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.
Calls pour into Zales as corporate America’s moral free fall continues
Mix the Aberrant with the Normal: Zales’ wedding commercial mixes two joyous, attractive women in an immoral, counterfeit “wedding” ceremony–with several images of normal, male-female couples. The goal is simple: get the public over time to embrace or at least accept that genderless, sin-based “marriages” are akin (“equal”) to the real deal. More info HERE; call Zales at 1-800-311-5393; hit option “6”–or write them HERE.
Folks, if you’re looking to buy diamonds or jewelry but you also care about preserving natural marriage as God designed it–one man, one woman, producing babies together–don’t shop at Zales (call 1-800-311-5393; hit option “6”). The jewelry company created this 30-second commercial that helps normalize homosexuality-based “marriage” by mixing it in with several images of normal, male-female relationships and marriages. That’s a tried-and-true propaganda tactic used to break down cultural norms (the Left’s specialty).
The Zales lesbian counterfeit “wedding” scene starts at the 8-second mark. For more background on the Zales and the campaign against it by our friends at One Million Moms (OMM), see my piece in LifeSiteNews. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
Take Action: OMM gives the following ways to reach the morally-challenged jewelry company:
Call Zales at 1-800-311-5393; hit option “6”–[They’re getting lots of calls!–PL]
LaBarbera: “It would be a YUUGE mistake for Trump to break his pledge to pro-marriage Republican voters who put him in the White House”
LGBTrump? Donald Trump has a long history of pro-homosexual advocacy. He now says–as he did in 2015–that the homosexual “marriage” is “settled” due to the Supreme Court Obergefell ruling –which was eviscerated in a dissent by Trump’s ideal SCOTUS Justice, the late Antonin Scalia. Above is Trump’s 2000 interview with the “gay” magazine The Advocate, in which he suggested adding homosexuality to the federal Civil Rights Act. Read about it HERE. Click on graphic to enlarge.
AFTAH Press Release, November 15, 2016; americansfortruth@gmail.com
CONTACT: Peter LaBarbera or Brad Wallace: 312-324-3787
CHICAGO – AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera called on President-elect Donald Trump to revise his estimation that the Supreme Court has “settled” the issue of homosexual “marriage”–and instead honor his pledge to America’s voters to defend natural marriage against the “shocking” 2015 Obergefell ruling.
[Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH.org) is dedicated to exposing and opposing the LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer) agenda. Sign up for AFTAH updates.]
In an interview with CBS “60 Minutes” Sunday, Trump asserted that the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling imposing homosexual “marriage” on all 50 states was “settled” law, and that “gay marriage’ as a political issue is “done … And I’m fine with that.”
That directly contradicts what then-candidate Trump told GOP primary voters in South Carolina last February: that he opposed the “shocking” Obergefell decision and that evangelical voters can trust him to protect real, man-woman marriage. Trump said he favors letting the states decide marriage laws for themselves.
Just prior to the Iowa caucuses, where he was appealing to evangelical voters, Trump said he would like to see Obergefell overturned: “If I’m elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change things, but they have a long way to go.”
The late Antonin Scalia—whom Trump holds up as the type of Supreme Court Justice he would appoint–ripped into Obergefell in a powerful dissent—saying it was a “naked judicial claim to legislative–indeed, super-legislative–power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.
“[T]o allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” Scalia wrote.
AFTAH’s LaBarbera described what is at stake with Trump and marriage: “Many millions of evangelical, Catholic and moral-minded voters trusted Mr. Trump with their votes because they did not see him as just another slippery politician. Now it is up to President-elect Trump to show that he is worthy of that trust by clarifying his defeatist statement on Obergefell.
“America cannot become great again by defying God, and homosexuality-based ‘marriage’ is about as godless as it gets,” LaBarbera said. “Trump needs to do all he can to reverse the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional Obergefell ruling—just as he pledges to overturn Roe v. Wade and abortion-on-demand.
Folks, the day for deciding America’s future is finally here. I wrote this piece for LifeSiteNews.com, where I am now a U.S. reporter. [Sign up for LSN updates here.] This callout quote below aptly represents the way “progressives” think. Rather than mold our behaviors to God’s ideal–revealed through the Bible–modern liberals resent those who adhere to a Higher Law and will not conform to sin-based agendas. Go out and vote, and as always, ignore the corrupt, liberal media! — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
“One of my big problems right now is that too many people believe they have a direct line to the divine and they never want to change their mind about anything.” — Hillary Clinton, NPR “Fresh Air” interview, 2014
__________________________________
Flashback – Pro-LGBT Clinton Defended Natural Marriage as ‘Sacred Bond’ of Man and Woman
By Peter LaBarbera
November 7, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Like the Democratic U.S. president she is trying to succeed, Hillary Clinton has done a 180-degree U-turn on the legalization of homosexual “marriage”—going from a religious-minded foe of genderless “marriage” in 2000 to a fervent crusader for it today as a supposed “constitutional right.”
Most ominously in a post-Obergefell America that is increasingly hostile to citizens who do not wish to participate in or validate same-sex “marriage,” Hillary Clinton is now a vocal opponent of “religious freedom restoration” laws like the one overturned in Indiana. These laws aim to preserve people’s right to live out their support for natural marriage before God (a belief Hillary shared pre-2013) and not to countenance sin.
She also openly expresses hostility to faith-based citizens who refuse to bend their thinking on homosexual “marriage.”
In that vein, Mrs. Clinton touts the federal LGBTQ “Equality Act,” which adds homosexuality and transgenderism to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and which, in its present form, would explicitly negate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act—which Congress passed to defend religious liberty and the First Amendment.
Biden once wanted to be a priest; now he mocks his Catholic religion and the Creator of the universe — in the name of “love”
The Obama-Biden administration has been an eight-year commercial for aberrant sexuality and gender confusion–otherwise known as the LGBTQ movement–in defiance of God and wholesome, biblical morality. On August 1, Vice-President Biden “officiated” at a homosexual “marriage” ceremony between two White House staffers, Brian Mosteller and Joe Mahshie, and social liberals everywhere celebrated. More commentary after the jump.
Catholic in Name Only – Joe Biden officiates at a homosexual “wedding” of two White House staffers, Biden is Catholic and once considered becoming a priest.
Biden performed the counterfeit “marriage” ceremony at August 1 “inside the vice president’s residence, located at the U.S. Naval Observatory,” as LifeSiteNews reported. Biden’s wife Jill is also a big supporter of “gay rights” (she is a strong supporter of the homosexual activists group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network). The Second Lady offered what has become the familiar, trite mantra for LGBT and pro-homosexual-“marriage” advocates: “Love is Love”:
“Man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights,” asserts GOP’s guiding document
No Longer Free: New Mexico photographers Elaine and Jon Huguenin were fined more than $6,000 for politely refusing to shoot photos at a lesbian commitment ceremony, due to their Christian faith. The suit against them was filed under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law. The Huguenins appealed the decision but ultimately lost in the New Mexico Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to one day hear a case that will help decide whether “gay rights” supersedes Americans’ freedom of conscience on homosexual “marriage.” The next president could pick as many as four SCOTUS justices.
The following are extended excerpts of the newly minted 2016 Republican Party Platform, with a focus on the social issues and religious freedom (emphasis ours):
_____________________________
We the People
We are the party of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed. We are also the party of the Constitution, the greatest political document ever written. It is the solemn compact built upon principles of the Declaration that enshrines our God-given individual rights and law, defines the purposes and limits of government, and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the United States the world’s freest and most prosperous nation. …
In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable rights of its citizens. These constitutional rights are not negotiable for any American. We affirm that all legislation, regulation, and official actions must conform to the Constitution’s original meaning as understood at the time the language was adopted.
…
Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.
Folks, I generally avoid using the term “sodomites”**–it too easily plays into the hands of anti-Christians–but who am I to make a politically correct edit on the late Joe Sobran, one of the greatest conservative writers of modern times? This essay by Sobran is even more applicable today than when he penned it in 2003, following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s creation of a newfangled “right” to homosexuality-based “marriage.”
I particularly like Sobran’s passage on liberalism:
But liberalism itself is a continual digression. Nobody can divine its next trend. Even its most profound critics, including John Henry Newman, have been unable to anticipate its particular fads. It may, or may not, embrace pedophilia next. On what principle can any perversion be ruled out?
Such is the nature of God-defying, sin-as-a-civil-right modern “progressivism.” And now the Sexual Left–having legally destroyed the meaning of marriage with the eager help of the U.S. Supreme Court–has moved on to “mainstreaming” and mandating accommodation for: (trans)gender rebels–think men with fake boobs and a penis invading female restrooms; sadomasochism; men becoming human “dogs”; and “polyamory” (anti-fidelity).
As for pedophilia, that lobby is still gearing up–mimicking the successful, manipulative tactics of the “gay liberation” movement by portraying themselves as the aggrieved “victims” of an inconvenient “orientation.” (See this “support group” for “Minor Attracted Persons,” or MAPs.) Of course, we know who the real victims are.
If only more conservatives who possessed the moral clarity of Joe Sobran! –– Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
** P.S. I will grant that “Sodomite”–linked to the abominable act that demanded God’s horrific punishment–is more accurate than “homosexual,” a 19th-Century semantic invention that itself has been declared anathema by today’s LGBTQ activists. (They prefer “gay” for men and women–which we put in quotes because it’s essentially self-serving propaganda.) Homosexual (as a noun)–though used clinically at first–came to imply a special personhood to de facto homo-sexual sinners, i.e., an innate or at least inherent–even proud!–self-identity based on his or her inclination toward same-sex deviance. Logical (and biblical) thinkers must never acquiesce to such a false identity–unless we also are prepared to label and confirm people as (inherent or inborn) liars, “pornos,” gossipers, drunks, etc., according to their besetting sinful thoughts and behaviors.
Video captures the upside-down “New York values” of media stars pushing the “gay” (and transgender) revolution on America
“Mom, is it legal for a man to marry a woman?” Kelly Ripa’s son, Joaquin, shown in a 2014 Twitter photo on his 11th birthday. Following the legalization of “gay marriage” in New York in 2011, a younger Joaquin was so over-exposed to homosexual friends of his famous mom getting “married” that he had to ask her if a man marrying a woman was illegal.
By Peter LaBarbera
Kelly Ripa is in the news is for something that is–from an eternal Truth perspective–far less significant and newsworthy than the heart-breaking story below. Because this story involves the moral and spiritual confusion of a boy raised in a politically correct world gone mad–imbibing a level of cultural decadence unimaginable only a few decades ago:
________________________
“New York Values”? To get a feel for how utterly out-of-touch New York City-based media are with the average American, check out this May 2015 speech by Kelly Ripa, co-host of the ABC morning show “Live with Kelly and Michael [Strahan].” In the video, Ripa is accepting an award from GLAAD, the homosexual media pressure organization formerly known as the “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination.”
“A few years ago, our youngest son, Joaquin, asked me if it was illegal for me to be married to Mark [her husband]–because all of our friends at that time who were getting married were same-sex couples. And it dawned on him…that a heterosexual couple getting married might actually be illegal.”
This speech captures the zeitgeist of big-city liberalism and the New York City-dominated media’s radical pro-“gay” embrace better than almost anything I have seen. Ripa praises her good friend and open homosexual Anderson Cooper of CNN, and is hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court would make same-sex “marriage” the law of the land–which it effectively did with its nature-defying Obergefell v. Hodges ruling shortly after this event, on June 26, 2015.
Ripa’s comments on homosexual “marriage” begin at the 4:00 mark, and those specifically about her son Joaquin’s marriage confusion at 5:15:
New York values: Trump bragged that he came up with homosexual “civil rights” idea before Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradley
Donald Trump’s interview with The Advocate magazine in 2000. Trump boasted that he was ahead of Democratic presidential candidate Bill Bradly in crusading for adding homosexuality to the 1964 Civil Rights
Dear AFTAH Readers,
This is our first foray into the positions past and present of the leading presidential candidates in the 2016 race. AFTAH is non-partisan–we expose all politicians by the same principled standard without deference to party–so these articles will be factual. We begin with the current GOP front-runner, Donald Trump, who back in 2000 sat down with the editors of the nation’s leading homosexual magazine, The Advocate.
Interestingly, as you can read below, Trump bragged about being ahead of Democratic presidential candidate (former U.S. Senator)Bill Bradley on “gay rights”–by calling for the addition of “sexual orientation” to the landmark 1986 Civil Rights Act. That proposal is embodied today in the so-called LGBT “Equality Act” (HR 3185), which was backed exclusively by Democrats until it received its first two Republican co-sponsors this week: Sen. Mark Kirk and Rep. Bob Dold, both from Illinois. AFTAH has renamed the HR 3185 the “Criminalizing Christianity Act,” since it would negate religious freedom protections in the name of LGBT “equality.”
Of course, many candidates have changed their position on issues, but Trump among all the GOP contenders holds several past positions that are more in line with “progressive” Democrats than Republicans–on key issues like abortion, homosexuality, and national health insurance. In a much talked about 1999 interview with the late Tim Russert [partial YouTube video HERE], he chalked that up to living in liberal-dominated New York City.
Trump says he is now conservative but does not appear to be so on the homosexual issue–see the LGBTQ lobby group Human Rights Campaign’s analysis of his record HERE. Unlike several other Republican 2016 contenders, he has not committed to signing the “First Amendment Defense Act” in his first 100 days as President—-but did say he would support it. And the real estate magnate-turned politician–though a longtime opponent of homosexual “marriage”–now opines that due to the Supreme Court’sObergefell ruling, the issue is over; he told the Hollywood Reporter that “anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it.” We will have more on Trump and other presidential candidates in future posts.–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
