Mayor Naugle is pictured above to the direct left of President Bush (he is facing the camera). At left, homosexual activists’ “Flush Naugle” website mocks his stand against homosexual public bathroom sex.

TAKE ACTION:  Watch yesterday’s Sun-Sentinel video of Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle’s press conference in which he apologizes for not doing more to stop homosexual “sex” in the city’s public and beach restrooms. Naugle also opposes housing a homosexual library collection containing hard-core pornographic items in a public library.  E-mail Mayor Naugle at mayorjames@aol.com, and thank him for refusing to be intimidated by a vocal fringe and the liberal media. And contact the Ft. Lauderdale city commissioners and urge them to support the Mayor’s push to protect children and uphold decency.

A note on the Naugle story: will the day ever come when LEADERS of the proud “gay” lobby apologize for their community’s own excesses — e.g., tolerating or encouraging men to commit anonymous sodomies with other men in public restrooms, parks, and bathhouses (sex clubs)?

Kudos to Mayor Naugle. I almost fell off my seat watching this video. Finally, a public servant with the courage to stand up to the homosexual militants and their fellow travelers in the media. Imagine: a big-city mayor tries to stop gross perversions from occurring in public places — and the pro-“gay” lobby says HE is the problem and is embarrassing the city! — Peter LaBarbera  

_________________________

From today’s Florida Sun-Sentinel Newspaper:

Fort Lauderdale mayor issues apology, but not to gay community 

FORT LAUDERDALE — Mayor Jim Naugle issued a public apology on the steps of City Hall Tuesday afternoon, but it wasn’t the apology the gay community was looking for.

Naugle apologized for underestimating the problem of men having sex with each other in public restrooms, and urged people to call police to complain when they come upon it. He also said Broward County leads the nation in the incidence of new AIDS cases involving men having sex with men, and questioned whether the county tourism office should be welcoming them here.

Naugle alerted the media that he was holding a news conference that would include “an apology.”

Gay activists and others have been calling for a public apology form the mayor, and for his resignation, since the South Florida Sun-Sentinel published Naugle’s comments earlier this month about gays. In article about a proposed self-cleaning, automatic toilet the city was going to buy for the beach, Naugle said an added benefit would be that it would deter men from using it for “homosexual activity,” which he said was a problem in public restrooms.

Click HERE to read the rest of the Sun-Sentinel story (and watch Mayor Naugle’s press conference)

MTV’s “gay” LOGO network is sponsoring the homosexual presidential debate August 9th.

By Peter LaBarbera 

In trying to put into perspective the stunning yet sad news of the first-ever “gay” activist-sponsored presidential “debate” — to be held in Los Angeles on August 9, and aired over the MTV-owned homosexual network LOGO — we ask: when is the follow-up debate for those advocating sex outside marriage? (After all, people once said to be “living in sin” are now a sizeable minority in America.) How about one tailored specifically to the pro-drug legalization crowd? Is a Planned Parenthood-sponsored debate, complete with Gloria Steinem as lead questioner, around the corner?

Pardon our dismissive tone, but homosexual behavior is wrong — at least half the country still regards it as such.  It is one of several sexual sins opposed by God (can I still say that without being charged with a “hate crime”?).  Because same-sex acts are so unnatural, they can be highly destructive — witness the high percentage of AIDS cases — 71 percent — linked to MSM (“men who have sex with men”).  Homosexuality is also changeable, as testified by the many men and women who once proudly identified as “gay” or “lesbian” but who have walked away from homosexuality and are living happy lives today.

We know that it’s not Politically Correct to say these things.  Fine, but last I heard, God is not rewriting His moral code according to the dictates of the Democratic Party. Or the GOP, or even the smug scribblers on the Washington Post’s editorial pages, for that matter. For the record, He hasn’t declared unborn babies mere blobs of tissue, either — though many politicians and reporters would love to be rid of that moral irritant.

So why does the homosexual lobby get its own special presidential lovefest … er, debate? Because the Democratic Party has sold its soul on homosexuality. And we fear some in the Republican Party are rushing to catch up.

The “gay presidential debate” is so wrong on so many levels. The country is still divided on homosexuality — despite the media’s best efforts — yet all the questions presumably will come from ardently pro-“gay” advocates — that is, proud, practicing homosexuals.

One of the reported questioners is lesbian rock star Melissa Etheridge.  Another is Joe Solmonese, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, the world’s biggest “gay” lobby organization and a group that regularly disparages people of faith opposed to homosexuality as haters and bigots. Yep, lots of journalistic objectivity here.

Will there be a corresponding, “gay”-positive GOP presidential debate — hosted by the Log Cabin Republicans?  Where does the pandering end?  Who represents the tens of millions of Americans who morally object to homosexuality, and who stand to lose their religious and First Amendment freedoms if HRC’s radical agenda is enacted? (I hereby volunteer my services as a conservative questioner if the organizers care to make a pretense of journalistic objectivity.)

Even if one could conceive of a reason to have a “homosexual presidential debate,” why would the questioners all be of the liberal-left persuasion? (I confess I don’t know much about Etheridge’s political leanings, but how about at least including a “gay” libertarian like Rick Sincere to mix things up?) Is there any doubt that HRC is sponsoring this debate to push the candidates further toward embracing its radical statist agenda, including “gay marriage,” “hate crimes” and “transgender rights”?

“We’re honored to give the presidential candidates an historic opportunity to share their views directly with the LGBT audience,” says Brian Graden, President, Entertainment, MTV Networks Music Group, and President of LOGO. “This forum continues MTV Networks’ tradition of engaging vital niche audiences with voting and the electoral process.”

Three clues as to which oversized “niche audience” is getting the shaft this presidential campaign season. (Here’s one clue: LOGO’s and HRC’s websites will be taking questions from the public for the debate, but somehow I don’t think a social conservative’s question will make it on air.)

The MTV-LOGO debate is a sham, but the sad thing is: if “mainstream” journalists were substituted for the homosexual activist questioners, the tenor of the evening likely would remain the same. Because these days it’s getting harder and harder to distinguish between the “gay”-cheerleading media and “gay” activists themselves.

From American Family Association’s OneNewsNow news. Click HERE for a link to OneNewsNow where there is an audio link to this story:

A pro-family activist says the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination are “pandering to the gay lobby” by agreeing to take part in a televised debate moderated by homosexual activists.

The top three Democratic presidential candidates … plan to take part in a one-hour debate August 9 devoted solely to “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender” (GLBT) issues. The debate will be televised live from Los Angeles on the Viacom-owned homosexual television network “LOGO.”

According to Peter LaBarbera, director of Americans for Truth Action, Joe Solmonese — president of the Washington, DC-based Human Rights Campaign, one of the country’s most powerful homosexual activist groups — will be moderating the debate. HRC is coordinating the debate through a partnership with LOGO.

“The whole thing is structured to be pro-homosexual — and one wonders what candidates are doing to be sensitive to the pro-family people who still believe homosexuality is wrong,” exclaims LaBarbera.

The family advocate notes that polls that are “probably politically correct” show that half the country still believes homosexual behavior is wrong. “[The percentage is] probably much higher than that,” LaBarbera says, “but this is just astonishing that this development is happening and it’s being treated as a serious debate.”

The White House hopefuls will be asked questions by a panel that includes Solmonese and lesbian singer Melissa Etheridge. Questions will reportedly cover topics such as same-sex “marriage,” “hate crimes” legislation, and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. One news report indicates individuals will also be able to submit questions online.

LaBarbera calls the debate “one of the most extraordinary developments in our country’s history.” He laments the societal mindset from which such an event would even occur.

“A debate framed from a pro-homosexual perspective — when homosexual behavior, for centuries, [for] thousands of years, was regarded as deeply sinful by Christians and people who believe in God,” he says. “It’s just astonishing. I’m waiting for the adultery presidential debate or maybe the pro-drug use presidential debate.

“Who ever heard of framing a presidential debate around a sin?” he asks.

Fox News reports the following:

Deductive Reasoning

 

A 63-year-old Boston resident is suing the IRS because it is refusing to allow a $25,000 deduction — for a sex-change operation.

 

Rhiannon O’Donnabhain was a married father of three — when he underwent the operation at age 57. The IRS rejected the write-off — saying the tax code does not allow deductions for cosmetic surgery unless it is medically necessary. O’Donnabhain says the surgery follows a medical diagnosis of gender identity disorder, and advocates say it should be treated like other medical procedures. They say the IRS ruling is motivated by politics and prejudice.

 

O’Donnabhain’s case could set a precedent for the up to 2,000 people a year who undergo sex-change surgery in the U.S.

 

—FOX News Channel’s Martin Hill contributed to this report.

Editor’s Note: Lesbian blogger Pam Spaulding has removed this menacing AK-47 comment from her site: see our update HERE. 

Original story, posted July 15, 2007 

Homosexual activists are upset that we used the case of Russell Groff — a Tennessee boy who entered the homosexual lifestyle as a teenager and died of AIDS at 26 — as an example of the extreme health risks of (male) homosexual behavior. More on that later: we’re on vacation, and there is considerable “gay” misinformation to counter — including homosexual “fact checking” blogger Jim Burroway’s specious claim — relying on a Maryland homosexual activist group’s website — that Russell died of a “staph infection following gall bladder surgery.” (Russell’s mother Carolyn Groff sent us his Maryland death certificate showing HIV/AIDS as a cause of death.)

The following comment was posted July 15 on lesbian activist Pam Spaulding’s blog, which seems to have a problem with violence-prone contributors. (In February, a South Dakota man published our address on Spaulding’s blog with the words, “Sniper’s, take note”; he received a formal police warning for the threat and Spaulding, who said she was unaware of the comment, banned him from her blog.)

For the full thread including “underbear1’s” menacing comment below (emphasis added), click HERE:

Having survived a lover who died of AIDS

 

 

If I’d have faced a Baptist Fred Phelps-type protest, and a f*cktard like Petey using someone else’s memorial to twist to his hateful message, I would have snapped, and taken them all out with an AK-47, and not given a sh*t if it cost me my life, because at that point, (I was considering suicide anyways.)

 

Petey be glad you still are breathing, you picked on someone much more forgiving than I am.

 

——————————————————————————–
by: underbear1 @ Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 16:16:57 PM CDT 
[ Reply ] 

 Russell Groff, 1978-2004

Russell died at age 26 of HIV/AIDS after living in a homosexual relationship. How many future men will die young if the politically correct silence on homosexual health risks is not broken? Groff’s mother wants to use his life to warn other parents and children about the perils of embracing a “gay” lifestyle.

By Peter LaBarbera

We live in a cowardly and confused age, so perhaps it was too much to expect that Dr. James Holsinger, President Bush’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General, would defend his own writings outlining the immense health risks of (male) homosexual behavior.

Unfortunately, on Thursday at his Senate confirmation hearing, Dr. Holsinger succumbed to the Bush Administration’s spin-doctors, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s bluster — and, evidently, his own lack of conviction — and said not one word in defense of his 1991 paper, “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” which was written to shore up the faithful against forces in the Methodist Church seeking to undermine the church’s historic Biblical teachings on sexual sin.

Here is an account of the telling exchange between Sen. Kennedy and Dr. Holsinger, from the homosexual Washington Blade newspaper (emphasis added):

Holsinger’s critics have questioned the credibility of the studies he cites in his paper, saying most experts in public health agree that gays and straights are equally susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. Critics have said the determining factors for transmission of sexually transmitted diseases are unprotected sex and the frequency of unprotected sexual encounters, regardless of whether such encounters are between same-sex or opposite-sex couples.

Kennedy said he received a letter from nine doctors with knowledge in human sexuality who denounced Holsinger’s paper as “wholly unscientific, biased and incredibly poor scholarship.”

“Dr. Holsinger’s paper cherry picks and misuses data to support his thesis that homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural,” Kennedy said at the hearing…

…Holsinger said his paper was an unpublished review of the medical literature on health-related issues pertaining to male homosexuality nearly 20 years ago.

“I did not attempt to write a definitive scientific paper,” he said.

He said he now believes the paper is outdated.

“First of all, the paper does not represent where I am today,” he said. “It does not represent who I am today.”

So what are Dr. Holsinger’s views on whether homosexual acts are unnatural and unhealthy? We don’t know.

It seems that between 1991 and 2007, Dr. Holsinger went from defending truth to evading it, with some help in recent weeks from Bush Administration bureaucrats. (From the moment his nomination became national news, Holsinger’s White House handlers were pushing the idea that he’d moved on from his 1991 views: in the words of Health & Human Services spokeswoman Holly Babin, “Over the last 20 years, a clearer understanding of these issues has been achieved.”)

Meanwhile, homosexual activists threw everything but the kitchen sink at the doctor’s 1991 paper, but the nub of their opposition came down not to medical points — after all, the “gay” movement has made HIV/AIDS the most politically protected disease in American history — but to variations on this argument from homosexual activist Jim Burroway, critiquing the 1991 paper:

…Holsinger made the fatal error of ignoring the bonds of affection and devotion that arise in gay and lesbian couples. He reduced the rich complexity of their relationships to pipe fittings and how they interlock with each other.

In other words, Dr. Holsinger’s “fatal error” 16 years ago was that he agreed with God, not “gays,” about homosexual behavior. (Memo to God: consult with Jim Burroway ASAP re: your condemnation of same-sex practice; study up on the “rich complexity” of modern homosexuality and re-write your moral law and the Bible accordingly.)

Homosexual activists love bashing the “religious right,” but they are hyper-fundamentalists when it comes to defending their core ideological myth: that homosexuality and “same-sex relationships” are a “normal variation of human sexuality” — i.e., that they are NOT morally wrong (changeable sin) in the historic Judeo-Christian tradition.

So desperate are pro-“gay” advocates to force their Bible-rejecting myth on the culture that they downplay even serious health risks that result from embracing behaviors that a loving God proscribes. The result is that children in schools across the country are NOT being taught that there are special dangers, including HIV/AIDS, associated with homosexual behaviors. (See Dr. John Diggs’ paper, “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” for more information.)

Neurosyphilis in gay men: Review of 170 possible cases sheds new light on risks

Published in the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times, Thursday, July 12, 2007

By Bob Roehr 

The increase in syphilis cases among gay men, particularly among those who are HIV positive, has been a concern for years. Most troubling is the occurrence of early neurosyphilis, when the infection spreads to the central nervous system and the brain.

Now a review of 170 possible neurosyphilis cases in four cities – Los Angeles (74), New York (47), Chicago (32) and San Diego (17) – has shed new light on the risks for HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). The review was published in the June 28 issue of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.”

The report looked at cases over a 30-month period, January 2002 to June 2004, and narrowed them to 99 patients who had evidence of syphilis in their blood and physical symptoms compatible with neurosyphilis. Of the total, 57 self-identified as MSM, while 49 were HIV positive.

About 75 percent of the patients reported visual disturbances or new onset of headaches, while 12 percent had symptoms of acute meningitis. About half had no other clinical symptoms of the infection, while almost a quarter did not know they were infected with HIV.

The findings come as no surprise to Christopher Hall, chief of clinical affairs for the California Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Branch of the Department of Public Health. He sees them as an indictment of medical providers for not routinely screening gay men for syphilis. That practice would catch syphilis soon after infection, before it could develop more serious manifestations in the brain.

“Gay men who are sexually active with more than one partner should be screened for syphilis at least every six months, and those who are more active should be screened as frequently as every three months,” he says, citing guidelines issued by the CDC…

…About half of the cases of syphilis in California are among persons who are HIV positive. Hall sees three major reasons for this. First is serosorting: Persons who are HIV positive seek out sexual partners of the same status and decide not to use condoms. This facilitates the transmission of all sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis.

This feeds on itself, creating a higher prevalence of the infection within a relatively closed pool of people having sex with each other. Finally, there is the likelihood that these persons have more sex with different people and hence increase their risk of exposure.
Gonorrhea is a localized infection but syphilis is a systemic one that can affect all parts of the body. Hall says syphilis can be found in the central nervous system and brain of about 30 percent of recently infected persons, regardless of their HIV status.

Oral sex is a route of infection that many people often do not consider. A 2004 study from Chicago attributed 13.7 percent of syphilis infections to oral sex, as the participants claimed to only engage in that practice. Most persons have a wider sexual repertoire, and so the true number of transmissions through oral sex is likely to be higher.

Click HERE to read the full article in the San Diego Gay & Lesbian Times