At left is a photo on the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History website announcing that the (taxpayer-funded) museum had acquired “civil rights pioneer” Frank Kameny’s papers. At right is a newsletter of the NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association, the notorious pro-man-boy-sex group, whose conference Kameny addressed in 1981.

By Peter LaBarbera

I was going through some of my old files on the “gay” movement and came upon a nugget of “gay” history that I’d forgotten: longtime homosexual activist Frank Kameny — billed as a “gay civil rights pioneer” by the U.S. Government’s National Museum of American History — addressed a meeting of the notorious “man-boy-love” group NAMBLA in 1981. According to the NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) publication “A Way Forward,” Kameny spoke at a NAMBLA membership conference in Baltimore in 1981. 

Now isn’t it interesting that our government — speaking for us as a nation — wants to officially recognize this pro-homosexuality icon as a “civil rights pioneer” when, apparently, Kameny once supported the “civil right” of boys to have sex with men — why else would he attend such a meeting? (NOTE: If you’re opposed to the notion of our Government likening the cause of organized homosexuality to the noble Black civil rights movement, click on AFTAH initial story on Kameny HERE.) The media viciously attack Christian conservative leaders like Jerry Falwell but they give the “gays” a pass. This is why the homosexual “rights” movement has prospered.

Mr. Kameny is an avid letter-writer — and we will be publishing the long interview that Ken Ervin and I did with him several years ago — but maybe he can tell us why he appeared at NAMBLA’s meeting and what he said; Frank, please write me at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

Last year, Americans For Truth alerted you to the U.S. Government’s treatment of Kameny as a civil rights hero by collecting his papers for preservation in the National Museum of American History. Kameny is a brilliant but very confused fellow who, although an atheist, coined the phrase “Gay Is Godly,” and who calls people like me “Christianofascists.”

He also calls us “nutty fundamentalists,” but is there anything more nutty than giving credence to the idea that boys should be able to have sex with men?

Excerpted from AnnCoulter.com; read the whole column HERE. Note the part about Tinky Winky: yes, Virginia, there is a conspiracy — a conspiracy in the liberal, pro-“gay” media to make good people committed to Biblical values look stupid — and Falwell was a victim: 

JERRY FALWELL — SAY HELLO TO RONALD REAGAN!
May 16, 2007

No man in the last century better illustrated Jesus’ warning that “All men will hate you because of me” than the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who left this world on Tuesday. Separately, no man better illustrates my warning that it doesn’t pay to be nice to liberals.

Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men, hating sin while loving sinners. This is as opposed to liberals, who just love sinners. Like Christ ministering to prostitutes, Falwell regularly left the safe confines of his church to show up in such benighted venues as CNN.

He was such a good Christian that back when we used to be on TV together during Clinton’s impeachment, I sometimes wanted to say to him, “Step aside, reverend — let the mean girl handle this one.” (Why, that guy probably prayed for Clinton!)

For putting Christ above everything — even the opportunity to make a humiliating joke about Clinton — Falwell is known as “controversial.” Nothing is ever as “controversial” as yammering about Scripture as if, you know, it’s the word of God or something.

From the news coverage of Falwell’s death, I began to suspect his first name was “Whether You Agree With Him or Not.”

Even Falwell’s fans, such as evangelist Billy Graham and former President Bush, kept throwing in the “We didn’t always agree” disclaimer. Did Betty Friedan or Molly Ivins get this many “I didn’t always agree with” qualifiers on their deaths? And when I die, if you didn’t always agree with me, would you mind keeping it to yourself?

Let me be the first to say: I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell. ….

… I note that in Falwell’s list of Americans he blamed for ejecting God from public life, only the gays got a qualifier. Falwell referred to gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle. ….

… Also the ones who promote the gay lifestyle in a children’s cartoon.

Beginning in early 1998, the news was bristling with stories about a children’s cartoon PBS was importing from Britain that featured a gay cartoon character, Tinky Winky, the purple Teletubbie with a male voice and a red handbag.

People magazine gleefully reported that Teletubbies was “aimed at Telebabies as young as 1 year. But teenage club kids love the products’ kitsch value, and gay men have made the purse-toting Tinky Winky a camp icon.”

In the Nexis archives for 1998 alone, there are dozens and dozens of mentions of Tinky Winky being gay — in periodicals such as Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The Washington Post (twice!), The New York Times and Time magazine (also twice).

In its Jan. 8, 1999, issue, USA Today accused The Washington Post of “outing” Tinky Winky, with a “recent Washington Post In/Out list putting T.W. opposite Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, essentially ‘outing’ the kids’ show character.”

Michael Musto of The Village Voice boasted that Tinky Winky was “out and proud,” noting that it was “a great message to kids — not only that it’s OK to be gay, but the importance of being well accessorized.”

All this appeared before Falwell made his first mention of Tinky Winky.

After one year of the mainstream media laughing at having put one over on stupid bourgeois Americans by promoting a gay cartoon character in a TV show for children, when Falwell criticized the cartoon in February 1999, that same mainstream media howled with derision that Falwell thought a cartoon character could be gay….

Click HERE to read Coulter’s entire column

By Peter LaBarbera 

 Publicity shot for Brokeback Mountain: not appropriate for adults, much less for young kids in the classroom

WARNING: offensive descriptions of unnatural acts that should NEVER be promoted to children 

CHICAGO (AP) – A girl and her grandparents have sued the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that a substitute teacher showed the R-rated film “Brokeback Mountain” in class.

 

The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress after viewing the movie in her 8th grade class at Ashburn Community Elementary School last year….

Alas, more corruption of youth at the hands of pro-homosexual activists. The movement that once asked just to be left alone is now pushing homosexuality on middle school students. In Chicago, a substitute teacher — no doubt a liberal “change agent” hell-bent on advancing her version of “tolerance and diversity” — showed the homosexual propaganda film “Brokeback Mountain” to her 8th-grade class (see full story below). Now the school is facing a $500,000 lawsuit. Let’s hope and pray that Jessica Turner’s grandparents prevail and that their legal action sends an expensive lesson to liberal educators nationwide — one that future Tolerance Tyrants (like Ms. Buford) seeking to manipulate young minds cannot ignore. 

But that’s just one abuse in a single school. The leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, through its publication “Teaching Tolerance,” is now advocating the formation of student homosexual clubs (innocently called “Gay/Straight Alliances”) in middle schools. Yes, that’s right: we’re talking pre-pubescent and pubescent boys and girls in grades six through nine, depending on the school. We will have more on that outrage later.

I saw Brokeback Mountain in the theater because I had to. It is a highly effective propaganda film well-suited to exploit today’s widespread confusion over “sexual orientation” and “same-sex love.” The film is about two male cowboys who “fall in love,” and features a sudden sodomitic encounter in a tent that is, well, let’s just say, biological and medical fantasy. The film, of course, seeks to advance the fiction that “gay” romantic love is just like the normal variety except with different genders. But that ignores, for one thing, the terrible damage that sodomy (i.e., anal sex) exacts on the body. That’s why many male initiates into homosexual sex get high on drugs or alcohol first — to dull the pain (and the shame) of this unnatural and sinful behavior.

If Brokeback were honest, one of the guys involved in the scene depicting the crime against nature (how sodomy was once regarded back when men were men) would be howling in pain louder than a coyote, rather than just rolling over and going to sleep. But, hey, we wouldn’t want to spoil the cultural elites’ pro-“gay” party by telling Americans about the pain and consequences stemming from homosexual behavior, would we?

 

It’s sort of like how many schools nowadays teach kids about HIV/AIDS without mentioning the “inconvenient truth” that this awful disease in America is strongly linked to “men who have sex with men” (MSM). (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that through 2006, “MSM account for approximately 45% of newly reported HIV/AIDS diagnoses and nearly 54% of cumulative AIDS diagnoses.”)

Predictably, in Brokeback, one of the male lovers is savagely murdered by homosexual-hating hetero cowboys — another lesson I’m sure the militant Chicago teacher wanted to impress on her captive audience: if you disagree with the homosexual lifestyle, you are a “hater” and mean-spirited “homophobe.” Never mind that the vast majority of people who oppose homosexual behavior do not hate people but merely agree with God about harmful and changeable behaviors that do not define a person; and decent people are rightfully outraged at the idea of promoting this dangerous homosexual lifestyle to impressionable children.

TAKE ACTION:  If you are an adult, dedicate yourself to educating the young people in your sphere of influence about the truth about homosexuality. Tell them about former homosexuals like Charlene Cothran and Steve Bennett. Visit NARTH’s (National Association for Research and Therapy on Homosexuality) excellent website. Show them Professor Rob Gagnon’s site, which ably refutes the nefarious “gay theology” that seeks to negate the Bible’s clear proscriptions against homosexual acts. 

We have no choice but to be aggressive with the truth, because our foes are so aggressive in promoting their lies — even to innocent kids in the classroom. I’m afraid that in our society, even children brought up well by moral-minded parents will have drunk some of the pro-“gay” Kool-Aid by the time they reach adulthood — so saturated is our culture with politically correct, activist nonsense on this issue.

Here’s the May 13 AP story on Brokeback Mountain being shown to 8th-graders in Chicago:  

Lawsuit over Brokeback Mountain in Class

 

CHICAGO (AP) – A girl and her grandparents have sued the Chicago Board of Education, alleging that a substitute teacher showed the R-rated film “Brokeback Mountain” in class.

 

The lawsuit claims that Jessica Turner, 12, suffered psychological distress after viewing the movie in her 8th grade class at Ashburn Community Elementary School last year.

 

The film, which won three Oscars, depicts two cowboys who conceal their homosexual affair.

 

Turner and her grandparents, Kenneth and LaVerne Richardson, are seeking around $500,000 in damages.

 

“It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this,” said Kenneth Richardson, Turner’s guardian. “The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this.”

 

According to the lawsuit filed Friday in Cook County Circuit Court, the video was shown without permission from the students’ parents and guardians.

 

The lawsuit also names Ashburn Principal Jewel Diaz and a substitute teacher, referred to as “Ms. Buford.”

 

The substitute asked a student to shut the classroom door at the West Side school, saying: “What happens in Ms. Buford’s class stays in Ms. Buford’s class,” according to the lawsuit.

 

Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatized by the movie and had to undergo psychological treatment and counseling.

 

In 2005, Richardson complained to school administrators about reading material that he said included curse words.

 

“This was the last straw,” he said. “I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith.”

 

Messages left over the weekend with CPS officials were not immediately returned.

By Peter LaBarbera 

We have only skimmed the surface as to how destructive liberal (distorted) notions of “tolerance” and “diversity” will be to children. Below is the beginning of a Southern Poverty Law Center online article advocating homosexual (“gay/straight alliance”) clubs for middle schools. All students can and must be protected regardless of their behavioral traits/”orientations” — and bullies must be dealt with severely — but encouraging “proud” homosexual clubs for children in grades 6-9 who are still far from adulthood is breathtakingly reckless.

These GSA clubs certainly promote just ONE SIDE of the homosexual issue, and engage in propagandistic activities to the rest of the school. Studies show that kids’ “sexual identities” are fluid, so why on earth would we want to encourage any boy or girl in the idea that they are “gay” before they are fully developed? (Gee, I wonder if I even thought about sex, much less had a sexual ‘identity,’ when I was in 6th grade!)

At this point I can already hear some “gay” activists saying how “they knew they were different” at some ridiculously young age, say five years old — which always makes me suspicious that they weren’t victimized in some way as a child. Because normal people simply did not contemplate their sexual nature as young children. But I digress: the point is: liberals are taking public schools into very dangerous territory by ENCOURAGING even pre-adolescent children to self-identify as GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender) — particularly since the one thing we can be sure about is that they will NOT effectively communicate the massive health risks of homosexual behavior to these impressionable kids. This is educational malpractice at its worst and it must be stopped.

The following is the beginning of the Spring 2007 “Teaching Tolerance” article advocating homosexual clubs for middle schoolers: 

‘THIS is Why We Need a GSA’
Gay-straight alliances are taking hold in middle schools, where homophobia and anti-gay harassment may be the most rampant. 
 

by Carrie Kilman 
 
For several weeks last spring, fliers announcing Sennett Middle School’s Gay-Straight Alliance were torn from the hallways, revealing a hidden message to the culprits about why the club was important in the first place. Safe spaces can be hard to come by when you’re a middle school student, especially if you’re lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. For the past 10 years, GSAs have helped high school students fight anti-gay harassment. Experts say middle school is where GSAs might be needed most — and their numbers are starting to grow.

 

To read the entire “Teaching Tolerance” article, click HERE

We are cheered by the following e-notice from the Family Institute of Connecticut Action, but this victory is bittersweet. That’s because, as you will learn from the link to the Hartford Courant in this story, Connecticut’s legislature passed “civil unions” (“gay marriage” by another name) in 2005. (Connecticut was “the first state in the nation to pass a civil union or same-sex marriage law voluntarily through the legislature and without judicial intervention,” Wikipedia notes.)

When the pro-family movement is reduced (in blue states) to proclaiming as a “massive victory” the mere stalling of a legislative vote for actual “same-sex marriage” — legislation that would have been laughed off just a few years ago — you know the hour is late in the struggle to preserve sexual sanity in this nation. Does that mean we give up? No, but it’s best that we view the present reality clearly.

Christians, conservatives, and traditionalists, let’s be honest with ourselves and the public: preserving “the word” marriage is only a minor — and many would say symbolic — victory, and no victory at all if we lose all else in the “culture war” over homosexuality. This small battle in Connecticut may have been “won,” but the war was almost lost two years ago when the Democrat-controlled legislature voted for a bill — which a Republican governor then signed into law — to give government approval to relationships based on homosexual perversion. — Peter LaBarbera

Family Institute of Connecticut Action writes: 

Massive Victory For Marriage!

 

Earlier today the Family Institute of Connecticut asked you, our supporters, to call your legislators and ask them to oppose holding a vote on same-sex “marriage.” That battle has now been won:

 

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and Rep. Mike Lawlor, D-East Haven, said Friday afternoon they do not intend to push for a vote on same-sex marriage this legislative session, saying the bill does not have enough votes to win…

 

Opponents of the bill were cheered by Lawlor and McDonald’s decision. “The Family Institute of Connecticut is thrilled that the legislature has heeded the majority of voters in the state who do not want to see marriage radically redefined,” said Peter Wolfgang, the institute’s public policy director.

 

This is a massive victory for marriage protection and it happened because of you: the pro-family citizens of Connecticut who heeded FIC’s call to make your voices heard at our state capitol. Thanks to you, our Feb. 21st lobby day was a tremendous success, turning out twice as many people as our opponents on a day picked by them. Thanks to you, FIC provided the outstanding testimony of Maggie Gallagher, Dawn Stefanowicz, Brian Brown-and over 40 pro-family activists like you-for the most successful public hearing on same-sex “marriage” we have ever had. And thanks to your phone calls and e-mails-whose effectiveness was grudgingly acknowledged even by our opponents-we have today’s massive victory for marriage protection.

 

Today’s victory came about because of your hard work. But our opponents have vowed to try again, which is why we need your support to continue to defend marriage from their attacks.

 

Our May 23rd Rally and Lobby Day for Marriage will go forward-beginning at 10 a.m. on the steps of the state capitol in Hartford. We need as many pro-family state residents as possible to attend.

 

And, even for this year, a radical redefinition of marriage is still possible. The state Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments Monday in a case brought by activists seeking a judicial imposition of same-sex “marriage.” FIC and other pro-family groups have filed friend-of-the-court briefs. And FIC’s Peter Wolfgang will be appearing with pro same-sex “marriage” Rep. Mike Lawlor the following morning (May 15th at 9:00 a.m.) to discuss the case on WNPR’s “Where We Live” program.

 

Congratulations to all of you who stood with us and helped bring about today’s marvelous victory for families and children. May there be many more.

 

Your support for marriage protection made the difference! But the battle is far from over and your help is urgently needed. Please click here to double your donation to our matching grant campaign.

Press Release, Concerned Women For America (www.cwfa.org), May 11, 2006  

Washington, DC –– With much fanfare, liberals in Congress — led by openly homosexual congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) — recently introduced H.R. 2015, the ironically-titled “Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007” (ENDA).  According to proponents, this bill merely seeks to insulate people who choose to engage in homosexual behaviors (“sexual orientation”) or who suffer from gender confusion (gender identity) against employment discrimination.  But regrettably this legislation would effectively codify and encourage the very thing it purports to prevent — workplace discrimination. 

ENDA would apply to any business with 15 or more employees.  The bill’s language states that, “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer…to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”      

Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Issues with Concerned Women for America (CWA), warned, “This bill would force Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who openly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors despite a sincerely held religious belief that those behaviors are dangerous, sinful and not in keeping with basic morality.  ENDA would essentially force employers to check their First Amendment protected rights to freedom of religion, speech and association at the workplace door.  It’s absurd!  For instance, female employees would have to endure both systematic sexual harassment and a hostile work environment by being forced to share bathroom facilities with male employees who get their jollies from wearing a dress, high heels and lipstick.     

“Over the years, the homosexual lobby has done a masterful job of co-opting the language of the genuine civil rights movement in their push for special rights.  This bill represents the goose that laid the golden egg for homosexual activist attorneys,” concluded Barber.   

Shari Rendall, CWA’s Director of Legislation and Public Policy, said of ENDA, “This bill would unfairly extend special privileges based upon an individual’s changeable sexual behaviors, rather than focusing on immutable, non-behavior characteristics such as skin color or gender.   Its passage would both overtly discriminate against and muzzle people of faith.  Former Secretary of State Collin Powell put it well when he said, ‘Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument.’”  

CWA asks Congress to protect the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, religion and association for all Americans by voting NO on ENDA. 

Concerned Women for America is the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.

H.R. 2015 Would Force a Gender Confusion Revolution on U.S. Businesses

By Peter LaBarbera

For once we agreed with Barney Frank (sort of), at least before he sold out to the “transgender” lobby. 

“There are workplace situations — communal showers, for example — when the demands of the transgender community fly in the face of conventional norms and therefore would not pass in any Congress. I’ve talked with transgender activists and what they want — and what we will be forced to defend — is for people with penises who identify as women to be able to shower with other women.”

—Homosexual Congressman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), BEFORE he changed his mind and embraced including “transgenders” in the Employment NonDiscrimination Act (ENDA)  

“Technically, you cannot truly change one’s sex. That’s why the procedure is not really called ‘sex change surgery’ but ‘sex reassignment surgery.’ The idea is to alter the physical appearance of a person’s anatomy to approximate as nearly as possible the anatomic arrangement of the other sex.”

— Melanie, “Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS), the Nuts & Bolts,” a “Transgender Support Site” 

*          *          *

Employment NonDiscrimination Act (H.R. 2015) Language: 

“EMPLOYER PRACTICES.—It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity; or

(2) “to limit, segregate, or classify the employees or applicants for employment of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment or otherwise adversely affect the status of the individual as an employee, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”

*          *         *

TAKE ACTION:  Call the Congress (202-224-3121) or use e-mail to urge your Representative and Senators to reject ENDA (H.R. 2015) and the insanity of forcing business across the nation to accommodate and subsidize gender confusion in the name of “civil rights.” Also, call President Bush (202-456-1414) or e-mail him at comments@whitehouse.gov to urge him to veto the “trans”-affirming ENDA, along with the “Hate Crimes” bill (H.R. 1592) that his aides have indicated will likely be vetoed. 

Fast on the heels of the “Hate Crimes” bill (H.R. 1597, recently passed by the House) is the second of two top homosexual activist priorities: ENDA, the “Employment Nondiscrimination Act,” H.R. 2015, recently introduced by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Please read at the bottom of this story the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade’s analysis of the “transgender” provision of this radical bill.

To read about ENDA’s dubious “religious exemption” provision, click HERE.

Veteran observers of the “gay” movement will recall that Frank himself once strongly criticized the idea of including transsexuals in the ENDA bill (see above quote). But like most “progressives,” Frank has seen the light, or maybe he just heard the shouts — from radical “trans” activists who have skillfully adapted militant “gay” tactics to their own misguided cause, including calling their outspoken critics “transphobes.”

Several giant corporations have already settled on pro-“transgender” bathroom and dress policies — probably the same companies who would subject their employees to biased, pro-homosexual “diversity” lectures — but can you imagine inflicting these “transgender” regulations on small and mid-level companies through federal law via ENDA?

This is one of the most perverse applications of “civil rights” to date — and it’s headed straight for your business if you have 15 or more employees. What female employee wants to share the company restroom with a big-boned man claiming to be “transitioning” to “womanhood”? Will companies have to build “transgender male” and “transgender female” restrooms (or “Designated GLBT Restrooms”) to accommodate the various “orientations” and avoid government prosecution?

 

Churches and religious-oriented groups are quasi-exempt under ENDA but secular businesses owned by Christians or religious Americans are not. ENDA is a “gay” and “trans” lawyer’s dream. What about jobs such as a teacher in which the employer might not want the “transitioning” employee to model his newfound “gender identity” to children? Or service jobs (say a maitre d’) in which the employer may not want the newly “gender variant” employee to be in such a public role?

Imagine a male employee, John, who since he became employed at XYZ Corp., about a decade ago, has used the men’s restroom. Then one day he informs his boss that in a week he will come to work in a dress as “Joanna” and begin his MTF (“male-to-female”) metamorphosis into “womanhood.” (According to widely accepted regulations within the “transgender” world, he must “live” full-time as Joanna, taking female hormones, for a full year before he becomes eligible for “sex-reassignment surgery,” which will turn his healthy sex organ into a makeshift female sex organ. If you have the stomach to read what is actually done to a man’s body in “sex reassignment surgery,” click HERE, but be warned: it’s horrifying stuff. We must pray for these poor souls who are so confused that they would destroy their healthy, God-given bodies to assuage their inner conflict.)

Isn’t it a bit much to expect of normal, female XYZ employees to all of the sudden welcome “Joanna’s” presence in the ladies’ restroom? In fact, as I read the Blade account below, under ENDA’s proposed regulations, John/Joanna would be able to use the female restroom BEFORE his “sex reassignment” surgery. Indeed, the website “e-transgender,” quoting the homosexual/transgender group Human Rights Campaign, advises corporate human resources managers as follows:

“Employers should grant restroom access according to an employee’s full-time gender presentation.”

Read: if John “lives” (identifies) as Joanna full-time, he should be able to use the female restroom. Biologically-born ladies, beware!

What about the privacy rights of John’s female co-workers? Don’t they have the right not to feel personally invaded as they go to the restroom at their job? Will businesses have to put out new bathroom policies and undergo company-wide bathroom-usage training to explain the new policies?

 

But the situation becomes a crisis when the federal government — aided by politically correct activist judges — forces businesses to advance this Gender Confusion Revolution in the name of “civil rights.”

Is this really an area in which the federal government should even be involved? It’s bad enough that big business is rolling over to the bizarre “T” (Transgender) agenda — with some even subsidizing horrifying “sex-reassignment surgeries” that destroy men’s and women’s healthy bodies. (I once attended a conference for FTM (“female to male”) “transgenders” in which young women proudly showed off their flat chests — the result of “chest surgery” operations in which their healthy breasts were removed to make them look like the “men” they wanted to be.)

Of course, the larger goal here — shared by the “gay” and “transgender” lobbies — is to change your mind and heart regarding gender-confused conduct. The law is merely a tool in their never-ending quest to overturn America’s Judeo-Christian norms regarding family, sex and marriage.

We predict that businesses will deal with this very sad and strange “transgender” issue by building special restrooms and/or shower facilities for their “transgender” or alternatively “gendered” employees — spending countless millions to subsidize mentally disordered, deviant behavior. (Gender Identity Disorder, or GID, is a recognized mental disorder.) This corporate spending would accelerate dramatically should ENDA become law, as businesses would fear lawsuits if they failed to honor “trans” rights.

Call Congress (202-224-3121) or use e-mail to urge your U.S. Representative and Senators to reject ENDA, H.R. 2015. Also, call President Bush (202-456-1414) or e-mail him at comments@whitehouse.gov and ask him to veto the pro-“trans” ENDA, along with the “Hate Crimes” bill (H.R. 1592) that his aides have already indicated will likely be vetoed.