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.
The judicial confirmation process has become a spectacle almost as comical as one of Al Franken’s (D-MN) jokes. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was not grilled on whether she believes Americans have a First Amendment right to oppose homosexuality — i.e., whether their religious and moral liberties are overridden by “sexual orientation” laws.
“Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s [‘sexual orientation’ nondiscrimination] policy would have excluded the Catholic Church.” —CNSNews.com, reporting on Kagan’s confirmation hearing
By Peter LaBarbera
Solicitor General Elena Kagan has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 13-6 vote — after hypocritically dodging and weaving her way through the farce that now masquerades as the judicial confirmation process. Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) was the lone Republican to vote for her — despite the fact that South Carolina is conservative while Kagan is the ideological cousin of our elitist, far-left president. (Click HERE for the MassResistance report on Kagan’s pro-homosexual record at Harvard.)
Kagan’s future now rests with the Democrat-dominated Senate — where most pundits (betting on listless GOP opposition) expect her to win confirmation; the vote is expected to come in early August.
Americans now face the prospect of a radically pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality social Leftist-for-Life sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially for 30 or more years. In just 105 days, on Election Day (Nov. 2), U.S. citizens will be able to cripple Barack Obama’s power — a day anticipated by millions of citizens outraged over his arrogant and reckless presidency. In two more years, Obama could be voted out of office a la Jimmy Carter.
Not so with Kagan. Unless Republicans summon up the guts to actually block her via filibuster (don’t bet on it), she likely will soon become Justice Kagan until she retires at an old age. There, if her past is any indication, one day she will vote to create a new “fundamental right” of “same-sex marriage” out of an “evolving” Constitution — all the while protecting that old make-believe “constitutional right,” sacrosanct to liberals, of abortion-on-demand. (See this Omaha World-Herald story on Kagan’s manipulation of expert testimony in the Clinton administration to fight legislative attempts to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion.)
“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.
We should have seen Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak’s sellout on abortion and ObamaCare coming. Here is a video of Rep. Stupak, a Democrat, at a townhall meeting with constituents in Cheboygan, Mich., on Oct. 29, 2009. Other “Profiles in Cowardice” abound, as pro-life advocate Jill Stanek reports:
The only pro-life Democrat to change his vote from a yes to a no due to the failure to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment was Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), pictured [right]. (Lipinski is the congressman for the district in which Christ Hospital, my former employer, is located. His father, Congressman Bill Lipinski, was a co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)
Remember: the same dynamic (bogus “rights”) that will expand taxpayer funding/subsidies of abortion will also be at work expanding taxpayer funding of gruesome transsexual “sex-change” operations — unless we as Americans act to stop it. To read more of Stanek’s ObamaCare analysis, go HERE.
