disgusting by-product of the crime against nature itself, anal sodomy; see his “santorum” definition HERE in the Urban Dictionary.)

Savage is also the lovely fellow who engaged in “Germ Terrorism” against GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer in 2000, by, as Wikipedia reports, “volunteer[ing] for the Bauer campaign with the intent to infect the candidate with his flu.” Picture the pathetic and sniffling Savage  walking around Bauer’s empty Iowa campaign office licking doorknobs; later he presented Bauer with a saliva-soaked pen to autograph a picture of his adopted son, posing as a pro-life fan of Bauer. (Don’t you just love modern liberalism?)

Who would have thunk that our “Gay Grinch” award would end up sullying the reputation of the “real” TV Grinch by comparison to such Major League deviants and hatemongers as Savage?

But enough about Savage’s past extremism. Recently the Seattle-based sex columnist made a very “queer” plea for homosexual “marriage” (watch YouTube below) — not seeming to comprehend the radical difference between evolving reforms within marriage and the revolutionary homosexualization of “marriage” that essentially redefines the institution to mean anything. (If two men can get “married” on the basis of “love,” how are we going to stop a man and two women from doing so on the same basis? In fact, polygamists feel they have a greater claim to legal marriage than homosexuals because at least they have opposite genders and can produce children on their own.)

Tough choice awaits as homosexual hate boiled over this year

In 2008, 15-year-old Amanda Collette was shot and killed by lesbian classmate Teah Wimberly after she resisted Wimberly's homosexual advances.

A SERIOUS NOTE: As you can see, below we are making light of the bald-faced hypocrisy of homosexual activists, who demand tolerance for themselves even as they maliciously attack and victimize their critics — and falsely accuse them of “hate.” However, we are not including the most vicious manifestation of homosexual hatred that occurred this year: the recent murder conviction of  Teah Wimberly, a lesbian student who shot and killed Amanda Collette, her 15-year-old classmate at Ft. Lauderdale’s Dillard High School — because Collette refused Wimberly’s same-sex romantic advances.

This is no joking matter, so Wimberly (courtroom photo below left) is not on our list. Needless to say, her conviction for the murder of the talented and beautiful Collette (pictured below right) — a murder directly tied to homosexuality — has not received anything close to the national media attention that made homosexual murder victim Matthew Shepard a household name. (Recall that the much-touted “anti-gay-hate-crime” motive for Shepard’s murder was later cast into serious doubt by ABC’s 20/20.)

Teah Wimberly was found guilty of murdering the target of her same-sex crush, Amanda Collette.

A little over a year ago, Amanda Collette became the ultimate victim of homosexuality when Wimberly shot her in the back at school. As the Miami Herald reported, “Collette, 15, a star dancer on the school’s hip-hop dance squad, had rejected romantic advances from Wimberly in the days before the shooting.” Minutes after the shooting, Wimberly cried in a call to the 911 operator: ”I didn’t want to kill her so I shot her in the back . . . I just wanted to give her the pain she gave me.”

Regardless of what other factors were involved in this tragedy, it is not unreasonable to assert that Collette would be alive today were it not for the modern GLBT activist movement, which aggressively seeks to mainstream sexual deviance and immoral gay/lesbian “relationships” as normal and acceptable — most tragically among young people.

Yes, Virginia, there was a time in America when young women did not have to worry about sexual harassment and sexual advances from other young women. And the GLBT movement is first and foremost to blame for the rising number of youth who are embracing homosexual behaviors and considering destructive “gay,” lesbian, bisexual, or “transgender” self-“identities,” at younger and younger ages.  We ask you to pray for the families of both Collette and Wimberly, and pray for the Christian conversion of Teah Wimberly as she awaits sentencing. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________

Nominees Sought for ‘Gay Grinch of the Year 2009’

By Peter LaBarbera

CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is taking nominations for our first annual “Gay Grinch of the Year” Award for 2009 — given to the meanest, most deceitful, most socially destructive and/or most blasphemous “gay” activist of the year. Two Thousand Nine was a particularly “mean one” for the Homosexual Lobby — to quote the infamous theme song for the Grinch (which was sung by Thurl Ravenscroft and not Boris Karloff, by the way) — so the choice will be a tough one. We want your input: send your nominations, suggestions and documentary evidence of “gay” Grinchiness to americansfortruth@comcast.net. The Gay Grinch 2009 Award winner will be announced after Christmas.

Update: since the publication of this piece in 2009, Randy Thomas has strayed back into homosexuality (while still claiming, against the entire counsel of Scripture, that he remains a faithful Christian. His former boss, Alan Chambers, has presided over the implosion of Exodus International as a Christian “ex-gay” ministry–through the embrace of of a heresy labeled “Hyper-Grace” by our friend Dr. Michael Brown, who wrote a book about it. In 2015, Chambers ridiculously opined that God is “cool” with homosexual “marriage.” AFTAH now (highly) recommends Restored Hope Network, an umbrella group of ex-“gay” ministries that includes many former Exodus members. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH, Dec. 2, 2016

_________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

Folks, a few days ago we ran a story about CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) allowing a homosexual activist group to be a co-sponsor, in which I quoted my friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber offered a colorful description of homosexual sodomy. It was appropriately dismissive toward this “detestable” act (Leviticus 18:22) once known as a “crime against nature,” Matt’s point was obvious: no true “conservative” can support or celebrate homosexual perversion or the LGBT agenda, in any way.

Well, thanks to the politically correct overreaction of Randy Thomas and Alan Chambers of Exodus International (an ex-“gay” umbrella group), Liberty Counsel (Barber’s current employer) issued an apologetic statement that was not fully accurate in that it left out a key fact: Matt’s ownership of the bold sodomy description. This could create the  impression that Barber might not have made the comment, which he did.

Today Matt issued his own clarification (emphasis added):

“This is for clarification only. As affirmed in Liberty Counsel’s statement, neither I nor anyone with Liberty Counsel ever publicly ‘wrote or made’ the comment in question – an unapologetically direct and accurate depiction of the sin of sodomy (a sin that God directly and accurately calls both an ‘abomination’ and ‘detestable’). Some years before I began working with Liberty Counsel, I made the comment in private conversation with Peter LaBarbera. At the time, Peter asked if he could ‘quote me on it’ and I said yes.

Read the rest of this article »

Folks, I mistakenly implied that GOProud — the aspiring “gay conservative” group whose co-sponsorship of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) this February has sparked talk of a social conservative boycott — endorses the full agenda of other GLBT groups. Actually, it opposes “hate crimes” laws, as Damien Geminder of the blog http://conservathink.blogspot.com writes below. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Damian Geminder’s letter to AFTAH:

From: Damian G. [——-]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1:53 PM
To: americansfortruth@comcast.net
Subject: [AFT Web Site] RE: GOProud article

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:
——————————————————————————–
In your article about CPAC’s sponsor GOProud, you questioned libertarians for supporting “redefin[ing] criminal prosecution to factor in people/s thoughts (hate crimes).” Actually, GOProud was largely formed as a result of homosexual conservatives who opposed the Log Cabin Republicans’ pro-hate crimes stance. GOProud is for many pro-gay causes, but hate crimes is not one of them.

Mainline conservatives finally catch up in exposing GLSEN’s extremist agenda

WARNING: OFFENSIVE DESCRIPTIONS

In the GLSEN-recommended book "Queer 13," a 13-year-old boy graphically describes sexual "tricking" (prostitution) with adult men.

Folks, as one who has worked for more than 15 years with other pro-family groups to expose the insidious and child-corrupting agenda of Kevin Jennings and GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), I’m overjoyed that conservatives and right-leaning media are finally helping to expose this organization’s truly radical and evil agenda to millions of outraged Americans.

Here’s one point of clarification, though, for the record: my good friend Linda Harvey of Mission America, a Christian pro-family organization, broke the story about GLSEN’s twisted “Reading Recommendations” way back in 2002, yet few people are citing her work today even as they borrow heavily from it. I stood with Linda as a speaker at a Concerned Women for America conference that year when she began her speech, “I’m here to tell you what I did on my summer vacation.” We chuckled as she began holding up book after GLSEN-recommended book that she had read, while describing–as delicately as possible before a Christian audience–their perverse contents.

Linda Harvey (www.missionamerica.com) spent a whole summer reading perverse books on GLSEN's Recommended Reading list in 2002.

If only the media and mainline conservatives had paid attention and helped expose GLSEN’s dangerous agenda and reading list back when Linda did seven years ago! Turns out the much-maligned “Religious Right” was right after all about the LGBT movement’s sinister agenda to push perversion on children in the name of tolerance. Religious-Right-bashing “conservatives”: take note.

One more point: it is now common for conservatives — especially non-religiously-affiliated media leaders like Sean Hannity (who should be applauded for his yeoman’s work exposing Jennings) — to make the odd disclaimer that the GLSEN/Jennings controversy (or whatever “gay”-related culture-war story they are discussing) “is not about homosexuality.” Baloney. This is all about homosexuality and the “gay” activist agenda whose singular goal is to normalize homosexuality as a “civil right.”

Pro-homosexual ‘hate’ harasser Daren Lund could still appeal decision

Pastor Stephen Boissoin

By Tim Bloedow; reprinted from ECP Centre website, Dec. 4, 2009

The ECP Centre (Equipping Christians for the Public-square Centre) is very encouraged to see that sanity prevailed in Alberta’s court system with the decision Thursday to overturn the abusive Human Rights Commission ruling against Stephen Boissoin. We are also grateful to have played an important part in the case, raising awareness of the case over the past several years and organizing three successful fundraising dinners in the spring of this year which helped to bring in over $25,000 from generous Canadians towards Mr. Boissoin’s substantial legal costs. We continue to receive donations designated to Mr. Boissoin’s legal defense and we are grateful for the Christians who take their faith seriously enough to be aware of these disturbing cases and who are able to donate to support fellow-Christians in today’s battles.

Those familiar with the case will know that seven years ago, a “human rights” complaint was filed against Stephen Boissoin due to his sharp criticism of homosexuality in a letter to the editor printed in the Red Deer Advocate. In December 2007, the Alberta Human Rights Commission issued a ruthless decision against Mr. Boissoin which itself was an expression of hatred against Christianity. The provincial HRC essentially became a tool for a homosexualist inquisition whereby Mr. Boissoin was ordered to give a false apology for the substance of his letter. He was banned from ever criticizing homosexuality again in public or private communications, and even from the pulpit. The implications of the decision were stunning in terms of the imposition of the state over the church and the restrictions on religious liberty. Mr. Boissoin was also fined $5,000.

Needless to say, Mr. Boissoin filed an appeal of the decision. His legal counsel Gerry Chipeur was very confident that they would win the appeal because the historic principles of fundamental justice were on Mr. Boissoin’s side so, in a real court where such rules applied, the absurd HRC decision wasn’t expected to stand. The plaintiff Darren Lund, however, is reported in the Calgary Herald as not having made up his mind whether to appeal the decision.

Stephen Boissoin vindicated

In his decision, Justice Earl Wilson said that whatever one thinks about Mr. Boissoin’s comments, they didn’t violate Alberta’s human rights legislation which is to say, as the Edmonton Sun reported, that “there was nothing in the letter to suggest it was exhorting Albertans to discriminate against homosexuals in areas of employment, tenancy or goods and services which fall under provincial jurisdiction.” Justice Wilson said, “”Inferring some sort of call for discriminatory practices prohibited by provincial law is an unreasonable interpretation of the letter’s message.”

Millions of young Americans saw this simulated homosexual oral sex act on ABC thanks to Adam Lambert pushing his "queer" lifestyle choice on the rest of us. Lambert deliberately sought to be provocative and characterized criticism of his vulgar stage act as "discrimination."

Folks, we’ll have much more on Adam Lambert and his calculated use of his nationally broadcast American Music Awards stage act to advance homosexual immorality and sadistic perversions in the name of “nondiscrimination”:

Liberty Counsel Files Complaint with the FCC for Indecent Acts of Adam Lambert

November 24, 2009
From the Liberty Counsel website:

Liberty Counsel has filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against the American Broadcasting Company (“ABC”) for airing an outrageously lewd and filthy performance by Adam Lambert on November 22, 2009 during the 2009 American Music Awards.

Prior to going on-air, Lambert explained that his motive went beyond performing. According to the Associated Press, Lambert “wanted to break down a double standard that existed where female performers are often sexually provocative while men don’t do it that often.”

New York Times resident "conservative" David Brooks says it is hard to take Sarah Palin seriously, yet he relied on specious "queer" theology in an attempt to justify legal homosexual "marriage" as a supposed moral cause that conservatives should support. Turning the Bible on its head, Brooks says NOT allowing homosexuals to get married is an "abomination."

By Peter LaBarbera

New York Times columnist and TV pundit David Brooks is a liberal’s kind of conservative. The other day, Brooks made news deriding Sarah Palin as a “joke” on a Sunday talk show. Liberal Palin-haters couldn’t be more pleased, as they always are when “moderate” (read: socially liberal) Republicans deride pro-family conservative Republicans.

Said Brooks about the former Republican Governor of Alaska and GOP vice-presidential candidate:

“She’s a joke. I can’t take her seriously,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “The idea that this potential talk show host is considered seriously for the Republican nomination, believe me, it will never happen. Republican primary voters are not going to elect a talk show host.”

I agree with conservative media critic Bernard Goldberg in explaining the dominant elite media’s contempt for Palin: she is a popular, pro-life, conservative, Christian woman — a mix that smug west- and east coast liberals don’t like and certainly not the kind of woman they want to see succeed, much less be President. Surely they are incredulous and envious of her popularity and power, which is far bigger than theirs will ever be (Brooks included).

But what about Brooks? His arrogant, rapid-fire put-down of Palin epitomizes the disdain that RINO (Republican In Name Only) Republicans have for the true, blue, pro-family conservatives who are the collective backbone of the GOP. Socially liberal Republicans whine about “tone” and “tenor” and the alleged harshness of the “religious right,” but I find that it is often the “moderates” who are cutthroat and even nasty in their dealings with religious conservatives in the party.