Connect with us

Professional Homosexual Hater Attacks Beck, Says “Gays Will Come To Get Us”

Published

on

Peter. LaBarbera.

I probably could make this a two-word post, just leaving it at that, and you’d have enough information. But for those of you who have yet to have the “pleasure” of Mr. LaBarbera’s “thoughts,” let me introduce him to you.

From his website: “Peter LaBarbera, 47, is president of Americans For Truth (about Homosexuality, or AFTAH), a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda. Founded as a part-time venture in 1996 but reorganized in August 2006, AFTAH seeks to apply the same single-minded determination to opposing the radical homosexual agenda and standing for God-ordained sexuality and the natural family as countless homosexual groups do in promoting their harmful agenda.”

OK…

If that weren’t enough, try this, from Truth Wins Out founder Wayne Besen, who a few days ago in The Huffington Post, wrote, “A few years ago, I dubbed LaBarbera “Porno Pete” because of his bizarre fascination with naughty gay magazines and his penchant to go “undercover” at leather events and photograph naked men. It seems the sodomy-obsessed LaBarbera’s strategy is for anti-gay activists to talk explicitly about gay sex and why it is an unbecoming, immoral “behavior” that undermines society.”

OK.

Now, let me share with you a few of the more “choice” words LaBarbera had to say to Glenn Beck and, well, everyone, today, in his op-ed, “Why Glenn Beck Is Wrong about Legalizing Homosexual ‘Marriage’.”

And then let me counter his asinine thoughts with a dose of reality and truth.

Peter LaBarbera (just typing his name makes my skin crawl) is angry with Glenn Beck, who recently told his fellow Fox co-worker, Bill O’Reilly, that marriage equality (“gay marriage,”) is not a serious threat to America.

Remember? Watch:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=4FMe3LpUhpY%3Ffs%3D1%26hl%3Den_US%26border%3D1

By the way, listen to Bill O’Reilly make that oh-so-close slippery-slope statement that almost blames same-sex marriage for what Beck describes as, “the country burning down.” Oh, and, I’m sorry, Canada. Glenn Beck now has a big problem with you.

OK. So, now back to Peter LaBarbera.

Actually, this first: Why does LaBarbera feel the need to use the word, “homosexual” forty-four times in his piece?

Here’s a sampling:

homosexual “marriage”

federalized homosexual “marriage”

homosexual activism

homosexual Judge

homosexual ‘unions’

Pro-Homosexual Propaganda Centers

homosexual teachers

homosexual relationships

homosexual-”marriage” states

homosexual practice

homosexual-led households

homosexual Scoutmasters

pro-homosexual activism

homosexualist “rights”

pro-homosexualist ideology

homosexual activist attorneys

homosexual legal “rights”

Get the idea that Labarbera has a lot of homosexuality on his mind?…

Now, to the actual “article.”

LaBarbera says, “federalized homosexual “marriage” would override the documented will of the people in the 31 states that have already voted…”

So?

Marriage is a civil right. The Supreme Court has said so. Now, Judge Walker has said so. Civil rights are federal, not state. (The FBI, for instance, investigates civil rights violations.) That one state or thirty-one states have voted against it means nothing. It was not something that should have been up for a vote in the first place.

Oh, and by the way, I’ll remind you that when interracial marriage was deemed “legal,” only 20% of America supported it. The “states rights” thing didn’t work then, it didn’t work when we had slavery, it doesn’t work now.

Perhaps we should have a vote on other rights? Should we vote on, say, if conservative bigots should have the right to spread their hate across America? Should we vote on allowing Peter LaBarbera to continue to spread his falsehoods without consequence?

LaBarbera’s next “point”:

“Legalized homosexual “marriage” will force businessmen and -women to subsidize homosexual relationships even if they rightly believe that those relationships are immoral and deviant.”

Really? I’m pretty sure that as a tax-paying citizen, along with thirty million or so other members of the LGBTQ community, we’ve been subsidizing heterosexual marriage for centuries. We pay taxes that support the 1138 federal benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy that we cannot. We also pay taxes for things like schools — gladly, I might add — that up until recently we rarely had children to send to.

The gay community had been “subsidizing” the straight community for centuries. It’s time for some payback — in the form of simple equality.

LaBarbera continues, “A businessman who provides marital benefits to his employees could not choose which “marriages” (normal or counterfeit-”gay”) merit company support and which do not — even if he strongly disagrees with homosexual ‘unions’ as a violation of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, to quote our Declaration of Independence. ”

That’s right, Peter. Just as a businessman who provides marital benefits to his employees cannot choose which marriages, say, interracial, black, white, Asian… to support. It’s a little thing called “equality,” and it’s the very foundation of America. To quote our Declaration of Independence.

LaBarbera writes, “Legalized homosexual “marriage”… turns America’s schools into Pro-Homosexual Propaganda Centers – an evil on a par with legalizing the killing of innocent, unborn children in the womb in the name of “choice” and “reproductive rights.”

Wow. I’m not even going to touch that.

Yes, I am.

So, Peter, same-sex marriage is equal to abortion, and, to your mind, murder?

Wow.

What do you think? Is same-sex marriage akin to murder? How very “Christian” (not!) of you. Isn’t saying same-sex marriage is akin to murder disgusting?

Now, and I’ve said this before, the thing I love about these far-right-wing radical bigots is that they actually think their positions and opinions are so valid, so correct, so true, that other people must believe them also.

Maggie Gallagher is the queen of saying such bigoted things and never realizing what it sounds like.

Here are a few of Peter’s crazy “issues”:

“Picture a lesbian teacher putting the photo of her and her female parter — or maybe the celebratory photo of them kissing after their “marriage” ceremony — on her desk in front of the class.”

Um, I’ve never had a teacher put a photo of their wedding on their desk, but so what?

“In homosexual-”marriage” states, school textbooks will be re-written to validate homosexual “marriages” as the real deal — and the winning “gay marriage” would be portrayed as a genuine civil rights achievement.”

Um, yes, and your point would be?…

“[E]ven very young students would be taught that those who fought the “gay” civil rights movement — culminating in its greatest prize, “marriage equality” — are the modern-day equivalents of Americans who fought against racial reconciliation and true civil rights.”

Um, yes, and your point would be?…

“The law is a teacher and unfortunately the lesson here is that Americans of faith who agree with God against homosexual “marriage” are small-minded, intolerant bigots who “hate gay people.”

Um, yes, and your point would be?…

I’ll leave you with this last “point” from LaBarbera:

“Finally: yes, Glenn, the “gays” — read: driven and well-funded homosexual activists — will “come to get us,” in one important sense (see Beck’s comment to FOX News’ Bill O’Reilly). If history is a guide, homosexual activists will absolutely set their sights on demonizing churches that refuse to marry same-sex couples (a saccharine term I avoid; these are not normal “couples” but people practicing perversion together). Here Mr. Beck, reportedly a Mormon, displays astonishing naivete, particularly for someone in the conservative information business.”

This is a lie, and you, Peter, I believe are a liar.

“Homosexual activists,” as you call us, want nothing to do with religious institutions. We’re not going to try to force them to do or not do anything. And we cannot. That little thing called “separation of church and state,” which you, Peter, and your conservative nincompoops hate so much, actually would protect churches and other houses of worship from “homosexual activists” — or anyone else — who tried to “force” marriage equality on anyone.

So, Peter, how does it feel to be the last vestige of a dying hate, of bigotry and intensely un-American activities?

I guess you know what those who opposed interracial marriage, or the end of slavery, or women’s suffrage, must have felt like as they saw their lives crumble on the wrong side of history.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Your Client Is a Criminal Defendant’: Judge Denies Trump Request to Skip Trial for SCOTUS

Published

on

Barely hours after New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan gave Donald Trump the same set of rules requiring him to appear in court as all other criminal defendants, the ex-president’s attorney requested his client be allowed to skip trial next Thursday to attend the U.S. Supreme Court arguments on his immunity claim.

“If you do not show up there will be an arrest,” Judge Merchan had told Trump Monday at the start of his criminal trial, according to MSNBC’s Jesse Rodriguez. Trump is facing 34 felony charges for falsification of business records related to his alleged attempts to cover up hush money payments in an effort to protect his 2016 presidential campaign.

Judge Merchan had read from the same rules that apply to all defendants, but right at the end of day one of trial Trump attorney Todd Blanche made his request.

MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin reports, “after the potential jurors are gone, the fireworks start after Blanche asks Merchan to allow Trump to attend the SCOTUS argument on presidential immunity next Thursday, 4/25.”

READ MORE: ‘What Will Happen in the Situation Room?’: Trump Appearing to Sleep in Court Fuels Concerns

“The Manhattan DA’s office opposes the request, saying they have accommodated Trump enough,” MSNBC’s Katie Phang adds, citing Rubin’s reporting.

Judge Merchan “acknowledges a Supreme Court argument is a ‘big deal,’ but says that the jury’s time is a big deal too. Blanche says they don’t think they should be here at all, suggesting that the trial never should have been scheduled during campaign season.”

“That comment appeared to trigger Merchan, who asked, voice dripping with incredulity, ‘You don’t think you should be here at all?'” Rubin writes.

“He then softly asks Blanche to move along from that objection, on which he has already ruled. Merchan then got stern, ruling that Trump is not required to be at SCOTUS but is required, by law, to attend his criminal trial here.”

“Your client is a criminal defendant in New York. He is required to be here. He is not required to be in the Supreme Court. I will see him here next week,” Judge Merchan told Blanche, CBS News’ Scott MacFarlane reported.

That was not the only request Trump’s attorneys made to have their client excused from the criminal proceedings.

Lawfare managing editor Tyler McBrien reports, “Blanche says that the campaign has taken pains to schedule events on Wednesdays and asks Merchan if Trump be excused from any hearings that take place on Wednesdays, when the jury is in recess. Merchan says he will take this into consideration.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

Blanche also asked Judge Merchan to allow Trump to skip trial to attend his son Barron’s high school graduation. While the judge has yet to rule, Trump told reporters at the end of day one of trial, “it looks like the judge will not let me go to the graduation.”

The judge told Trump, “I cannot rule on those dates at this time.”

But Trump told reporters, “It looks like the judge isn’t going to allow me to escape this scam, it’s a scam trial.”

Watch below or at this link
.

 

 

Continue Reading

News

‘What Will Happen in the Situation Room?’: Trump Appearing to Sleep in Court Fuels Concerns

Published

on

Donald Trump’s apparent sleeping in court on day one of his criminal trial for alleged business fraud related to a cover-up of “hush money” election interference has critics concerned.

While initial reactions to the news largely mocked him as “Sleepy Don,” or “Drowsy Don,” political and legal experts are wondering if the 77-year old ex-president would be able to stay awake during times of crisis, when an alert president would be critical to the nation’s security.

The New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman, the longtime “Trump whisperer,” reported the ex-president “seemed alternately irritated and exhausted Monday morning,” “appeared to nod off a few times, his mouth going slack and his head drooping onto his chest.” She added the ex-president’s attorney “passed him notes for several minutes before Mr. Trump appeared to jolt awake and notice them.”

READ MORE: ‘Staged Photo Op’ of Trump With Black Chick-fil-A Patrons Was ‘True Retail Politics’ Says Fox News

Haberman followed up her Times article with a CNN appearance detailing more of what she saw. The Guardian‘s Victoria Bekiempis, MSNBC’s Katie Phang, and others also reported Trump was seen nodding off.

Critics raised concerns that question Trump’s ability to perform the duties of President.

“If Trump is too old and weak to stay awake at his own criminal trial, what do you think will happen in the Situation Room?” asked former senior advisor to President Barack Obama Dan Pfeiffer.

Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch invoked Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 AM phone call” ad from the 2008 campaign, and wrote:

“2008: Which candidate can handle the 3 a.m. phone call?

2024: Which candidate can handle the 3 p.m. phone call?”

Several also noted that Clinton, the former U.S. Secretary of State, testified for 11 hours on live television before a congressional committee and did not fall asleep. Some also noted that President Joe Biden sat for a five-hour deposition with Special Consul Robert Hur and did not fall asleep.

READ MORE: ‘Not a Good Start’: Judge Slams Trump’s ‘Offensive’ Recusal Claims as a ‘Loose End’

Calling it “simply incredible,” professor of law, MSNBC/NBC News legal contributor and former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance asked, “If he can’t keep his eyes open when his own liberty is at stake, why would Americans have confidence he’s capable of focus when our country’s interests require sound presidential leadership?”

MSNBC contributor Brian Tyler Cohen commented, “To be clear, ‘Sleepy Joe’ is awake and criss-crossing the country, while Trump is literally asleep at his own criminal trial.”

Former journalist Jennifer Schultz observed, “Moment of truth for all the legacy media outlets who hyped the Biden age stories. Now we have actual evidence of the other candidate falling asleep at a critical time.”

 

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

News

Fox Personality’s Tweet Called ‘Jury Tampering’ by US Congressman

Published

on

A Fox personality and Fox News contributor’s social media post on Monday is raising eyebrows, as one U.S. Congressman calls it “jury tampering” and a legal expert suggests it could be “conspiring to commit jury tampering.”

Clay Travis is an attorney and the founder of the conservative “sports and American culture” website Outkick, which was purchased by Fox Corporation in 2021.

His Fox News bio calls him “the founder of the fastest-growing national multimedia platform,” and, “One of the most electrifying and outspoken personalities in the industry,” who “provides his unfiltered opinion on the most compelling headlines throughout sports, culture, and politics.”

READ MORE: ‘Not a Good Start’: Judge Slams Trump’s ‘Offensive’ Recusal Claims as a ‘Loose End’

On Monday, Travis’ account on X, formerly Twitter, displayed a post that reads: “If you’re a Trump supporter in New York City who is a part of the jury pool, do everything you can to get seated on the jury and then refuse to convict as a matter of principle, dooming the case via hung jury. It’s the most patriotic thing you could possibly do.”

“Jury tampering. That’s what they do. *It’s a felony,” wrote U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) in response.

National security attorney Bradley Moss weighed in, writing, “Clay is arguably conspiring to commit jury tampering here by encouraging someone to deliberately engage in jury nullification. Not a wise move by Clay.”

Former federal and state prosecutor Ron Filipkowski, now the editor-in-chief of MediasTouch, wrote simply, “This is MAGA.”

READ MORE: ‘Scared to Death’: GOP Ex-Congressman Brings Hammer Down on ‘Weak’ Trump

Sirius XM host Dean Obeidallah, also an attorney, commented, “Hoping Manhattan DA is aware of this attempted jury tampering by Fox News regular Clay Travis.” He also wrote: “This is the exact type of juror tampering I knew Trumpers would engage in. Next Clay will tell Trumpers to bribe jurors or witnesses. MAGA is a cancer!”

Travis, responding to Congressman Swalwell, denied the allegation:

“This isn’t jury tampering you imbecile. I would nullify if I were seated on this jury as a matter of principle. I think all Americans with a comprehension of basic justice should do the same.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.