AFTAH exclusive: FOX, CNN, NBC, CBS, ESPN fund conference where mainstream journalists heard highly partisan, pro-”gay” presentations
Recruiting Homosexual Journalists:Fox News’ recruiting table at homosexual journalists (NLGJA) convention, at the Palmer House Hilton Hotel in Chicago. The event featured one-sided presentations by speakers in favor of “gay rights,” with no countervailing advocates of traditional morality. To read Peter LaBarbera’s in-depth 2013 report for America’s Survival, Inc., on the NLGJA’s long record of advocacy and Fox News’ emerging pro-”gay” bias, go HERE. Click on photos to enlarge. Credit: AFTAH.org
By Peter LaBarbera
CHICAGO–As it has year after year, Fox News Channel served as a major sponsor of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalist Association (NLGJA), providing a $10,000 grant for its 2014 annual convention, which recently concluded here (August 21-24). The conservative-leaning network also recruited at the homosexual journalists event.
Fox signed on as a “Feature Sponsor” for the convention–which included several one-sided presentations in favor of homosexual and transgender activist goals, and zero speakers advocating against LGBT goals such as the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” I attended a day and a half of the three-day conference, which was held at the swank Palmer House Hilton hotel in the downtown Loop. As in the past, NLGJA organizers allowed me (a critic, and not a homosexual journalist) to attend, but only after paying a “non-member” registration fee ($330/day).
Other media and corporate sponsors of the event included: CNN; CBS; ESPN; Comcast-NBC; Bloomberg; Gannett; Coca-Cola (the largest sponsor at $25,000); JetBlue airlines; Eli Lilly & Co.; Toyota; Nissan and the homosexual lobby organization Human Rights Campaign.
A natural bias?
Proud ‘Gay’ Christianity?Openly homosexual Lutheran (ELCA) Bishop Rev. Dr. Guy Erwin (far left) and former Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson (second from right) pose for photos following their joint presentation at the NLGJA convention. Robinson, who gained international fame as the first openly homosexual bishop of a major Christian denomination, criticized Christians who do not wish to participate in homosexual “weddings.” He said there is something “profane and sacrilegious” about “religious people arguing for the right to discriminate.” No opposing orthodox Christian viewpoint was included on the homosexual journalists association panel.
What I found at the Chicago conference is what I have observed at every other NLGJA convention I have attended in the last two decades: the natural bias that one would expect from an organization whose members view homosexuality personally and mainly through a “civil rights” prism.
The prevailing viewpoint at the conference–surely shared by most secular media professionals these days–is that “gay, lesbian and transgender” journalists are a legitimate sexual (or gender) “minority,” not unlike racial and ethnic minorities, deserving solicitous attention in newsrooms. That would include allowing LGBT journalists to guide coverage on homosexual-bisexual-transgender stories in culture and politics.
Even the NLGJA panel on religion and “gay rights” was bereft of a traditionalist perspective, while the two openly homosexual speakers—former Episcopal Church bishop V. [Vicky] Gene Robinson and new Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ECLA) Bishop Rev. Doctor Guy Erwin—were heralded in the program as leaders of “this next wave of the civil rights movement.”
Both Revs. Robinson and Erwin compared opposition to homosexuality and Christian businessmen’s principled refusal to participate in “gay weddings” to racist bigotry (see below).
Perhaps it is asking too much of “mainstream” journalists who consider homosexuality part of their intrinsic identity (“who they are”) to cover LGBT-related issues impartially. Nevertheless, intellectual diversity and ‘opposing’ viewpoint inclusion—the watchwords of this conference and pro-LGBT advocacy in general—were in short supply at the NLGJA convention. That is a peculiar and glaring deficit for a profession that ideally is supposed to cover “both sides” of controversial issues.
To quote the famous Fox News’ slogan: the NLGJA religious panel was hardly “Fair and Balanced” regarding the controversial question of (pro-) “gay Christianity”: who could argue that openly homosexual bishops advocating for rights based on homosexuality is not a divisive issue?
Dr. Michael Brown will address the hot topic of “gay Christianity” as the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fundraising banquet Sat., Oct. 25, at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL.
“And so, once more, we see the fundamental error of ‘gay Christianity,’ namely, people interpreting the Bible through the lens of their sexuality rather than interpreting their sexuality through the lens of the Bible.”– Dr. Michael Brown, author of “Can You Be Gay and Christian”
Dear AFTAH Supporters,
I am very excited about our upcoming banquet Saturday, October 25, featuring Dr. Michael Brown, author of the new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?: Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality. I want you to come and bring your friends and family (tickets are only $20/person or $25 at the door), because you will equip yourself to go out and answer tough questions about your faith as it applies to the sin of homosexuality in your wider circles.
The article below is reprinted from the Charisma News blog. I must confess that I had not heard of Vicky Beeching until her “coming out” as a “gay Christian.” Please pray for her, as she is deluded. (About a year ago, Beeching endorsed the anti-biblical idea of homosexual “marriage”–as a Christian.)
I hope Ms. Beeching reads Dr. Brown’s book. He is as good as any Christian leader I know at balancing truth and love on this issue–demonstrating the tremendous mercy and grace of Jesus Christ to people caught up in homosexuality, while uncompromisingly upholding Scripture, which unequivocally condemns homosexual behavior.
So here is what I want you to do: 1) buy Dr. Brown’s new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?; 2) make plans to come to the AFTAH banquet Sat., Oct. 25; 3) consider sponsoring a Table of 10 for just $200 and fill it up so we can maximize the impact of Dr. Brown’s presentation. Give online at www.aftah.com/donate/ or send your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Thank you and God bless. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera
How Should We Respond to Vicky Beeching?
By Dr. Michael Brown
Believers throughout the English speaking world were shocked and saddened to hear that Vicky Beeching, a greatly loved songwriter and worship leader, has announced that she is gay. How should we respond?
1. This should not be about your own feelings. When you sing to God words of worship and praise that someone else has written, it’s easy to feel betrayed when that person lets you down. So it’s understandable that some believers are asking, “How could she do this to us?”
Add Sears to the list of corporations that shamelessly pander to the Homosexual Lobby as part of their marketing plan. Below are comments I made about Sears’ LGBT sellout in my recent radio interview Monday with VCY America’s “Crosstalk” program. We can thank Brian Tashman and the left-wingers at Right Wing Watch for the transcription of my remarks, which they found offensive but which I enthusiastically stand by [more on RWW's selective editing later]:
“There goes Sears,” LaBarbera said. “I watched the video; it’s just so sad and tragic to me. The Bible says ‘there’s a way to seems right to a man but the end of that way is death,’ basically. Attaching the perversion of homosexuality, which God called an abomination, detestable behavior, attaching that to marriage is just ungodly. It’s sad to see corporations celebrating this to get more sales and we’ll see if Sears suffers for this capitulation to the homosexual activist movement.”
In related news, Target joined a legal brief in support of homosexual “marriage,” thus officially joining other corporations like Starbucks adopting this anti-biblical position. Below is the official Sears video of its Chicago “Gay Pride” homosexual “marriage” float. –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org:
New government data show homosexuality is far less common than most LGBT activists claimed for decades, and a fraction of what most Americans believe
A Convenient Lie:Homosexual activist Kevin Jennings is just one of many homosexual activists who used the “10 Percent” myth, rooted in Alfred Kinsey’s discredited research, to greatly exaggerate the number of homosexuals in America. Jennings’ book title would be far less compelling if it were “One Teacher in 45,” to better represent the actual number of homosexuals and bisexuals in society.
By Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH Special Report
The first-ever major U.S. Government survey to present “nationally representative data on sexual orientation” finds that only 1.6 percent of Americans identify as “gay” or “lesbian,” while .7 percent identify as “bisexual.” This is about considerably less than the much-ballyhooed, decades-old LGBT claim that 10 percent of society is “gay.”
Almost 98 percent of the 35,557 survey respondents identified themselves as “straight” or “not gay,” according to the survey by the federal National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It also found significant health and behavior disparities between heterosexuals and self-described gays, lesbians and bisexuals. For example, the latter were much more likely to be heavy drinkers than straights.
So much for ‘10 percent’
The 2.3 percent gay-lesbian-bisexual figure is far below the “10 percent gay” number that has been advanced for decades by homosexual activists and their allies—dating back to the discredited sex research of Alfred Kinsey, who vastly over-sampled sexual adventurers and deviants (including criminals). The “10 Percent” ploy suggested homosexuality was far more common—and hence “normal”–than it actually was. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, homosexual authors of the influential 1989 book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in 90s (and relying on Kinsey’s fraudulent estimates), demonstrate how the myth was used for PR purposes:
If we must…pick a specific percentage for propaganda purposes, we may as well stick with the solidly conservative figure suggested by Kinsey decades ago: taking men and women together, at least 10% of the populace has demonstrated its homosexual proclivities so extensively that the proportion may reasonably be called ‘gay.’….
Straights do not appreciate that, with at least one-tenth of the public extensively involved in it, the practice of homosexuality may be a more commonplace activity in America than, say, bowling (6%), jogging (7%), golfing (5%), hunting (6%), reading drugstore romance novels (9%), or ballroom dancing (2%) on a regular basis. (Ballroom dancing—not that’s abnormal.)…
You should grasp clearly why America’s persistent underestimation of the number of homosexuals in its citizenry and core institutions is so dangerous to the cause of civil rights….Literally, the more the better. As Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin explain dryly in their classic study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
“To those who believe, as children do, that conformance should be universal, any departure from the rule becomes immorality. The immorality seems particularly gross to an individual who is unaware of the frequency with which exceptions to the supposed rule actually occur.”
Thus, when it comes to fighting the charge that homosexuality is statistically abnormal hence immoral, there is strength in numbers. [pp. 16-17, emphasis theirs]
Here I call it a myth, but the defiance with which homosexual activists like Kirk and Madsen so aggressively promulgated their “10 percent gay” factoid suggests that it could more aptly be called a lie, perhaps a useful political lie—which is to say, propaganda. (Another LGBT activist distortion is the oft-repeated claim that homosexuals, and now transgenders, are “born that way” despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.)
For example, Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, and a former Obama Department of Education appointee, titled one of his books, “One Teacher in Ten” (see graphic above)—which is far more compelling, from a “gay” activist perspective, than “One Teacher in 45.”
President Obama signing two Executive Orders advancing homosexual and transgender “rights.” One adds “gender identity” to the existing federal nondiscrimination policy (joining “sexual orientation”). The other–addressed by Dr. Michael Brown below–compels federal contractors to abide by federal pro-LGBT nondiscrimination mandates. Obama declined to include a strong religious exemption in the latter Order. Photo: White House; click to enlarge.
The following is excerpted from an online appeal by pro-family author and advocate, Dr. Michael Brown to President Obama, in response to Obama signing an Executive Order designed to advance “gay rights”–and which is bereft of a strong religious exemptions as requested by a coalition of religious leaders. Dr. Brown–whose book A Queer Thing Happened to America is essential reading for those hoping to understand the far-reaching LGBT agenda–will be the keynote speaker at AFTAH’s banquet October 25th at Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, Illinois. This article first appeared in Charisma magazine.
President Obama, You Have Crossed a Dangerous, Unprecedented Line
President Barack Obama on Monday signed an executive order banning “discrimination” by federal contractors against LGBT people, allowing for no religious exemptions of any kind.
Dear Mr. President,
I write to you today as a concerned citizen of our great nation, standing as a witness against your historic actions on the morning of July 21, 2014, actions which I hope you will one day repudiate with deep remorse and regret.
I am referring, of course, to your signing an executive order Monday banning “discrimination” by federal contractors against LGBT people, allowing for no religious exemptions of any kind.
This was an outrageous act of discrimination against religion in the name of anti-discrimination—an act of bullying people of faith in the name of the prevention of bullying.
How can you, as a man who professes to be a person of faith and a follower of Jesus, throw religious Americans—in particular Christians—under the bus?
How can you attempt to force Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to violate fundamental aspects of their moral codes in order to appease a small but powerful special interest group, one that is not, in fact, suffering daily economic hardship by being fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or expression?
Have you forgotten entirely that our nation was founded on the concept of religious freedom?
I have two observations about this excellent piece by my friend, Barbwire.com founder, and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber: 1) I wish all Christians could possess Matt’s resolve in defending Truth; and 2) only a tiny minority of believers understand what is coming down the pike, persecution-wise, from the combination of treating homosexuality as a “civil right” and the court-imposed legalization of “gay marriage.” This is Big Government imposing immorality on us all, and we must fight it with great vigilance. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
The Coming Christian Revolt
By Matt Barber, July 21, 2014
From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular “progressive.” He surveys his many victims, strewn across the American landscape below and mockingly sneers, “War on Christianity? What war on Christianity?”
Though there are many, it is plain for all to see that abortion and “sexual liberation” remain the two principal theaters in the ongoing culture war battlefront.
To fully advance the causes of radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, unfettered sexual license, gay marriage and the like, the pagan left must do away with religious free exercise altogether. Under the guise of “anti-discrimination,” Christians today face discrimination at unprecedented levels.
Let’s see if we can make this abundantly clear. Christians, true Christians—regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands—will not—indeed cannot—participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.
Court’s defense of religious liberty for profit-making companies could help Christian small businessmen oppressed by “gay rights” laws
Current U.S. Supreme Court: left to right in back: Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan. Front, left to right: Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg. Alito wrote the Hobby Lobby decision, and Kennedy is lionized by “gay” activists for writing last year’s decision striking down DOMA. Click to enlarge.
By Peter LaBarbera
It’s easy to understand why hard-core feminists with their frenzied, overblown “War on Women” rhetoric would be outraged by the Supreme Court upholding Hobby Lobby’s right as a Christian-run corporation not to be forced to provide abortifacients to its employees through an Obama-care mandate. (See Hillary’s misinformation on the decision HERE.) But why are liberal “gay” activists freaking out over the Hobby Lobby ruling?
The case was never about denying women birth control, but you wouldn’t know that from the “reporting” by liberal media and hyperventilating “progressive” bloggers. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of birth control as a health benefit to its employees, but its founders—along with another Christian-owned corporation, Conestoga Wood Specialists—sued HHS over being forced to provide four contraceptive methods that could terminate a fertilized egg.
Hobby Lobby’s founders, David and Barbara Green, are committed Christians who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected. To quote the Court decision, “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’” So strong is the Greens’ commitment to Jesus Christ that they have lost countless millions of dollars in profits over the years by closing their 500 craft stores nationwide on Sunday.
Now, one would think that obtaining cheap, subsidized contraception would be low on the priority list for homosexuals, seeing that two men or two women by themselves cannot produce a child. Nevertheless, Big Gay Inc is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court decision—because Burwell vs. Hobby Lobbyisn’t really about contraceptives but rather whether Americans like the Greens will be free to live out their religious convictions.
Immediately after the decision, feminists flew into a rage, circulating crude versions of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and distortions about women being denied birth control by their “male bosses.” Too bad most Americans will never read the actual Hobby Lobby decision—which lays out two diametrically opposed, competing visions about freedom of conscience and the role of government in these United States.
Freedom of conscience vs. Big Government
Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green, seek to use their business to glorify Jesus Christ. Their 500 stores across the country are closed on Sundays, costing the Greens many millions of dollars in profits.
On the side of preserving and even expanding Americans’ religious liberty were five judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In his concurring opinion Kennedy writes:
“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief….It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”
On the other side—of Big Government overriding citizens’ religious beliefs, restricting conscience exemptions to federal mandates, and putting federal power behind expanded access to entitlements–were Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. In fact, Ginsburg spends nearly two pages in her dissent [see pp. 24-25] defending the idea that Obama-care’s provision of subsidies for IUD’s (intrauterine devices) –one of the four contraceptives resisted by Hobby Lobby as a potential abortifacient—is a “compelling government interest.”
As much as Ginsburg believes the majority’s “immoderate” reading of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is too broad, hers is too narrow: she ends by arguing that exemptions under the RFRA should be limited to explicitly religious organizations—leaving for-profit Christian businessmen like the Greens unprotected.
The bigger government gets–in both its “social justice” mission and the amount of goodies it gives out as “entitlements”—the greater the threat to Americans’ right to freely exercise their faith. This is precisely why homosexual activists are nervous about Hobby Lobby’s victory. If the nation’s highest court grants that even very large “closely held” family businesses like Hobby Lobby (which has more than 13,000 employees) possess a religious liberty claim under RFRA, then surely small family businesses like Elane Photography in New Mexico—owned by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin—should have the right not to use their creative talents to serve homosexual “weddings,” which violate their Christian faith.
Jack Roeser, a phenomenally successful entrepreneur, leading Illinois conservative philanthropist and a faithful AFTAH and pro-family benefactor, passed away June 13 at the age of 90.
I got to know Jack long after he had achieved his business success. I remember a decade ago when he gave me a tour of Otto Engineering–which he started humbly in his basement in 1961 in Park Ridge, Illinois (childhood home of Hillary Rodham Clinton)–and which makes specialty electronic and communications products, including control switches for American fighter jets. Though by this point Jack was retired from day-to-day operations at Otto, he was hardly detached as he proudly explained the history of Otto, including products he invented that were still key to the company’s success.
It was Jack’s ingenuity and determination that builtOtto. A friend, relaying a conversation with Jack, told how he was awarded a coveted supplier contract by simply out-hustling much larger, competing corporations and by demonstrating Otto’s ability to rapidly turn around his innovative switch design. Jack was truly a classic American success story–a living testimony of what one person can accomplish in a free society that rewards hard work and creativity. [See this Breitbart tribute to Jack.]
A little-known legacy of Jack’s is how Otto’s continued growth and success dramatically transformed the small town of Carpentersville, Illinois, where it is based. Otto, now run by Jack’s son, Tom, employs around 600 people in its beautifully-restored factory complex on Main Street along the Fox River. In 2008, Tom and Jack launched a remarkable home renovation project, Homes by Otto, that has rejuvenated Carpentersville, one gutted-and-rebuilt house at a time. It is a model for private industry and charity doing efficiently what governments the world over have failed to do despite their profligate spending of taxpayer dollars (think HUD projects). [See this FOX News interview with Tom Roeser.]
So Jack’s legacy of productive and compassionate conservatism lives on through his son. I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree after all.
You can watch a short video celebrating Jack’s fascinating life produced before his death below.
Fighting the Left
Jack was an engineering genius with more than 50 patents, but he was no fan of the Left’s social engineering. He possessed the wisdom and common sense of a more grounded and God-fearing generation that instinctively knows the difference between right and wrong. Scoffing at the idea of legal “same-sex marriage,” he didn’t need to be convinced of the immorality of homosexuality–and the folly of promoting it through the government as a “civil right.”