Connect with us

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



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.”


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.”


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:

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…”


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?


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.


‘Act of War’: Trump Blasted for ‘Chilling’ Statement Calling Election an ‘Insurrection’



Donald Trump, the twice-impeached former president, on Thursday issued what is being called a “chilling” statement on the election and the insurrection he incited.

“The insurrection took place on November 3, Election Day. January 6 was the Protest!” Trump said in a statement released Thursday afternoon.

Former Republican Congressman Joe Walsh simply and clearly calls it an “act of war.”

U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) during debate on the House floor has “repeatedly” been “calling on Republicans to denounce the Trump statement,” according to reporter Jamie Dupree.

“All my colleagues were elected on November 3,” McGovern said. “If you believe that Election Day was an insurrection, then your election results are illegitimate.”

McGovern is not the only one to blast the Trump statement:

Some journalists are also slamming the former president’s latest remarks.

S.V. Dáte, the White House correspondent at HuffPost weighed in, saying, “Donald Trump tried to overthrow American democracy after he lost his election by 7 million votes, but nearly a year later, he’s still lying. About all of it.”

Washington Post national political reporter Felicia Sonmez called it a “chilling statement … that makes clear his stance on peaceful democracy vs. violent insurrection.”

Washington Post White House bureau chief Ashley Parker pointed to the statement and said: “In which Trump’s shamelessness continues to be his political super power.”

ProPublica Senior Reporter Peter Elkind says: “This is the position of the widely embraced leader of the GOP. Republicans all behind that?”




Continue Reading


Watch: Garland Destroys GOP Congressman’s False Suggestion His School Board Memo Calls Parents Terrorists



U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland Thursday morning was forced to respond to repeated Republican false claims about his memo directing the DOJ to hold “discussions” with local leaders about threats of violence made against school board members, and several times had to push back hard against false accusations made by GOP Congressmen.

Franklin Graham, Stephen Miller, and countless others on the right for weeks have been falsely claiming that Garland has ordered DOJ to investigate parents merely for opposing school board decisions, mostly on mask mandates and what they claim is “critical race theory.”

U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) on Wednesday during a Judiciary Committee hearing falsely suggested Garland was calling parents’ challenging school boards domestic terrorists.

“One example of a so-called terrorist incident was a parent, merely questioning whether school board members had earned their high school diplomas. Now that might have been rude, but does that seem like an act of domestic terrorism that you or your Justice Department ought to be investigating?” Chabot asked.

“Absolutely not,” Garland replied. “And I want to be clear the Justice Department supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish, about the education of their children, about the curriculum taught in the schools. That is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does it use the words ‘domestic terrorism’ or ‘Patriot Act.’ Like you, I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.”

As NCRM has previously reported, school board members and educators in at least nine states this year have been targeted with threats, death threats, and often racist death threats, including in Virginia, Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Vermont, according to local news reports.

Ironically, it was Congressman Chabot who, a decade ago, was legitimately accused of violating the First Amendment when his staffers directed local police to confiscate video cameras at the Congressman’s town hall event, held in a public school.

Chabot, ruffled and rebuffed by Garland’s response, decided to end the inquiry there.

“Thank you I’m nearly out of time.”


Continue Reading


Gov. Greg Abbott’s Pick for Top Texas Election Post Worked With Trump to Fight 2020 Results



Gov. Greg Abbott’s pick for top Texas election post worked with Trump to fight 2020 results” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, our daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday appointed John Scott — a Fort Worth attorney who briefly represented former President Donald Trump in a lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results in Pennsylvania — as Texas’ new secretary of state.

As secretary of state, Scott would oversee election administration in Texas — a task complicated in recent years by baseless claims of election fraud from Republicans in the highest levels of government fueled by Trump. The former president has filed a flurry of lawsuits nationwide and called for audits in Texas and elsewhere to review the results of the 2020 presidential elections. Trump’s own attorney general, Bill Barr, said there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud nationwide, and in Texas, an official with the secretary of state’s office said the 2020 election was “smooth and secure.”

On Nov. 13, Scott signed on as counsel to a lawsuit filed by Trump attempting to block the certification of Pennsylvania’s election. A few days later, Scott filed a motion to withdraw as an attorney for the plaintiffs. Scott’s motion also asked to withdraw Bryan Hughes, a Texas state senator from Mineola who works for Scott’s law firm, as an attorney for the case.

Scott will eventually have to be confirmed by the Legislature which is not scheduled to meet until 2023. Until then, he’ll serve in as interim secretary of state.

Abbott’s announcement of Scott’s appointment did not mention his work for Trump — even has he has endured mounting pressure from Trump supporters to call for audit elections.

“John Scott is a proven leader with a passion for public service, and his decades of experience in election law and litigation make him the ideal choice for the Texas Secretary of State,” Abbott said in a statement. “John understands the importance of protecting the integrity of our elections and building the Texas brand on an international stage. I am confident that John’s experience and expertise will enhance his oversight and leadership over the biggest and most thorough election audit in the country. I am proud to appoint John as the Texas Secretary of State and look forward to working alongside him to ensure Texas remains the best state in the nation.”

Scott will also be the state’s liaison to Mexico, the state’s biggest trading partner, and will advise Abbott on border and trade affairs.

Abbott’s last two appointments for the top elections position, Ruth R. Hughs and David Whitley, were not confirmed by the Senate. Hughs resigned in May.

Scott has 33 years of legal experience, arguing more than 100 legal cases in state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Working at the attorney general’s office under Abbott, Scott was deputy attorney general for civil litigation, overseeing more than 22,000 lawsuits for the state. He later was appointed chief operating officer of the state’s Health and Human Services Commission where he was in charge of 56,000 employees and a biennial budget of $50 billion.

Scott also has served as board chairman for the Department of Information Resources. He has law offices in Fort Worth and Austin.

Disclosure: Texas Secretary of State has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.