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.
America Corrupts the World: Even under Trump, the American Embassy in Kingston, Jamaica flies the LGBTQ-activist “rainbow flag” under Old Glory. But Jamaicans know that immoral “gay-” and “transgender” “rights” inherently destroy real freedoms. Photo: Jamaica Coalition for a Healthy Society, June 2017.
Folks, the following column was published Sunday in the Jamaica Gleaner. It is written by Shirley Richards, a wise Christian advocate for genuine rights and moral truth whom I had the privilege of meeting in Jamaica when I spoke there in 2013. Below Richards ably explains the difference between genuine rights based on a moral philosophy, rooted in timeless Judeo-Christian truth–and counterfeit “gay/transgender rights,” which “compete with, and undermine, fundamental human rights and freedoms.”
Smart Jamaicans–and peoples all over the world–are trying to learn from the USA’s and the West’s failed experiment of creating sodomy-based “rights,” which became the foundation for the modern Western abomination of “same-sex marriage.” Meanwhile, the United States and other decadent Western nations–and leftist organizations like the George Soros-funded Human Rights Watch–are pressuring Jamaica and many other nations to join our illicit “rights” revolution.
At right is a current photo of the American Embassy in Kingston, flying the LGBT “rainbow flag” (as it did under Obama)–thereby telegraphing to this small nation that, even under Trump, we will use our immense political and economic power to “persuade” them to embrace a system of newfangled legal “rights” that inherently destroys liberty. Let’s hope we don’t prevail, and that Donald Trump gets America out of the business of exporting the immoral, anti-Christian LGBT “rights” revolution. — @Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth; see my LifeSiteNews articles here.
___________________
Majority view on gay rights must have sway
By Shirley Richards
Published in Jamaica Gleaner, June 11, 2017
In an article written by Dr. Carolyn Gomes published [in the Jamaica Gleaner] on Sunday, May 28, 2017, she stated, in relation to the development of the [Jamaican] Charter of Rights: “The Parliament, however, appears to be timid. It has not acted on the recommendation to ensure that all citizens are protected from discrimination on the basis of disability, health status, if they speak Patois, have a mental illness, or are different in sexual orientation and gender identity.”
These were recommendations made by various interest groups. They were debated by the joint select committee of Parliament on the Charter of Rights (Constitutional Amendment) Bill and decisions were made to accept or reject accordingly.
The Parliament had then, and still does have, a responsibility to allow for citizens to make submissions, but there was, and still is, the corresponding responsibility to sift submissions and to decide which ones are in the best interests of the country. Parliament must examine all the relevant studies and data. They must also have an understanding of the impact of these decisions on the country both now and in time to come and be satisfied that such decisions are in fact for the good of the country.
In determining what is in the “best interests” of the country, they cannot afford to disregard the voice of the people. Specifically, the members of the House of Representatives are there to represent the people, not to foist their own viewpoints on the people, a point Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, as a member of said House, may do well to remember. As the late [First Premier of Jamaica] Norman Manley, QC, said on the occasion of the passage of the 1962 [Jamaican] Constitution:
“As a politician, sir, I would be the first person to acclaim every instance in which the public succeeds in having their way … for we, sir, are their servants and are here to execute their will.”
Non-discrimination
As it relates to the issue of “sexual orientation”, the joint select committee (1999-2001) debated the request by the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays to protect ‘sexual orientation’ as grounds for non-discrimination. The committee expressly decided not to protect this term. The committee was concerned about the impact of such a term on the institution of marriage and on parenting.
On April 1, I spoke at a Texas Mass Resistance conference in Austin that was put on by my good friend Brian Camenker, founder of national Mass Resistance, and Texas MR leader Robert Oscar Lopez–both brilliant pro-family strategists. Here is my presentation, dealing with the Human Wrongs Rights Campaign’s (HRC)’s ongoing pressure campaign to get major corporations to promote the radical LGBTQ agenda. Most Americans haven’t a clue about how successful HRC’s pro-perversion “CEI” (Corporate Equality Index) campaign has been. It even has an explicit anti-family component that punishes a corporation with negative points if it supports, say, a pro-national-marriage ministry. You can watch the other speeches at this excellent event on the main MR site. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
AFTAH exclusive video shows extent of homosexual insider influence in once-wholesome Disney
How “Gay” Is Disney? 40 percent-plus? Click on photo to enlarge. See entire AFTAH undercover video story HERE. Click on graphic to enlarge.
Folks, about 19 years ago I attended an LGBTQ student conference at UC-Santa Cruz in which a very powerful homosexual activist, Elizabeth Birch, then executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, “dished” about a conversation she had with then-Disney CEO Michael Eisner. I was there semi-undercover for Lambda Report, the forerunner of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH).
As you can see below, Birch relates how Eisner “corrected” her by revealing that a whopping “40 percent” of Disney’s employees were “gay”–not 30 percent as she had thought.
That was around February of 1998. Imagine how bad the problem is today, as the current controversy over Disney’s injection of homosexuality into a “Beauty and the Beast” remake illustrates. Here is a one-minute video excerpt of the larger AFTAH undercover video-story of the UC-Santa Cruz event, courtesy of our friends at LifeSiteNews, where I am a reporter. See my accompanying LifeSiteNews blog post below, after the video and the jump. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
Queer, indeed: Kendall Oliver identifies as “genderqueer.” She prefers to use the pronoun “they” to describe herself. (AFTAH routinely runs afoul of the Pronoun Police by using pronouns that match a person’s birth sex.) Photo: Christian News Network.
Folks, here is yet another example of what I’m calling #LGBTyranny—ridiculous even by “gay” standards. For goodness’ sake, if you identify yourself as *genderqueer,* you should expect a little pushback, right? Is this an “orientation”?—no, silly me, it’s a “gender identity.” (Because it’s getting harder and harder to keep track of all the permutations, AFTAH has adopted the catch-all designation of “LGBTQueer” for the sex-and-gender-disordered movement.)
Should employers now be forced to hire “genderqueers”? Do we need special “genderqueer” restrooms? “Genderqueer” sensitivity lessons for first-graders? These LGBTQueer lawsuits make a mockery of real civil rights, and America a laughingstock around the world. And who gets to use the word “queer,” anyway? Only self-styled “queers,” or perhaps “queer”-friendly people and the media, too? But not the rest of us, that’s for sure. So much nonsense, so little time.
The poor barbershop in question only served men, dictated by the beliefs of its owner, Richard Hernandez. His freedom got clipped because Ms. Oliver wants to look like a dude, sort of. So she called in the “gay” lawyers. Oh, the humanity of it all! (By the way, look at the photo: there’s a beautiful woman under all that faux masculinity.)
Stay tuned: I hear a new “civil rights” lawsuit is in the offing from the Polyamory Liberation Front. (Actually, no such organization exists…yet.)
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. — A men’s barbershop in California has agreed to a settlement with a woman who identifies as “gender neutral” who filed a lawsuit last year after being denied a haircut because she is not a man.
Under the terms of the settlement, signed by both parties, Richard Hernandez, owner of The Barbershop, admits to violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and agrees to serve all who request a haircut.
“Kendall’s sex shouldn’t have mattered. No one should experience the gut-punch of being told they won’t be served by a business open to the public,” Lambda Legal Senior Attorney Peter Renn said of the men’s barbershop in a statement on Wednesday.
As previously reported, Kendall Oliver, 25, began identifying as “genderqueer” after serving in the Army. The term is defined as “a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.”
Oliver also began preferring the pronoun “they” for herself as opposed to “her” or “him” in order to be gender neutral.
However, Oliver identifies more as male in her appearance, wearing men’s clothing and sporting a short hairstyle.
Pence praises Trump’s lack of ‘prejudice,’ implying opposing to homosexuality-based laws is bigoted
Pro-Homosexual “Marriage”: President Trump’s daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner. Although both purport to embrace Orthodox Judaism, they are strong supporters of the homosexual activist agenda–which is anathema to that religion. In 2011, they co-hosted a “Freedom to Marry” fundraiser. FTM was a leading LGBT organization fighting for legal homosexual “marriage.” Photo: IvankaTrump.com; White House Correspondents dinner.
Folks, the following is reprinted from an article I wrote for LifeSiteNews, a leading pro-family and pro-life news site [subscribe to LSN newsletter]. The next few weeks could determine the course of this administration, which is now attempting to reconcile its commitment to both religious freedom and homosexual “rights”–a task that many longtime critical observers of the homosexual agenda believe is impossible. See both LifeSite videos on Trump’s prior pledges on marriage and religious freedom at bottom. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; @PeterLaBarbera
___________________
Ivanka Trump, husband reportedly stopped religious freedom order; Pence affirms pro-LGBT rights move
Peter LaBarbera, Feb. 9, 2017
(LifeSiteNews) — Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, are being credited in the media for sinking a potential Trump executive order designed to protect the freedom of conscience for people of faith.
The power couple, though identifying as Orthodox Jewish, have a history of supporting homosexual activism, including co-hosting a fundraiser for a leading pro-homosexual “marriage” group in 2011.
Meanwhile, in an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Vice President Mike Pence defended his boss’ extension of a pro-LGBT executive order issued by President Obama in 2014.
After ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Pence to react to influential Iowa pro-family leader Bob Vander Plaats, who said, “Our base is wondering why Obama’s [pro-LGBT] executive order is allowed to stand,” Pence answered:
“I think throughout the campaign, President Trump made it clear that discrimination would have no place in our administration. I mean, he was the very first Republican nominee to mention the LGBTQ community at our Republican National Convention and was applauded for it. And I was there applauding with him.
“I think the generosity of his spirit, recognizing that in the patriot’s heart, there’s no room for prejudice is part of who this president is.”
Pence vs. Pence: Vice President Mike Pence has been put in an awful position, as a longtime opponent of homosexuality-based “rights” who now is Number Two man to a president who champions “LGBTQ rights.”
The D.C. homosexual newspaper Washington Blade reported: “The words in favor of LGBT rights are striking for Pence, who has a long anti-LGBT history that includes signing into law as Indiana governor a ‘religious freedom’ bill that would have enabled anti-LGBT discrimination.”
Pence was noncommittal on whether a religious liberty executive order was forthcoming but said Trump is investigating ways to overturn the Johnson Amendment that limits the political speech of pastors. In the campaign, Trump pledged to overturn it.
Liberal leak
The potential pro-religious liberty Trump executive order was leaked Feb. 1 to the leftist publication The Nation, which led a flock of pro-LGBT media and blogs to publish stories critical of the order as “anti-LGBT.” Such leaks are common in Washington as a way of undermining policies opposed by the leaker.
Folks, here is a Google Hangouts interview I just did (Feb. 2, 2017) with Cliff Kincaid, founder and president of America’s Survival. Kincaid is also director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism; see the AIM piece he refers to in the interview, “Trump Joins Ranks of DNA Deniers.”
The video is very choppy at times due to connection issues (with words missing), but please overlook that as it covers some interesting material regarding President Trump’s attempt to be pro-“gay” and pro-“religious liberty” at the same time. We also discuss whether Trump-backing Brit, Breitbart editor and vulgar homosexual Milo Yiannopoulos–who talks glibly about his oral sex encounters with other men at his “Dangerous Faggot Tour” college speeches–is actually a “conservative” and whether he helps or hurts the conservative cause. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH [more info after jump]
Here is America’s Survival’s YouTube channel description of the video (links added):
Why did Trump keep Obama’s executive order affirming special rights for the transgendered? How is this compatible with religious freedom and traditional values? Is there such a thing as a “gay conservative?” Who is Milo Yiannopoulos? Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth and LifeSiteNews.com talks about these matters with ASI TV host Cliff Kincaid.
Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 312-324-3787; americansfortruth@gmail.com
CHICAGO–Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), issued the following statement on President Donald Trump’s announcement today that he will leave in place his predecessor Barack Obama’s pro-LGBT executive order for federal workers:
“This is the first sign we have that President Trump will be triangulating on homosexuality versus abortion. As exhilarated as we were to watch the Trump administration confidently and boldly stand for the protection of the unborn at the March for Life, we are now deeply disappointed that Mr. Trump has chosen to defend false LGBTQ ‘rights’ based on changeable homosexual and gender-confused behaviors.
“We understand that in many ways, Trump’s non-action in accepting Obama’s 2014 pro-LGBTQ executive order echoes the compromised culture. It might even be a politically savvy move to defend ‘gay’ and ‘transgender’ ‘rights’ while simultaneously being pro-life. However, it also lacks principle, as genuine rights—which come from God—can never be based on sinful, changeable and unnatural conduct proscribed in the Bible. Furthermore, homosexuality, like abortion, is inherently anti-life.
“We further understand that President Trump comes out of a New York City background in which he advocated for homosexual ‘rights.’ But to now use his bully pulpit to proclaim ‘rights’ and favored treatment based on a sexual sin and gender rebellion is wrong. (See Romans 1—which Obama pooh-poohed.) No matter how powerful the new president is, he, like Obama, is utterly powerless to change God’s eternal moral law.
“We call on all pro-family and pro-life groups to stay principled in their advocacy, and not to look the other way when Donald Trump stumbles on truth. We condemned Obama when he advanced a sin-based agenda in the name of ‘Equality.’ We must do no less with President Trump.”
“You’re a bigot and an [a**hole],” lead protester yells at McCrory; state senator vows to pursues law criminalizing vengeful harassment of public servants
NC St. Sen. Dan Bishop wants to protect former public servants from being bullied and harassed by vengeful protesters.
WARNING: profanity
Folks, all I can say is, thank God the “progressives” lost this election! Because they are out of control (cut to the 2:10 mark in Madonna’s vulgar and extremist women’s march speech HERE). Below is a YouTube video shot by a profane North Carolina revolutionary socialist named Udai Basavaraj.
On a visit to DC for the inauguration (and leftist feminist march) weekend, Basavaraj apparently led a harassing protest against former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory–yelling “Shame on you, shame on you!” etc., at the recently defeated Republican because he signed the HB2 “bathroom” bill into law.
The cowardly ringleader (his face not shown) yells out at McCrory, calling him a “bigot and an [a**hole]!” Then, as reported below, “just after the one minute mark [and with McCrory and two women backed into a locked door], he says, “We’ve got you now.” Watch the creepy three-and-a-half minute video, then pass this story on.
HB2 requires that people use the restroom matching their biological sex. I suppose in the minds of these ideological bullies, supporting such a bill makes one a monster. More news and commentary after the video and jump:
Thankfully, there are still many patriots in this country like North Carolina State Senator Dan Bishop (R), who is as outraged as we at AFTAH are over these hateful fanatics. Sen. Bishop wants to do something to protect people like McCrory, and he is disgusted with the neutral, innocuous way in which the Charlotte Observer newspaper reported this outrageous episode. I will add that homosexual activist publications like LGBTQNation seem to have no problem with it.
Hmmm. Can you imagine the media outrage if a screaming crowd of “conservatives” cornered a few homosexuals into a closed alley?
As Sen. Bishopwrites, “One also wonders if the mob fell upon the former governor by coincidence or if they stalked him.” Note the young woman scurrying uncomfortably (with her face away from the camera) from the approaching gaggle of screaming protesters. She is obviously scared. The lead LGBTQ protester-bully (Basavaraj?) screaming “shame on you!” clearly has no regard for the fear that he and his “mob” of yelling activists are inducing in her–as they pin their targets against a locked door.
After all, in the leftist scheme of things, the end–in this case, humiliating and intimidating Christian “haters” and “transphobes”–justifies the means. And “bigotry” knows no gender, right?
Think about this: is the modern “LGBTQ” activist phenomenon a “New Civil Rights Movement”–or rather a spoiled Sin Movement so steeped in its own self-rationalizing ideology and warped self-righteousness that it is willing even to scare a young woman if that’s what it takes to achieve its unattainable goal of “equality”?
Of course, many homosexuals would share my outrage at this despicable conduct. This is an extreme case, but all homosexual activists are compelled to sacrifice some social good, or some transcendent truth–e.g., about the essence of marriage itself–to serve their aberrant, self-justifying worldview. The more power they achieve, the more the War on Normal (which is actually a futile fight against our Creator) is ratcheted up. And the more innocent casualties mount.
Although it must not undermine the First Amendment, we hope Sen. Bishop succeeds in his bid to protect public servants from overt harassment. Stay tuned. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
The Parliament had then, and still does have, a responsibility to allow for citizens to make submissions, but there was, and still is, the corresponding responsibility to sift submissions and to decide which ones are in the best interests of the country. Parliament must examine all the relevant studies and data. They must also have an understanding of the impact of these decisions on the country both now and in time to come and be satisfied that such decisions are in fact for the good of the country.
As it relates to the issue of “sexual orientation”, the joint select committee (1999-2001) debated the request by the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays to protect ‘sexual orientation’ as grounds for non-discrimination. The committee expressly decided not to protect this term. The committee was concerned about the impact of such a term on the institution of marriage and on parenting.
