Beware the potential Zogby spin - it may not be accurate

My prayers go out to those who are affected by Hurricane Gustav. And I think that McCain made a good decision to make changes to the Republican National Convention.

But I echo Obama's sentiments - hopefully those in charge will do better than they did during Hurricane Katrina.

I read something today that is interesting and I want to bring it to everyone's attention before the "spin doctors" try to manipulate it:

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

In other words, the race is a dead heat.

The interactive online Zogby survey shows that both Obama and McCain have solidified the support among their own parties - Obama won 86% support of Democrats and McCain 89% of Republicans in a two-way head-to-head poll question not including the running mates. When Biden and Palin are added to the mix, Obama's Democratic support remains at 86%, while McCain's increases to 92%.

That's the Zogby poll. But the National Gallup poll has Obama ahead by eight points. It also says that Sarah Palin is an unknown quantity.

But how much do you want to bet that the Zogby poll will be repeated ad naseum by McCain's people, Fox News, One News Now, Town Hall, and every conservative blog and talking head who wishes to score quick points for the Republicans.

Already there is an effort underway to spin the Zogby poll. This is what the conservative writers from Newsmax said:

It is incredible, but the designation of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate seems to have totally obliterated Barack Obama's bounce from his convention and after his magnificent speech. Zogby actually has McCain two ahead and Rasmussen's Friday only data shows Obama only three up!

First of all, the use of the Rasmussen poll by Newsmax is a clever distortion.

According to the Rasmussen poll, before the convention, Obama and McCain have been pretty much even with Obama leading slightly.

During and after the convention, the poll shows Obama moving up by three to four points at the most. The Rasmussen poll never showed a "bounce."

So for Newsmax to use the Ramussen poll to claim that Obama enjoyed a big bounce from the convention and that McCain destroyed said bounce by his pick of Palin is highly farfetched.

Which brings me back to the Zogby poll. Anyone who tries to use the Zogby poll to make the case that Palin destroyed Obama's convention bounce is clearly not reading the entire article. Please bear in mind the words in the first sentence of the article's lead:

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

What the Zogby poll is actually saying is that McCain's choice of a vice president has added more interest to the race by energizing his base. Before his pick of Palin, many were so-so about his candidacy. Now that he has picked his running mate, interest in him from his base has picked up.

In other words, as the second paragraph of the article clearly says, both candidates have solidified support in their own bases.

This election is not predictable. No one could have ever predicted that Obama would defeat Hilary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and no one could have predicted that McCain would pick Sarah Palin as his running mate.

And I am sure that before it's all over, more unpredictable things will happen.

But hopefully the most unpredictable occurrence will be the pundits and journalists doing their jobs and not giving us half the story . . . for a change.

I await in anticipation to be surprised.

Good choice? Bad choice?

Awesome speech by Obama. That's all I can say.

And I noticed that McCain is trying to blunt the effect of the speech by his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin.

Palin, Governor of Alaska, is not known to many people. Naturally the internet is abuzz with google searches, yahoo searches, and every other search.

She is pro-life and not necessarily pro-gay. Of course members of the anti-gay industry are lining up to praise McCain's choice.

Palin has also been called blunt, not necessarily a positive characteristic for someone who is allegedly not necessarily gay-friendly. This means she has the potential to say something ridiculous about the lgbt community while at the same time claiming that she is not homophobic.

So did McCain pick a younger, cuter version of Sally Kern?

Who knows. Maybe I am making too much of the situation.

But from what I do know, McCain picked a first term governor with no national experience and who is currently under an ethics violation (allegedly for using her office in a vendetta against her former brother-in-law) to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Well there goes that argument against Obama regarding lack of experience. At any other time, this would be considered a crappy choice. Hell, if Obama had made a choice like that he would be rode out of town on a rail.

You do have to give McCain points for effort though. By going for the odd choice, he has attracted some attention.

But attention, as does mystery, fades in time.

The question is what will the voters see when that happens.

Radom thoughts and significant ramblings

The Democratic Convention is almost over. Meanwhile John McCain will soon name his vice presidential candidate and the Republicans are going to start their convention.

I feel as if I am watching the coming attractions in a movie theatre.

Folks, its about to get ugly.

Last night, I googled the latest lie about Obama (the one about William Ayers and the Weathermen) and it got me thinking.

Why is it so hard for some Republicans to campaign on the issues? Why can't they just say "we feel so and so won't do a better job than our candidate."

But no. In a huge show of self involvement that would land many of us on a psychiatrist's couch, Republicans and their cohorts (especially the anti-gay industry) make every election a pitched battle between good and evil with them wearing the wings and the halo:

We can elect Michael Dukakis because he is a card carrying member of the ACLU who opposes children saying the Pledge of Allegiance.

We can't elect Bill Clinton because he is a draft dodger who protested against his country on foreign soil.

We can't elect Al Gore because he is a congenital liar who says he created the Internet.

We can't elect John Kerry because he didn't deserve the medals he got in Vietnam.

It's a broken record that no one seems to have the sense to throw away. And that's because its somewhat effective.

Dirty political tactics are like pornography. Americans claim to be disgusted by it, but at the same time, it draws their interest.

And this time, there is a serious overload of rumors, conjecture and intentional whispering campaigns. Forget how nasty it was with Bill Clinton. Republicans, conservatives, and the rest of the so-called moral folks have gone into hyperdrive about Obama, accusing him of every of bad behavior except for shooting J.R. Ewing and "squeezing the Charmin."

By themselves, the claims are bizarre. But if you grouped them together, they take the semblance of one of those ridiculous Left Behind books combined with an episode of Twin Peaks:

Obama has deep ties with Jerome Wright, a "nutty" preacher.

Obama is a rock star.

Obama’s birth certificate is fake .

Obama has deep ties with “terrorist” William Ayers.

Obama had sex and did drugs in a limo with a white guy.

Obama is the anti-Christ.

Obama is secretly Muslim.

Obama’s mother was Communist.

Obama received “training” in a Muslim school while a youngster.

Obama did drugs while in the Senate.

Obama is for infantcide.

Obama is uppity.

Obama is like Paris Hilton.

Obama is unpatriotic because he does not put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Obama is unpatriotic because he does not wear an American flag pin on his lapel or tie.

Obama was sworn into office on the Koran.

Years from now, people will look back at this election and scratch their heads. They are going to ask the question that I have been asking for a number of months:

What's wrong with these people.

Gay adoption, Hilary and other Wednesday musings

I got a message from a member of Arkansas Family First, the group working against the ballot measure I talked about yesterday:

This is Laura from Arkansas Families First.

Please visit our website, http://arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/, to join us in the fight to defeat this amendment!

I echo that sentiment for a number of reasons. Not only is the proposed law a piece of symbolic claptrap that will actually hurt children, but if it passes, we can count on seeing similar ballot initiatives in other states.

On other issues, give it up to Hilary. She turned it out last night.

Last night, I flipped between PBS and Fox News while the pundits and reporters on both channels were analyzing the speech.

What was funny about the entire thing was the pundits on Fox News attempting to find things wrong with Hilary's speech.

She only did it her herself. She didn't help Obama. I could hear her saying asshole under her breath everytime she said Obama's name. That wasn't Hilary on the podium because the Democrats kidnapped her. It was a Stepford Wife like that movie.

Then this morning, I happened to catch Joe Scarborough and his panel (with only one black man onboard) try and deconstruct Hilary's speech.

The ironic thing about that was Pat Buchanan's participation on the panel. Buchanan has said some ugly things regarding Obama and black people in general; something to the tune of black people were lucky to come to America as slaves because they were exposed to Christianity, blah, blah, blah.

And it made me realize that Pat Buchanan is a living, breathing symbol of the hypocrisy of racism on America's underbelly.

I mean if he was a black man and had said half the things about white people than he (as a white man) has said about black people, he wouldn't be considered as a venerable newsperson.

He would be a part of those code words Fox News uses when they want to scare white people about the motives of black people.

You know the code words - Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan.

Finally, some of you may have noticed that the countdown clock that usually sits on the right of this blog is gone. I removed it yesterday.

The countdown clock was showing how many days had passed since anti-gay doyenne Peter LaBarbera had seen my book (Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters) and not responded to the charges lodged in it.

It was not (as a certain individual put it) a plea by me to get LaBarbera to review my book. It was put there to demonstrate LaBarbera's hypocrisy.

He can go from one subcultural event to another and demonize the lgbt community from the depravity he sees there but will not address the fact that he and folks on his side have engaged in unfair and unscrupulous tatics to lie on the lgbt community.

Well as seen in my blog two Saturdays ago, Peter finally addressed those charges.

Granted, it took me pulling it out of him via a series of emails, but he did address my charges.

We're not perfect, he said.

Well duuuuh.

Arkansas makes a possible boo boo

Wasn't Michelle Obama awesome last night? Personally I think she nailed her speech. And her two little girls were just adorable.

How can anyone vote against that family?

But seriously, in all of the hoopla about a presidential election, we sometimes forget state votes that could have a negative impact on our lives.

It happened in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. During that same time, Colorado passed a mindbogglingly bad law that prevented the state from passing any laws prohibiting anti-gay discrimination.

It was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1996. If this law had not been overturned, the effects on our fight for rights and self-determination would have been disastrous. Laws like it would have popped up virtually all over the country.

And I don't think I have to rehash the anti-gay marriage laws that passed in 2004. To this day, some people still say that they were the key to the re-election of Bush.

So now in 2008 comes the following, courtesy of Arkansas:

A proposal aimed at effectively banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents was cleared Monday to appear on this fall's ballot in Arkansas.

The measure would prohibit unmarried couples living together from fostering or adopting children, and Arkansas doesn't allow gays to marry or recognize gay marriages conducted elsewhere.

Secretary of State Charlie Daniels certified the proposed initiated act for the Nov. 4 ballot after verifying that the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee had submitted 85,389 valid signatures of registered voters. Supporters needed to turn in at least 61,974 valid signatures.

"Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers," Family Council President Jerry Cox said. "We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible."

This proposed law is pernicious on so many levels. It illustrates how the anti-gay industry is willing to distort while at the same time trumpet how they stand for morals.

The part about unmarried couples is a dodge because the Arkansas court recently said that a ban on gay adoption is unlawful. So the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee can't come out and say to keep lgbts from adopting is the purpose of the law, but everyone knows that is the case.

Apparently ducking and dodging is now a Christian value.

Of course lgbt couples can get around this law if it is passed by using surrogates or sperm donations.

And it is here where we see just who the law will hurt.

For all of the bluster about it, this proposed law does not guarantee that foster children will end up in two-parent heterosexual households. It neither encourages nor mandates that two-parent heterosexual households take foster children in.

Jerry Cox and those like him all over the country are constantly saying that "children have a right to a mother and father." Well this is all well and good but this law does not guarantee them that right.

In fact, it does just the opposite.

It eliminate choices based on outdated concepts of family. It is also based on an inaccurate assumption that unmarried couples (be they heterosexual or lgbt) are stealing foster children away from two-parent heterosexual households.

Based on the number of children in foster care nationwide, that's not happening.

This law is about symbolism, not actualities.

And it's a shame because a child can't get love from a symbol.

But the real shame is that in their attempts to get at the lgbt community, the anti-gay industry in Arkansas aimed wrong and kicked foster children squarely in the mouth.

All eyes on Denver

This week will be a drag regarding news about the anti-gay industry.

You all know why. This is the week of the Democratic National Convention so all eyes are on Denver as the media will pontificate, guesstimate, and, in the case of Fox News and others like them, try to throw a monkeywrench in on the proceedings.

And the majority of the heavy hitting progressive bloggers are there also.

Oh well, there is always 2012 for me.

Seriously though, my guess is that the anti-gay industry will have their forces all keyed to making Obama look like a sepia Damien Thorne.

One good thing about him getting the nomination is how it threw everything into chaos. I think the anti-gay industry, et. al. were expecting Clinton to get the nomination and they were counting on her to galvanize supporters who are not necessarily sold on McCain.

How the pedulum turns.

Other than watching the convention, I think that I am going to take time out this week to work on several projects, including my other blog.

This is not to say that I am taking a break. We all know how the anti-gay industry is.

No rest for the wicked.

Hallmark joins the 'overthrow of America'

In my best faux European accent - Our operatives tells me that we were able to elicit Hallmark Greeting Cards in our plans to overturn Christian values in America. With them selling cards congratulating gay couples on their marriages, nothing can stop us now.

Okay that was corny but I only did it to give a gist of the mindset of the anti-gay industry. Apparently they are all up in arms with Hallmark's decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards.

In fact, the American Family Association will be launching a boycott:

Today, the right-wing American Family Association (AFA) announced a protest of Hallmark for its decision to start selling gay marriage greeting cards. AFA wants Hallmark to “stop promoting a lifestyle that is not only unhealthy, but is also illegal in 48 states.” From the protest site:

We’ve all given or received Hallmark Cards – remember their slogan – “when you care enough to send the very best.” But promoting same-sex marriage for profit is not the very best for families or our nation.

Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states. American Greeting Cards, Hallmark’s competitor, does not offer same-sex marriage cards.

Enough of the semantics already! Hallmark is selling these greeting cards because of the old reliable concept of supply and demand.

God bless capitalism. If you don't agree with the concept of gay marriage greeting cards, then don't buy any.

But don't waste your time telling that to the AFA. The group continues to push the lie that anything recognizing the fact that lgbts are normal people and should be catered to and treated as such is really part of a nefarious plan to destroy Christianity.

Somehow I just know Janet Folger is going to connect Hallmark with putting Christians in jail. Or Peter will connect the company with Folsom Street Fair.

What kills me about the AFA is their intentional deception regarding the legality of gay marriage - Hallmark is a private company obviously driven by greed. Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states.

That passage is not accidental nor is it a product of an overeager publicity writer. It's an intentional distortion.

Same-sex marriage is not illegal per se. True, it is not legally recognized but it is not against the law. The illegality of an act entails penalities such as arrests and jail terms.

I personally think that the AFA has stock in Hallmark, especially when one considers how successful their boycott against McDonalds is going.

I'm expecting Hallmark's sales to go through the roof.

Is the Family Research Council distorting another study?

From the Family Research Council's 25 Pro-Family Goals For The Nation:

In addition to deliberately creating and affirming motherless or fatherless families, other harms would result from same-sex “marriage.” Homosexuals are less likely to enter long-term partnerships, less likely to be sexually faithful, and less likely to remain committed for a lifetime. Commitment, sexual fidelity, and lifelong marriage would all decline if the behavior of homosexuals is incorporated into society’s concept of marriage. Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow. Religious liberty and freedom of speech would also suffer, since opposition to same-sex “marriage” would be treated as the equivalent of racial bigotry."

I have just emailed the Family Research Council asking where did they receive this information regarding gay marriage. I have an idea as to what study they got this information from. And if it's what I think, then the Family Research Council will have a lot of explaining to do.

My guess is that they used a study completed in the Netherlands by one Dr. Maria Xiridou. If this is the case, they took the study out of context big time.

You see, the 2003 published study's objective was “to access the relative contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam and to determine the effect of increasing sexually risky behaviours among both types of partnerships in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).”

The study only looked at casual relationships amongst gay men and was completed before same-sex marriage was legalized in the Netherlands.

There are other facts about Dr. Xiridou's study that speaks to how it cannot be used to gauge monogamy amongst lgbts in general. But I won't bring that up until I get an answer from the Family Research Council

If I don't get an answer back via email, then I will be calling their 1-800 number.

I will keep you all posted.

Jerome Corsi and his fancy toilet paper

I am sure many of you know about the Jerome Corsi book that tries to skewer Barack Obama.

Corsi, who wrote a book about Sen. John Kerry four years ago during time in which Kerry was running against Bush for president, claims that this book will show the real Obama.

Please.

This book is a piece of crap and everyone knows it. It recycles some of the worst lies about Obama and creates a few more. Corsi is so scandalous that he even talks about Obama's mother.

But it is the number one book on the New York Times best seller list thanks to a skilled campaign of bullshit emanating from the right.

Corsi gets featured on Fox News unopposed in his lies on several occasions, conservative columnists (such as those on Town Hall and One News Now) give Corsi attention, conservative groups buy Corsi's book in bulk . . .

and lo and behold, we have to divert time away from real issues to talk about a smear job.

Whatever happened to true journalists like Edward R. Murrow, who would have devoted a significant bit of time to call out this bullshit, just like he did to Senator Joseph McCarthy.

With the crop of "journalists" we have now, McCarthy would probably be canonized.

LGBT For Obama - an excellent site.

More good news from California

It's slowly shaping up to be a very good week thanks to the lovely folks in California:

Court decisions forcing same-sex "marriage" on California and Massachusetts have had a predictable side effect -- an increase in adoption by homosexual couples.

The Associated Press recently produced a feature article titled, "More gay men embrace marriage, fatherhood." The report was all but an endorsement of homosexual adoption, according to Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality. - Homosexual adoption increases in California, One News Now

Naturally the One News Now article only features the comments of our dear pet homophobe Peter LaBarbera. But his comments are hilarious:

"What is incorrigible about this coverage from Associated Press is that it is totally absent of any critical coverage; I mean serious coverage examining the effects of homosexual 'parenting,' bringing in public policy data, even bringing in pro-family critics," argues LaBarbera.

By critical coverage from "pro-family" critics, Peter means that the Associated Press should ask the opinion of so-called experts that the anti-gay industry prop up. You know who I am talking about - folks with absolutely no experience in the field they claim to be experts in but who can be counted on to give a good soundbite.

And by all means, let them be the head of a phony group with a credible sounding name, like the Center for Parental Readiness or the American Christian Adoption Association, or The Center Dedicated to Keep Children Away from Those Nasty Homosexuals.

And I love this part of the article:

LaBarbera says that, as with any media discussion of homosexual involvement with children, there was no mention in the AP story of the harm to the children.

I know why there was no mention of it. Because there is NONE. There has never been a legitimate study that has said that children in same-sex homes are harmed because of the orientation of their parents. Of course there are some studies, like those by Paul Cameron. And other claims, like those of Linda Harvey.

But they are as credible as a Klansman advocating racial harmony.

And then there is the piece de resistance:

" . . . you have this ridiculous situation in which these professional adoption organizations are talking about crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Meanwhile, they're intentionally placing children in homes that are motherless or fatherless by design," LaBarbera points out.

I don't care what anyone says, I am convinced that these anti-gay groups have weekly meetings where they bounce phraseologies off of each other. These phraseologies cover up the fact that their positions have nothing behind them that resemble facts.

" . . . Intentionally placing children in homes that motherless and fatherless by design?"

What the hell does that mean anyway? Is there some conspiracy between professional adoption organizations and the lgbt community? Peter seems to be inferring to the old Anita Bryant nonsense of "gay recruitment."

For the last time, let me say something about that. If lgbts were recruiting, we wouldn't be going after children. We would be going after celebrities.

I personally would chair the committees to turn the following celebrities gay:

Philip Seymour Hoffman,
Patton Oswald,
Jonah Hill,
Jon Heder
Beck,
David Spade (sue me, I'm kinky),
and that Cute Bald Wrestler with the Hairy Back Gay.

But in Peter's defense, he does bring up a good idea. I am all for giving one of those phony "pro-family" studies or spokespeople room to hang themselves with their distorted positions.

After all, giving Elaine Donnelly a forum did wonders for gays in the military.

Two pieces of good news for the Monday blaahs

Everyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I hate Mondays.

And this Monday was no different.

But on the positive side, I thought I would spotlight two pieces of good news that should bring a smile to everyone's face;

Good news item #1

S.C. ‘queen’ reigns over ‘America’s Got Talent’

Dorae Saunders, a former Miss Pride Charlotte and star in the movie “Trantasia,” has been chosen among the top 40 contenders in NBC’s “America’s Got Talent.”

The third season of the show will return with live episodes to whittle down the crowd of contestants after NBC’s broadcasts of the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Saunders, a Columbia native, was recognized for accomplishments this past winter by the Carolinas Black Pride Movement and is most widely known for her performance of Tina Turner. The gig has managed to land her a slot on the upcoming “AGT” finals.

Dorae Saunders is a friend of mine. As the video clip shows (click on the link), she is daring, outspoken, and highly talented.

I know I am showing bias by saying this, but I hope she wins.

Good news item #2

Anything that infuriates the anti-gay industry is always a good news item in my book. This particular situation goes farther than that, however. The California Supreme Court stood up for the rights of lgbt parents and averted a potential crisis that could arise via physicians hiding behind their religious beliefs as an excuse not to give lgbts proper medical care:

Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians Care on Religious Grounds

Ruling Was Unamimous, Unlike Legalization of Gay Marriage Case

The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.

Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.

The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.

The case, which drew 40 "friends of the court" briefs, pitted gay advocacy groups against religious and medical organizations.

Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.

In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments  all covered by insurance  Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.

Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.

"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.

"I did it not only for me, my partner and my children but for other people coming after me, so they don't have to go through the humiliation and frustration and abandonment as a patient," she said.

More here

Ms. Benitez's victory is one for us all. How sweet it is.

Nice try Peter LaBarbera, but you are no hero

On his webpage, our friend Peter publishes his "response" to an email allegedly sent to him from a person from Michigan regarding his recent publishing of x-rated pictures from a San Francisco street fair.

Peter does not publish the person's letter but says the following:

The following is adapted from my response to a letter from a Michigan pro-homosexual activist who wrote AFTAH, making the usual obnoxious charges: that I am a “pornographer” (for exposing San Francisco’s government-tolerated public street depravities) — and, of course, that I am a secret homosexual (”You are gay and part of you knows it and HATES it”). It’s all par for the course when you cover the loving and tolerant GLBT community.

By not showing the alleged "obnoxious" letter but publishing his response, Peter tries to make himself look intelligent and noble.

Don't be fooled.

You see, Peter and I had an email exchange last week and based on that exchange, Peter does not come across as an intelligent or noble person. Nor does he come across as a particularly moral person.

Judge for yourself as I reveal a snippet of our email conversation. In it, I was able to question Peter point blank about his tactics as well as the tactics of other members of the anti-gay industry:

From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:42 am

Spare me. Talk about consumed? You are beholden to your "gay" ideology, so much so that you are actually comparing ex-gays to that? Skin color is immutable. MANY people have left homosexuality behind. Just because YOU don't believe that -- or you explain it away thru your various arguments doesn't make it not so.


Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:29 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

well you can always ask wade richards or michael johnston. to me though sexual orienation is fluid. science may never find the reasons behind sexual orientation. but it leans to it not being able to be chosen.

but you miss the point, peter.

Your beliefs about homosexuality is on what you call a solid foundation (i.e. the Bible). Every time you and those on your side distort legitimate studies, every time you all use bad studies (i.e. Paul Cameron, John R. Diggs), every time you go to one of those subcultural events and attack lgbts there without saying a word about the heterosexuals who attend the events, you weaken that foundation.

The house you seem to think you are building on a rock will start to have a foundation of sand. And that house will crumble.

Look around you. It's crumbling now.


In a message dated 8/12/2008 6:22:14 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

Don't worry about me, Alvin. You talk about crumbling: try your side's pathetic attempt to deny the obvious, that people change.

You MUST focus on the "failures," although of course you have no idea about Mike Johnston's life. It's a sin, Alvin. I could go into it ... And you can come out of it.


Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 6:34 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

Peter,

Don't you see? It's not about celebrating Johnston's "failure." It's about moral authority. You deliberately downplayed the fact that AFA was selling the tape featuring Johnston's "ex-gay" testimony even though he had not changed his orientation. You helped to sell a lie.

Robert Knight stood in front of Congress and cited studies that he had to know were wrong.

You and Matt Barber tried to infer that the MRSA infection was some type of new "gay plague" and then tried to played the game of "exact wording" when you were caught.

And the list of deceptions goes on and on.

Now some may say that we are all sinners, but others can say that your sin and the sins of your friends are greater than mine.

I believe that homosexuality is not a sin so I have acted accordingly. But in trying to prove that homosexuality is wrong as well as a sin, you and others have engaged in tactics that you had to know were wrong.

Leading me to ask what moral authority do you have? What credibility do you have?

In trying to fight what you see as sin, you have become as bad of a sinner as you see me as being.

From: Peter L.
To: CharleKenghis@aol.com
Sent: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:25 am

This deserves a serious answer later. FYI, MJ is not practicing homo'l behavior. My moral authority comes ultimately from agreeing with God's moral truth. You are the one who is making up moral authority out of....what?

Your feelings? Guess what? Sin feels good often. So it is you, Alvin, who must -- if you are really a serious person on these issues -- ask the question: by what moral authority do you fight against God, Nature, etc. on this issue?


Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 11:08 AM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

But see, Peter you tried to bypass my question. And my question is the gist of the entire thing.
Who are you to tell me what God is or the what the nature of God is when you can't answer my question as to your behavior regarding holding true to HIS statues and laws.

How can one be a Christian and act as unethically as you and yours have and then turn around and try to talk about God's law. If you cannot answer my question regarding your behavior then you are just as much of a sinner as you think that I am.

And your words mean nothing. They are just like filthy rags.


In a message dated 8/13/2008 2:28:06 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

You won't accept my words because ultimately you won't accept God (the one true God) and His revelation on the issue dearest to your heart (rationale for homosexual practice). You have NO authority, Alvin, can't you see it.

I can (note - that is a typo on Peter's part. He meant to say can't) physically PROVE to you God's existence, or the truth of Christ and the Bible, but I know it to be true (by faith) and I'm trusting in it.

What are you trusting in?

I understand why you reject God's authority in your life. You must -- to practice and defend sin. And I don't buy your cockeyed notions of acting unethically. That's YOUR description bec. YOU have vested interest in demonizing faithful Christians who HAVE NOT rejected God like you
have.

It's all about rationalizing your behavior, which is NOT innate.


Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 4:33 PM
To: PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net

Peter,

what makes you think that I don't believe in God. God is real and is the reason why I accept my gay orientation.

And why are you trying to move the conversation as to whether or not I believe God is real. My point is how you can speak about God when your tactics aren't Godly?

Would a faithful Christian demonize an entire community? Would a faithful Christian stand in front of Congress and lie about studies? Would a faithful Christian participate in a lie regarding someone's sexual orientation? Would a faithful Christian aid and abet a man who lied about his son being beat up by the children of gay activists? (i.e. David Parker)? Would a faithful Christian get on a radio program and say all sorts of ugly things about a person like you did on July 24th to Brenda Watson?

You and folks on your side have done some highly underhanded things. No matter how you try, you will never get away from your conduct.

This is not about the existence of God. It is about the conduct of those who call themselves his people.


In a message dated 8/13/2008 6:03:31 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
PeterLaBarbera@comcast.net writes:

We're not perfect, but you are in denial. YOU reject God when you spend your life defending that which He opposes. I'll go back and listen to my Brenda Watson remark: bottom line is: men don't make good "women"

You may believe in God, Alvin, but you are warring against Him. Do you think my side has even come close to documenting the evil of organized homo'y? Not a chance: how is it, exactly, that all those teenage boys are contracting HIV? Aren't you one of the guys trying to make the (absurd) case that men practicing homo'y are subject to disproportionate health risks?


Not to worry, I answered his silly question. And I kept asking about his tactics. But the response of "we're not perfect" is the closest he came to addressing the issue. Finally, he told me that he can no longer talk to me because I will not face reality, which based on his non- answers to my question, is the height of irony.

Like I said earlier, judge for yourself regarding Peter's nobility. But based on our email conversation, Peter LaBarbera comes across as a man who talks about values and morality while espousing an ends justifies the means attitude. He comes across as a man who claims to talk about the truth, but does what he can to ignore it when it does not suit him.

In other words, he fits in perfectly with the anti-gay industry.

Commentator on Pam's House Blend demonstrates a perfect smack down

I read something today on Pam's House Blend that was so awesome that I just have to spotlight it on this blog.

Apparently former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum wrote some ridiculous screed about Proposition 8 in California. Other than the usual tired "those who support traditional marriage will now be looked at as bigots" whine that Maggie Gallagher uses constantly, Santorum also said the following:

What happens if we permit this tiny minority to reshape marriage? The next step is to use the new law to suppress the liberties of Christians. Already:

* A Christian adoption agency--Catholic Charities!--has been shut down by the government because it will not do adoptions for gay married couples

* A volunteer fireman, who risked his life to rescue friends and neighbors in need, was told his services were no longer wanted--because he signed a petition supporting marriage as the union of husband and wife.

* A father was arrested for trying to prevent a public school from teaching his son that gay marriage is normal.

* In New Jersey, a Methodist organization just lost part of its state tax exemption because it refused to permit civil union ceremonies on church-owned property.

This is an old but effective anti-gay industry tactic: distort current events to demonstrate how the lgbt community wants to silence Christians.

Well a commentator on Pam's House Blend, cindik, took it upon herself to break down these stories. And in doing so, she demonstrates the correct way to fight the anti-gay industry. When they distort, show the truth and back it up. I hope Pam will forgive me but I want to post cindik's comment. It's too awesome for words:

* A Christian adoption agency--Catholic Charities!--has been shut down by the government because it will not do adoptions for gay married couples

At least he's specific about the charity, but which government? And how did they shut it down?

The Boston Archdiocese's Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because of a state law allowing gays and lesbians to adopt children. - CBS news

That's right, Boston's Catholic Charities decided to end their services because of a state law that required organizations that received state funds to not discriminate against gay and lesbian people.

* A volunteer fireman, who risked his life to rescue friends and neighbors in need, was told his services were no longer wanted--because he signed a petition supporting marriage as the union of husband and wife.

This is very sketchy. Who is this guy? Where was he volunteering?

It turns out that volunteer fireman Leo ''Skip'' Childs was not chosen for a vacancy on the Truro, MA board of fire engineers and they instead chose one of the other candidates they interviewed, Jeff Perry. A former selectman for he town, Paul Asher-Best, apparently was against choosing Childs because Childs had signed a petition against same sex marriage in Massachusetts. Cape Cod Times

So the opinion of the selectmen was to choose another person for the board, perhaps in part due to the fireman's endorsement of a measure to go against the state's Supreme Court ruling on the rights of others.

* A father was arrested for trying to prevent a public school from teaching his son that gay marriage is normal.

Rick, Rick, Rick. Can you be more vague?

Parker and his wife, Tonia, 34, who was also in court yesterday, said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.

Parker said he met with school officials to gain those assurances and then refused to leave until he got them. Parker stayed at Estabrook School for more than two hours, according to Superintendent William J. Hurley, as officials and Lexington police urged him to leave. Finally, they arrested him for trespassing.- Boston Globe

And incorrect, it turns out. He wasn't arrested for trying to prevent his child from being taught that same-sex marriage is normal, he was arrested for refusing to leave the school.

* In New Jersey, a Methodist organization just lost part of its state tax exemption because it refused to permit civil union ceremonies on church-owned property.

Kudos, Mr. Santorum. You identified the state, the denomination, and the loss (partial tax exemption).

Of course, it wasn't a religious tax exemption, as one might have incorrectly inferred from Mr. Santorum's omission of detail. It was a tax from the New Jersey EPA for having a green space open to the public.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection on Tuesday denied a Methodist organization's request to continue getting tax breaks for a public pavilion in Ocean Grove, N.J., where it allows weddings but not same-sex civil-union ceremonies.

The state ruled that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association's space, formerly tax-exempt under New Jersey's Green Acres Program, is not eligible for tax breaks because it is no longer open to all members of the public.- Gay.Com

It also turns out that LGBT-owned businesses were a big part of the revival of the area, which is still owned by a Methodist organization. - New York Times

And the financial impact? About $175/year.

So these aren't outright lies, but they are vague, misleading anecdotes. Hey, I have an idea - what if we start a new trend? We could change "rickrolling" to mean a link to a video of Rick Santorum saying something misleading.

Alright cindik! You better work it, girl!!!

The difference between good news and propaganda

How sweet is this:

Openly gay Democrat Mike Colona won the Missouri State Democratic primary for St. Louis Tuesday night. With no Republican opponent to face in the fall he will head straight to the state House.

Naturally some folks aren't exactly happy about Colona's victory:

An openly homosexual attorney, who previously did legal work for a homosexual pornographer, has been elected to the Missouri legislature. - Homosexual politician running unopposed in Missouri

Believe it or not, One News Now is actually correct on this score. Colona does have ties to the adult industry via his law practice.

Of course One News Now didn't go into detail about this. Leave it to my favorite phony news site to not only miss the entire story, but use the opportunity to give our friend Peter LaBarbera room to gripe:

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, does not know which is worse -- the fact that Colona openly campaigned as a homosexual, or that Democrats knowingly supported a former attorney for a homosexual pornographer.

"[T]his guy got endorsed by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, NARAL, the leading pro-abortion group in the country," says LaBarbera. "...I think the sad thing is the Democratic Party is becoming the home of the most immoral politicians and candidates in the country."

Colona defended his work as the "Custodian of Records" for a homosexual porn website during the campaign, claiming that he was "keeping kids safe." LaBarbera's response? "You've got to love a politician's ability to always put a friendly spin on something, even something as nasty as being the lawyer for a homosexual porn outfit."

This is the actual story:

When a porn producer contributed to his campaign, Colona admitted to advising him. His role, he said, was limited to ensuring no minors were used in any porn production.

Some voters felt Colona must have been hiding something when several adult websites removed his name as the holder of records. “Resource for parents, so that's the spin? He works with these companies as a social service? That is a pathetic justification for a whore for hire!!!” wrote an anonymous commenter who listed fifteen websites with Colona's name as evidence of his participation in the industry.

Colona, however, continued to win endorsements – including the State Police Association and St. Louis Police Officers Association – and ultimately the Democratic primary.

A lawyer advising a client? Someone call the U. S. Attorney General!!!

I don't know what I love the most: the fact that a gay man was elected to public office or the fact that it is driving the anti-gay industry nuts.

And speaking of gay folks winning elections, I would be remiss if I did not mention:

Internet businessman Jared Polis beat two opponents in the 2nd Congressional District Democratic primary after pouring a record amount of his own money into a bitter and hard-fought race.

If Polis, 33, wins in November he would become one of the richest members of Congress. And he would be among only a handful of openly gay members and the first from Colorado.

I can just imagine James Dobson shaking in his shoes. It must be my birthday.

It's Tuesday so forgive my tangent

I am enjoying the Olympics. In a perfect world, Michael Phelps would be one of my concubines.

Yeah, I know. I generally don't go for pretty boys but he is such a good son to his mother.

And you know us mama's boys have got to stick together.

One problem I do have with the Olympics are the damned swimsuits. What hell are those one-piece long things they are wearing now?

Whatever happened to the good old days when all male swimmers wore speedos? Hell, if the suits are going to be that long, can they at least be white?

I'm with Huffington Post writer Karen Tanabe on this one:

It's called the Speedo LZR Racer. Credited with dozens of world records, it's not sewn but welded together, was engineered by NASA, produces 38% less hydrodynamic drag than a normal bathing suit, covers from ankle to neck and has all but ruined my favorite spectator sport since I could say "libido": men's swimming.

You have to forgive me but I have special memories that I cherish from the 1984 Olympics. That was when I first began to realize my gay orientation and my gaydar at the same time via two words:

Greg Louganis.

Seriously though, I love how this country develops new sports heroes during the Olympic Games.

I had never heard of Michael Phelps before this week. Nor any of the other swimmers.

And when the track and field time rolls around, I know I will have new heroes.

The only one I am aware of now is Tyson Homosexual.

I mean Tyson Gay. Come on, you know I had to work in an anti-gay industry dig in there.

And speaking of my favorite phony news service, it seems that One News Now has eliminated its comments section.

Now some may say that us "radical gay activists" caused this to happen due to our "jamming" of the comments section, but I disagree.

My belief is that One News Now doesn't want anyone the mindsets of those who read and agree with their articles.

And based on some of their comments, I would be ashamed too.

I am upset though. Reading those comments was half the fun of the site.

Whatever shall I do for fun now?

I would join free republic and post some comments there except for one thing.

The folks on that site are nuts. They would scare Freddy Krueger.

How to connect gays and pedophilia without any proof

For the past few posts, I have been on a tear against AFA's One News Now.

But in my defense, the phony news site makes it so easy.

And before today, I feel safe in saying that One News Now has just posted the most outrageous article I have ever seen.

To give the full gist of what I am talking about, I am going to post the entire thing. (I would link it but the lovely folks at One News Now have now rickrolled all of my links from its site. The joke's on them though. Redhaired men are my weakness):

Is the U.N. advocating homosexuality and pedophilia?

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 8/11/2008 8:00:00 AM

The United Nations has granted consultative status to two homosexual activist groups.

For at least a decade now, activist groups have hammered away at the United Nations for recognition -- and they have finally won. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel finds that unacceptable. "They are associated with pedophile groups like NAMBLA and others, and have advocated lowering the age of consent to levels that would essentially foster pedophilia," he explains.

Barber believes it is wrong to equate homosexual behavior with the color of one's skin, or their gender, and give them special status. "For the U.N. to side with radical homosexual activists, in this case, has only served to further discredit the U.N., and I think it's problematic in further damaging their reputation," he contends.

Activists, according to Barber, will be trying to use the United Nations and the International Court to force their agenda on an international level, including imposing it on Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.

That's the entire article. No, I did not omit a thing.

The article has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia, save one ridiculous comment from Matt Barber.

Barber doesn't even make a strong connection between the alleged "homosexual activist groups" and pedophilia.

Hell, we don't even know the names of the two groups.

One News Now, in pursuit of its Bizarro world of credible journalism, is accusing the United Nations of advocating pedophilia just because it gave two gay groups consultative status.

And to compound its error, One News Now lodges the accusation without a: giving the names of the groups and b: showing how the groups advocate pedophilia.

It all goes to prove that if journalistic integrity was dynamite, One News Now wouldn't have enough to blow the wings off of a gnat.


Yeah, I am going to knock out that messenger

Last week, Peter LaBarbera posted more x-rated pictures from Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco (which I will not link to.)

Apparently he did so because a supposed ally called him the carpet for posting his first batch of pictures.

Well today, he claims that he got some positive responses:

While our pathetically predictable homosexual critics played their usual game of “Kill the Messenger” (us), even AFTAH readers — far better informed on the homosexual agenda and GLBT lifestyles than most Americans — were stunned by the public depravities.

I hope that comment was partly directed towards me. The Peter and I argued via email almost the entire weekend about his need demonize the lgbt community through dirty pictures.

I am sure that others gave him hell (as they should have) for his actions. But I am extremely proud of some of the things I wrote him:

The way you presented those pictures do give the connotation that all gays partake in that sort of thing. You NEVER made it clear that you were not talking about all lgbts.

You go to a subcultural festival that, from what I understand also includes heterosexuals, infer it is indicative of the gay entire community and then turn around and say that it was not your intent to do so?

And your words to me further prove how you lie. - "It's a part of your movement."

What is that supposed to mean?

If you want to see a part of MY movement (because you see, I have never been to Folsom), I suggest you spend time with a same-sex led family as they try raise their children in the face of lies like you perpetrate. See the love and support they give to their children.

Go to the streets and see those innocent lgbt children who have been kicked out of their homes because their so-called Christian families have mindsets like yours.

Or better yet, since you love "parades" so much, come down to South Carolina Gay Pride that will be happening on Sept. 20 and feel free to take pictures. I should warn you that we don't do any of that wild stuff you saw in San Francisco, so you probably won't have anything to post to your site.

But you won't do any of this stuff, will you Peter. Reality would ruin the image you are trying to create.

You are a sad messenger. And as a Christian, you are even worse.

If you just relied on Biblical interpretations regarding homosexuality, you would be safe in expressing your opinion. But like Paul Cameron, you add incorrect ugly details. Why? Because you don't trust your own Biblical beliefs regarding homosexuality.

I remember what you said in that "War on Christians and Values Voters" convention in 2006 when you told folks to "bring shame" to lgbts. In your view of a perfect world, when people think of homosexuality, you want them to connotate it with disease, wild sex, big men in leather looking to sneak into schools and rape children or classroom gerbils if the children aren't available, and women who place socks in their pants.

But I have news for you. Look around. No one is buying this image except maybe some of your hardcore supporters and white supremacy webpages (don't act shocked because I am sure you are aware of this)

I don't know you personally, but trust me when I say you really need to step back and look at yourself before you lose the little bit of credibility you do have.

As you can read, it was a really good weekend.

Gay genes and straw men - One News Now makes it so easy

A permissive tactic of the anti-gay industry is the straw man argument.

This is attributing a weak argument to the lgbt community so when said argument is refuted, they can point and say "see how the radical homosexuals can't give good arguments to justify their behavior."

For an example of this tactic, I turn to that "bastion of fairness," AFA's One News Now:

One of the untouchable dogmas of the homosexualist movement is the assertion of the existence of a "gay gene" -- or a genetic marker that causes same-sex attraction. The assertion of a genetic factor in homosexual preference has never been demonstrated by scientists, and now at least one prominent campaigner in the British homosexual movement has admitted this fact. - Homosexual activist admits there is no gay gene

No doubt, the anti-gay industry will be breaking out the champagne over this "discovery." I am sure that we will hear this "admittance" repeated as a talking point on anti-gay industry webpages, blogs, and by their spokespeople.

But there is one problem.

I love the clever way One News Now phrases the article's lead sentence: One of the untouchable dogmas of the homosexualist movement is the assertion of a "gay gene."

But who in our "movement" has ever said anything about a gay gene? Can One News Now be more specific about this?

Of course not. Per usual, they identify us as nameless, faceless hordes with nothing but mischeif on our minds:

Homosexual activists have adopted the "gay gene" theory to bolster their assertion that any objection on moral grounds to homosexual activity is akin to objecting to left-handedness or skin color. It has supported the accusation that Christians and others who object to the homosexual movement are racists and bigots.

There have been many studies on the root cause of homosexuality. Nothing concrete has ever been established, except for the fact that sexual orientation in general is too complex to be switched on and off like a light switch.

In fact, the "prominent campaigner" cited in the One News Now article, Peter Tatchell, even says this:

Sexuality, he wrote, is "far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow. Examples of sexual flexibility...don't square with genetic theories of rigid erotic predestination."

But far be it from One News Now to not take a gay man's words out of context. The phony news site seems to less concerned with being accurate and more concerned with dehumanizing lgbts and attributing every action we make as a part of some huge nefarious plan:

The "gay gene" theory has been used by homosexual activists "to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired," says (Bill) Muehlenberg. "And this has been a deliberate strategy by homosexual activists. They have done a very good job to convince a gullible public that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change."

Business as usual indeed.

A little more about the McDonalds boycott

It IS a slow news day. I apologize for not having anything of interest to post. But I do want to leave you with this one very funny item:

Comedy Central's Jon Stewart took time to make light of the American Family Association's recent boycott of fast food giant McDonald's over a decision "not to remain neutral in the cultural war over homosexuality."

Quipped Stewart: "This is the first time you realized McDonald's was gay? Do you have a TV? Have you ever seen their ads?!"

On May 22, 2008, American Family Association chairman Donald Wildmon wrote to McDonald's USA, threatening the boycott in protest of the seating of their Vice President of Communications, Richard Ellis, on the Board of Directors of the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, along with a $20,000 corporate donation to the organization.

More here, including the very funny clip.

Hateful video on youtube

From goodasyou.org comes this:

This video is clearly going to be pulled within hours, if not minutes. And that being the case, there are some of you who surely think we should just ignore rather than highlight it. However, we think it's very important for people to realize just how heated anti-gay bias still is among some American teens. The sort of heat that literally suggests gay people should be killed:

Is it wrong to be Gay? HELL YES IT IS!!!

You read that right. It is a nasty, vile video that needs to be gotten rid of. Expressing an anti-gay view is one thing. Advocating violence against lgbts (or any group of people) is just wrong.

Since I am a youtube member, I flagged the video and sent the authors a message telling them so. This is what I received as an answer:

pathetic a%* p#%(y who cant stand the fact that we're right.

How I hate to be beaten down with "intelligent repartee."

UPDATE - The video is gone!! Way to go, youtube.


Give it up, girlfriend!!!!

Elaine Donnelly seems to enjoy embarrassing herself.

Fresh from her recent humiliating performance in front of the Congressional committee looking at allowing gays to openly serve in the military, Donnelly posted the following mind-boggling piece of wannabe logic via our friend Peter LaBarbera:

I was prepared for and would have welcomed questions on the issue itself, but the unprofessional behavior of some members made serious discussion impossible.
All of this hostility actually proved the point I was trying to make: If Congress repeals the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are ineligible for military service, anyone who disagrees will face the presumption of “bigotry,” “homophobia,” or worse. Denied promotions will cause thousands of people to leave the volunteer force, or avoid it all together.

She is excluding a lot of her testimony, such as the part regarding gays and HIV or the alleged 1974 lesbian gang rape of a female soldier, or her claim about the transgender community.

Donnelly's attempts to play the victim can easily be refuted by anyone wanting to see the footage of her full testimony. She stunk, plain and simple.

I do like it when members of the anti-gay industry continuously run their heads into brick walls, but this is getting pathetic.

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for her.

Countdown to exploitation

Mondays suck on principle. And this news doesn't make things better:

H.I.V. Study Finds Rate 40% Higher Than Estimated

MEXICO CITY — The United States has significantly underreported the number of new H.I.V. infections occurring nationally each year, with a study released here on Saturday showing that the annual infection rate is 40 percent higher than previously estimated.

The study, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that 56,300 people became newly infected with H.I.V in 2006, compared with the 40,000 figure the agency has cited as the recent annual incidence of the disease.

The findings confirm that H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, has its greatest effect among gay and bisexual men of all races (53 percent of all new infections) and among African-American men and women.

The new figures are likely to strongly influence a number of decisions about efforts to control the epidemic, said the disease centers’ director, Dr. Julie L. Gerberding, and other AIDS experts. Timely data about trends in H.I.V. transmission, they said, is essential for planning and evaluating prevention efforts and the money spent on them.

Dr. Gerberding said the new findings were “unacceptable,” adding that new efforts must be made to lower the infection rates. “We are not effectively reaching men who have sex with men and African-Americans to lower their risk,” she said.

Now here is the interesting question: just how long will it take before One News Now, Americans for Truth (in name only) and other so-called pro-family groups take the headline and add their own interesting details to the mix?

How long before we are inudated by comments about the "dangers of homosexual sex." Never mind that such stigmatizing comments contribute to the ignorance of and spread of AIDS. Far be it from our "worthy" opponents to miss an opportunity the demonize the lgbt community.

I say it won't take a day. Probably even as I speak, Peter and company are thinking of ways to spin this bad news for their own purposes.

I found that last sentence of the article (involving African-Americans) interesting in light of the fact that the African-American community in my state of South Carolina are in severe jeopardy due to the disease.

We have people in the trenches fighting hard to alleviate this problem. As a matter of fact, Dr. Bambi Gaddist (a tireless worker and educator) of the South Carolina HIV/AIDS Council was just featured as a CNN hero .

One News Now and their cohorts like to brag about their so-called Christian principles.

Bambi doesn't brag. She just does the work that needs to be done.