Enough already. Lt. Dan Choi (activist website HERE) is more than a distraction to the military: he’s a misguided “gay” militant who needs to follow his true calling — crusading for the acceptance of immoral sexual behavior. We’re quite sure there’s a job waiting for him at the leftist National Gay and Lesbian Task Force or perhaps the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The liberal media may love Choi (note CNN’s Rick Sanchez’s somber and deferential tone) but I’d hate to count on the media to defend America. See additional comments after the break and following the video:

The spectacle of Choi protesting his own Commander-in-Chief and Choi’s self-aggrandizing crusade against the Armed Forces — which by law cannot allow open homosexuals — helps explain to the public why celebrated homosexuality has no place in our military culture. Imagine all the pro-”gay” activism that would follow an official governmental shift toward mandating that the military affirm homosexuals. This must never happen. Homosexual behavior is incompatible with good morale and military discipline — and “gay”-affirming “diversity” policies would offend religious and moral-minded servicemen and drive good men and women out of the military. Somehow we think the United States Armed Forces can thrive in their true mission — fighting wars and protecting our shores — without being diverted into the dubious business of homosexual “pride.” – — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

AFTAH Board Member and Liberty Counsel Cultural Affairs Director Matt Barber adds this:

“Through Choi’s juvenile fit of civil disobedience, he obtusely undermines his own cause. As a former veteran with twelve years of service, I can say with authority that the military is only as strong as each link within its chain of command. Radical homosexual activists like Choi are weak links within that chain.

“Civil disobedience such as Choi’s must not and cannot be ‘tolerated’ within our Armed Services.  Choi has proven himself an insubordinate. I have no sympathy for this reckless, self-serving ideologue. His demonstrated disobedience and disregard for orders (Article 10, Section 654 USC) bolsters the case against both homosexual conduct and sexual militancy in the Armed Forces.”

Note: here is the CNN Youtube URL in case the version on our website does not work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbYQ8oxqFg4

Navy Capt. Jim Jefferis in uniform shortly before his retirement. He says the inevitable homo-sexual relationships that would occur in a homosexual-welcoming Navy would lead to preferential treatment that "can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale."

Folks, the following letter from Ret. Navy Captain Lawrence “Jim” Jefferis to Admiral Mike Mullen — President Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a proponent of his plan to allow open homosexuals in the military — is one of the most compelling documents I have ever read against that terribly misguided idea. In an e-mail to AFTAH, Capt. Jefferis verified his authorship of the letter, which has been making the rounds via e-mail. He said that he had sent it to a few people with no intention of it going public, but now that it has, he is willing to have it published online.

Like me, I’m sure you feel a deep sense of sorrow that men of principle and common sense like Capt. Jefferis are being replaced in America’s military leadership by a new cast of politically correct officers like Adm. Mullen, who put dubious trends and expediency above principle and morality. Please read this letter carefully and then share it with your children, all of your elected representatives, and as many people as possible. God bless you, Capt. Jefferis, and thank you for your service to our country. — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.com

TAKE ACTION: Send a copy of this letter by regular mail or fax (or e-mail) to your Congressman and Senators; go to www.congress.org to get their information.  Or call Congress at 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 and urge them to oppose President Obama’s attempt to do an end-run around Congress to force open homosexuality on our Armed Forces. Also urge your elected representatives to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, which we’re calling the Homosexualize Our Military Act –a dangerous bill that would impose a “sexual orientation” non-discrimination order on the military.

WRITE SEN. McCAIN and ADM. MULLEN: Also please write/call Sen. John McCain (202-224-2235) to thank him for speaking out against Obama’s radical ”gay” military plan. You can write Adm. Mullen and/or Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the addresses below or by clicking HERE.

We reprint this letter as it came to us (with minor editing changes and explanations); Capt. Jefferis (Ret.) writes:

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

Admiral Mike Mullen, USN
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Mullen:

This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services.  I seriously question the wisdom of your position.  As I have previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue.  Perhaps it was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am a retired Navy Captain.  I enlisted in the Navy in 1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnel man, Journalist, and Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program.  In my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron.  I developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships.  I am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College.  After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law.  Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life.  Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.

My experience is Naval.  I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps.  Those services are generally based ashore with nearby civilian communities.  In such communities, homosexuals may be able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties.  But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison.  There is no other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the same cell.  That is one of the differences between your position and mine.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot.  They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder.  Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard.  The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances.  Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.

It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer.  There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement.  Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale.  If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command.  Because of your current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!

That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s.  At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center.  She was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks.  I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment.  Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew.  Just the other day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in  the military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct was known to unit commanders.  Is there some reason you believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?

As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not address homosexuality, per se.  Article 125 provides that sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct.  But the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals.  Oral or anal sex between persons of the same sex (homosexuals), opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies.  However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual activities.

In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual.  I never knew of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony of a participating party.

So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at all, except to create a means of ignoring the law.  But the policy can only as effective as the individual’s discretion.  As long as the homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him.  He could be sanctioned only if he wanted to go public.  However, by the same token, if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.

In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse).  It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron).  In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse.  The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia.  I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today.  And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal.  I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage.  There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment.  Again, I must ask “why?”

The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles [pro-homosexual advocates] is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual.  That can’t be true.  It isn’t the “policy,” it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality without committing sodomy.  But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence?

Adm. Mike Mullen, Obama's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, used "gay" activist rhetoric to affirm the idea of open homosexuals in the military. But Capt. Jim Jefferis asks: why is Mullen singling out homosexuals for special consideration?

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED [General Equivalency Diploma] holders for enlistment.  Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment.  Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted.  Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy?  Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards.  The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun.  But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals!  Why is that, Admiral?

Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals?  If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument?  If we can sanction heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual sodomists?

If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore?  Carnal Knowledge?  I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual.  At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost.  Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military duties.

If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions?  When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick Misconduct.”  We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis.  Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV?  Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources?  Will it be considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement benefits?  Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits?  And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex-change procedures?  I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex-change therapy or surgery.  It made using heads [restrooms] confusing for both genders.  Sex-change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense.  But, if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well as their bodies.

Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”?  Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ [Basic Allowance for Quarters], military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges?  Will they be entitled to military housing?  Would they be entitled to sex-change procedures at government expense?

Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex “marriage” be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship outside the “marriage”?  Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution?  Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I raise the last point because while serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police.  While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio [oral sodomy] on another male was discovered.  The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me.  During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring.  They declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco.  They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego.  CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost several instructors.  Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships?  I hope not!

Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the Australian Navy in the 1970’s.  An officer with nearly 20 years service transferred from the [British] Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy.  When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge.  After a few years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the problem.  Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory.  I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!

I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement source.  I have not walked the mile in your shoes.  But, by the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine.  I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you.  In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals.  It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance?  I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.

I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination.  Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye.  Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.

In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.

With due respect,

Lawrence R. Jefferis
Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

The Hon. Robert Gates
Secretary of Defense
1400 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 21201-1400

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker

One need not rely on this disturbing item from NRO to conclude that American jurisprudence is in big trouble given the expanding number of judges who are, to use modern parlance, “openly gay” (which is to say: proudly practicing or inclined to practice perversion). If they regard their homosexuality as (part of) “who they are” and, by extension, view foes of homosexuality as akin to racists, it is difficult to imagine them being truly impartial on “gay”-related cases.

Having said that, given the ferocity with which many straight liberals promote homosexualist ideology today, there surely is plenty of left-wing judicial bias to go around without laying all or even most of the blame at the feet of America’s homosexual judges. A straight liberal who regards homosexuality as a pure “civil rights” issue is just as capable of being a reactionary, anti-religious bigot in his approach toward moral opponents of homosexuality as an openly homosexual judge.  — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH story: “Gary Glenn Assails Focus on the Family’s ‘Moral Retreat’ on Openly Homosexual Judges”

____________________________________

By Ed Whelan, National Review Online’s “Bench Memos”

Reprinted from NRO Online, February 07, 2010

Judge Walker’s Skewed Judgment

According to this column in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.”

In terms of his judicial performance in the anti-Proposition 8 case, the bottom-line question that matters isn’t whether Walker is straight or gay.  It’s whether he is capable of ruling impartially.  I have no reason to doubt that there are homosexuals who could preside impartially over this case, just as I have no reason to doubt that there are heterosexuals whose bias in favor of, or against, same-sex marriage would unduly skew their handling of the case.

From the outset, Walker’s entire course of conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case has reflected a manifest design to turn the lawsuit into a high-profile, culture-transforming, history-making, Scopes-style show trial of Prop 8’s sponsors.  Consider his series of controversial—and, in many instances, unprecedented—decisions:

Take, for example, Walker’s resort to procedural shenanigans and outright illegality in support of his fervent desire to broadcast the trial, in utter disregard of (if not affirmatively welcoming) the harassment and abuse that pro-Prop 8 witnesses would reasonably anticipate.  Walker’s decision was ultimately blocked by an extraordinary (and fully warranted) stay order by the Supreme Court in an opinion that was plainly a stinging rebuke of Walker’s lack of impartiality.

Take Walker’s failure to decide the case, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law and his concocting of supposed factual issues to be decided at trial.

Take the incredibly intrusive discovery, grossly underprotective of First Amendment associational rights, that Walker authorized into the internal communications of the Prop 8 sponsors—a ruling overturned, in part, by an extraordinary writ of mandamus issued by a Ninth Circuit panel consisting entirely of Clinton appointees.

Take Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.

Take Walker’s permitting a parade of anti-Prop 8 witnesses at trial who gave lengthy testimony that had no conceivable bearing on any factual or legal issues in dispute but who provided useful theater for the anti-Prop 8 cause.

And so on.

Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation:  that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.  Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of ‘moral retreat.’  ‘It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,’ Glenn argues. ‘[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a Biblical standard.’”

It's hard to imagine former longtime Focus on the Family leader James Dobson saying that pro-family groups should not consider a homosexual judge's "sexual orientation" as a factor in evaluating that judge.

The issue of openly homosexual judges is back in the news, providing us the opportunity to publish this 2009 One News Now piece and agree with our friend Gary Glenn of AFA-Michigan on a very significant “moral retreat” by Focus on the Family.  Back when there was talk of President Obama possibly nominating a lesbian judge to the Supreme Court, two Focus analysts asserted that a judge’s homosexual “sexual orientation” would not be a major consideration for Focus in evaluating such a judge. It is precisely this sort of naïveté that helps explain why aggressive homosexual lobby groups are winning major battles against their pro-family opponents.

I’ll issue the same challenge to Focus that I have made to Grove City College’s wayward, “gay”-affirming prof Warren Throckmorton: show me where you can find (benign) “sexual orientation” or (in Throckmorton’s case)  “sexual identity” in the Bible, and I’ll change my tune that you are selling out Christian, biblical principles. After all, Focus launched a “Truth Project” that teaches believers how to have a “biblical worldview” — and it’s a huge leap from “abomination” to “sexual orientation.” Surely committed Christians should understand how the latter term has been used to strip morality out of the homosexuality equation. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Related AFTAH article: “Prop 8 Trial Judge is Homosexual (‘Gay’) — and It Shows: NRO”

_________________________________

OneNewsNow reported:

ONE NEWS NOW, May 29, 2009

Should homosexuality be a ‘litmus test’ for high court?

by Jim Brown

Conservative political activists are divided over whether homosexual behavior should disqualify a judicial nominee from consideration for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Focus on the Family’s judicial analyst, Bruce Hausknecht, recently told liberal (Washington Post) blogger Greg Sargent that Focus would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee solely because of their homosexual behavior. “Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” Hausknecht said. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.”

(See original Greg Sargent report: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/republican-party/top-religious-right-group-we-wont-oppose-gay-scotus-pick/) [Editor's note: Sargent also quotes Focus' Hausknecht as saying that a judge's sexual orientation "'should never come up...It’s not even pertinent to the equation.”]

Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst at Focus, says just like a nominee’s ethnicity and life experience, homosexuality should not be a litmus test.

“Someone’s sexual orientation or their preferences, none of these things should come into consideration when we’re talking about evaluating someone who will make decisions based on precedent under the law [and who will] practice judicial restraint,” Horne explains. “Those are the things we look at for whether or not someone would make a fit justice on the Supreme Court.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, contends the position held by Focus on the Family is the equivalent of “moral retreat.”

“It’s not just the damage caused by Focus on the Family’s moral retreat on the issue,” Glenn argues. “[That explanation] will be used by homosexual activists and their allies in the media to further marginalize and delegitimize any pro-family organization that continues to take a biblical standard.”

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council agrees with Focus on the Family that homosexuality should not be an absolute litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. He argues in blog comments that “even Supreme Court nominees deserve some zone of privacy, and…there is at least a hypothetical possibility that somewhere in the country there is a judge who has experienced same-sex attractions, but who also respects judicial restraint and the original intent of the Constitution.

“In the real world, however, the chances of finding a highly-qualified judge who fits both of those descriptions are probably about equal to the chances of a camel passing through the eye of a needle,” Sprigg concludes. “So don’t hold your breath waiting for social conservatives to ’support’ a ‘gay’ judicial nominee.”

Barack Obama's campaign promise to "gay" activists to homosexualize the military -- like much of his far-left agenda -- did not receive wide coverage in the general election. Will Congress now allow him to unilaterally undermine the law banning homosexual servicemen?

TAKE ACTION: Oppose President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing and politicizing our American Armed Forces.  One homosexual lobby group plans to spend $2 million to pressure Congress on “gays in the military.”  Contact your Congressman and Senators by phone (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) AND in writing (preferably in a regularly mailed letter or a fax as opposed to e-mail) and urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283 — which we’re calling “Homosexualize Our Military Act.”  The act, mischievously titled the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” would impose a pro-homosexuality “non-discrimination” policy on our Armed Forces.  Also, tell your representatives to resist President Obama’s reckless plan to homosexualize the military non-legislatively — as the release below describes.  President Obama does not have the right to do an end-run around Congress and undermine U.S. law on military conduct!

BACKGROUND NOTE: Did you know that “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land?  Here’s the truth on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and the law from Center for Military Readiness.

_____________________________________

News Release: see http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7965812944.html

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org

February 3, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; americansfortruth@comcast.net

AFTAH Condemns Sec. Gates’ and Adm. Mullen’s Capitulation to Obama’s Radical Plan to Homosexualize the Military

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality President Peter LaBarbera issued the following statement in response to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen’s testimony yesterday in favor of President Obama’s plan to allow open homosexuals in the military:

“At a time of recession and a potentially long-lasting jobs crisis — and the ongoing national security crisis presented by worldwide Islamic terrorism — most Americans do not view homosexualizing our military as a top priority. And yet that is the course that President Barack Obama, and apparently some of his sycophantic military advisers, have chosen.

“With Defense Secretary Robert Gates‘ pledge to draw up plans to implement President Obama’s pro-homosexual military objective — and to remove a key means of identifying violating homosexual servicemembers (third-party reports on illegal same-sex behavior) — America now faces the spectacle of another grinding, unnecessary, Left-driven policy debate.

“The problem for Obama — and Gates — is that the American people have a say in stopping this latest “gay” capitulation. Implementing a pro-homosexual plan in the military will:

• devastate morale and unit cohesion in our Armed Forces;
• lead to a drop in enlistment and retention of good soldiers — and discourage religious men and women of high moral character from seeking military service;
• violate the privacy concerns of normal (straight) servicemembers: will new “Gays-Only” showers be constructed at all U.S. bases?;
• ultimately subject millions of small-town, traditionally-minded recruits to pro-homosexual “diversity” training that undermines historic Judeo-Christian teachings;
• further alienate the United States from a Muslim world that already regards us as a decadent nation.

“This anti-military, left-wing policy misadventure must be stopped in its tracks by the American people standing up and shouting a collective “NO!” to the Democratic/Obama plan to homosexualize the military.

“If Sec. Gates (who also served as President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense) and Adm. Mike Mullen – the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who strongly backed Obama’s plan — were men of courage and principle, they would resign rather than consent to this misguided sexual experiment that will weaken our military. Instead, they have become complicit in the escalating degradation of the homosexual exclusion law under President Obama, who is beholden to his homosexual activist allies.

“Gay rights groups were already mobilizing Thursday to make the subject [of homosexuals in the military/ending "Don't Ask/Don't Tell"] a campaign issue before congressional elections in November. The Human Rights Campaign announced plans to start a more than $2 million national grass-roots and lobbying campaign targeting lawmakers whose votes would be needed to pass a repeal.” – Washington Post, “On Issue of Gays in Military, Pentagon Will Make Recommendations to Congress”, Jan. 29, 2010

"Gay" military porn ad. Homosexual military pornography is a huge business. Many "gay" men are attracted to "macho" (masculine) guys in uniform. The last thing our Armed Forces need is to welcome in more men and women with disordered sexuality.

BACKGROUND NOTE: Here’s the truth on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” and the law from Center for Military Readiness.

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION:  Dedicate yourself to actively oppose President Obama’s goal of homosexualizing and politicizing our American Armed Forces (pro-”gay” “diversity” is political). As the Washington Post above reveals, homosexual activists will be going all out to pressure Congress to impose their radical agenda on our Servicemembers. Contact your Congressman and Senators by phone (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) AND in writing (preferably in a regularly mailed letter or a fax as opposed to e-mail) and urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283 — which we’re calling “Homosexualize Our Military Act” — which is mischievously named by liberals as the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act.” This act would impose a pro-homosexuality “non-discrimination” policy on our Armed Forces. In other words, it would radically force a change in ethos in the military to one of approving of homosexuality — including through one-sided “diversity” programs that would undermine servicemembers’ faith and morals (as happens today to people of faith in major corporations implementing pro-homosexual ”sexual orientation” agendas).

Also oppose all efforts by the President to advance his misguided agenda of homosexualizing our military non-legislatively (i.e., by various executive actions). Already, military leaders are laying the groundwork for a plan to gradually open up the military to homosexuality — the Washington Post reports. Obama must NOT autocratically launch this revolutionary change to our Armed Forces without legislative action and oversight.

__________________________________________

Two points about the 2006 FOX story below on a homosexual porn bust at Ft. Bragg:

1) There is a huge market for “gay” military porn because lots of homosexual men are turned on by “straight-acting,” “macho” (masculine) men. I realize it’s a sick comparison, but just as many women like a “man in uniform,” so do homosexual men. On Jan. 29, 2010, a Google search on the three words “gay military porn” (no quote marks) yielded “about 1,300,000″ entries. “Gay Military Porn” (in quote marks) yielded 34,300 entries. This is a huge (and very twisted) business, and obviously the demand is high among men with a homosexual problem.

The last thing our fighting men and women need is to have the military floodgates opened up for homosexual men and lesbians to join as open practitioners of homosexuality. That would put men who are sexually attracted to men, and women to women, in tight bunking situations, showers, etc., with servicemembers of the same sex. Remember: homosexuality is not an “identity” issue (sorry, Warren Throckmorton) or a “civil rights” issue; it’s a BEHAVIORIAL issue, and welcoming in men and women who are tempted to practice – or inclined to practice — disordered same-sex behavior is wrong and detrimental to the morale, effectiveness and readiness of our Armed Forces. 

Of course, there is a huge straight pornography problem, too, of course. But men do not bunk and shower with women in the Armed Forces (except married couples). The sexes are segregated. [And then there is this peculiar logic by a homosexual activist, Dale Carpenter, who argues that allowing open homosexuality in the military would help identify the “gay” soldiers — making it harder for them to leer at naked straight soldiers!  “Under present policy, the straight soldier doesn’t know who might be leering at him in the shower. So he has to wonder about everybody — hardly a reassuring prospect,” Carpenter writes. “Under a policy of openness, he’ll have a better idea who might find some of his 2,000 body parts especially appealing. Thus, he can take whatever modest precautions are available to minimize his exposure.”  How absurd. To even discuss such folly in a time of war is a needless distraction — and showering/privacy issues are just one of the many problems caused by homosexualizing the military.

2) Read the second to last sentence of the Fox story below: “The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” What kind of a nonsensical policy encourages “homosexuals” to join the armed forces but then bars homosexual conduct? This is a triumph of “gay” activists’ “sexual orientation” ideology — skewing the debate toward “civil rights” and away from aberrant behavior. And it is very bad public policy. As Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness constantly reminds anyone who will listen, “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” is NOT the law of the land, but rather a political compromise driven by a previous president”s (Bill Clinton’s) desire to pander to homosexual activists. We must go back to following the actual law passed by Congress, which bars homosexuals from serving. But that can only happen after the Obama presidency is over. Meanwhile, we must resist Obama’s plan to homosexualize and politicize our Armed Services.

__________________________________________________ 

Army Paratrooper Pleads Guilty in Gay Porn Case
April 27, 2006, FoxNews.com

FORT BRAGG, N.C. —  An Army paratrooper pleaded guilty Thursday to engaging in sex acts on a military-themed gay pornographic Web site and was sentenced to prison.

Pfc. Richard T. Ashley, one of seven members of the 82nd Airborne Division charged with appearing on the site, pleaded guilty to sodomy, conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit, and drug use.

He was sentenced to 90 days in prison, but was given 15 days credit. Ashley also was demoted to private, will receive a bad conduct discharge and will lose two-thirds of his pay.

“I’ve embarrassed the entire Army, my country and most of all, dishonored God,” Ashley said during the hearing.

Pfc. Wesley K. Mitten and Pvt. Kagen B. Mullen were charged with pandering, sodomy and conduct detrimental to the Army and the unit. Mitten and Mullen, who also faces adultery charges, have pleaded not guilty.

Military Investigating 82nd Airborne Over Gay Porn Allegations

The 82nd Airborne says that four other soldiers, whose names were not released, received nonjudicial punishment for appearing on the Web site. They were reduced in rank to private, forfeited half a month’s pay for two months, performed extra work and were restricted to Fort Bragg for 45 days.

The Army has recommended that all seven be discharged.

The 15,000 paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne are among the Army’s most elite soldiers, having volunteered to serve in a unit that trains to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.

The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy states that “homosexual orientation alone is not a bar to service, but homosexual conduct is incompatible with military service.” Service members who violate the policy are removed from the military.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose all legislative efforts to homosexualize the U.S. Military.

Elaine Donnelly of the Center For Military Readiness, the leading pro-family advocate opposing the effort to homosexualize the U.S. military, writes:
__________________________

Walking the Plank for Military “LGBT Law”

President Barack Obama is expected to push for acceptance of professed gays in the military, a goal that can only be achieved legally by passage of a new “LGBT Law” for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders in the armed forces. In response, the Center for Military Readiness predicted that the effort would fail for three basic reasons:

1. Members of Congress are becoming aware that repeal of the 1993 law stating that homosexuals are not eligible for military service, usually mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” would undermine recruiting, retention, and readiness in our military. More than 1,160 retired Flag & General Officers for the Military have personally signed a statement supporting the 1993 law (Section 654, Title 10), and expressing concerns about consequences of repeal that would “break the All-Volunteer Force.”
2. A decision by the Commander-in-Chief to violate his oath of office by suspending enforcement of the law would alienate members of Congress and break faith with the troops he leads.
3. Political dynamics of the issue could develop in ways similar to 1994, when Republicans regained majority control of Congress, and no GOP incumbents were defeated.

CMR President Elaine Donnelly noted that even if President Obama keeps pushing for a new LGBT Law for the military, some members of Congress may be more concerned about lessons learned in the recent Massachusetts special election, as well as in 1994. Said Donnelly,“Voters are concerned about national security, and they don’t want America’s military to be used for any purpose other than national defense.”

1. In 1994, a survey done for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) by Stanley Greenberg, President Clinton’s own pollster, indicated the second most important factor that shifted control of Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 mid-term election was President Bill Clinton’s 1993 push for gays in the military.
2. That finding was reported by Dan Balz in a November 14, 1994, Washington Post article titled “Health Plan Was Albatross for Democrats: Big Government Label Hurt Party, Poll Finds.” Greenburg found that 54% of 1,250 voters surveyed named the Health Care Task Force issue as the number one reason they cast a “vote of dissatisfaction” in the leadership of Clinton and the Democrats controlling Congress in 1993. Greenberg also identified a second issue, called “cultural liberalism,” which was cited by 51% of respondents and symbolized by Bill Clinton’s failed 1993 campaign for homosexuals in the military.
3. Greenberg’s survey was significant because gays-in-the-military was not even an issue in the 1994 elections. Congress had already settled the issue in 1993, and bipartisan veto-proof majorities had approved current law stating that homosexuals are not eligible to serve in the military. The voters punished Democrats anyway, due to a lingering impression of what Greenberg called “cultural liberalism.” Those concerns could emerge again if President Obama and LGBT Left liberals in Congress insist on votes for gays in the military.

In 2010, the Massachusetts special election detected public opposition to similar issues involving what is usually called “political correctness in the military.” In an article titled “It’s the Enemy, Stupid,” Andrew McCarthy of National Review Online quoted Senator-elect Scott Brown’s top strategist, Eric Fehrnstrom, who said that the campaign’s internal polling showed “terrorism and the treatment of enemy combatants” to be an even bigger issue than health care.

Said Donnelly, “Liberals and Blue Dog Democrats can dismiss the national security message sent by Massachusetts, as well as Stanley Greenburg’s post-1994-election analysis, but they would do so with political risk.”

To arrange an interview on these and related military/social issues, please call CMR President Elaine Donnelly at 734/464-9430 or CMR Executive Director Tommy Sears in Washington D.C. at 202/347-5333.

* * * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness in an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that specializes in military/social issues.

Note: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) has signed on to a pro-family coalition letter to the Senate HELP Committee expressing concern over EEOC nominee Chai Feldblum’s extreme record. Thanks to Traditional Values Coalition for taking the lead on the letter.

________________________________

Dear AFTAH Readers,

President Obama’s appointee for Commissioner to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, lesbian Georgetown University Law Professor Chai Feldblum, is backpedaling from her radical pro-homosexual/pro-polyamory positions faster than Tiger Woods from the paparazzi. The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue (in the item below from last month) is correct about the “farce” of Feldblum’s newfound “moderation” (if we could call it that).

Feldblum is a veteran law professor with decades of experience in public policy. Aren’t lawyers always warning the rest of us to “read the document before you sign”? Yet now she claims that signing her name to the 2006 radical homosexual “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” manifesto was a “mistake,” even as she admits to being in broad agreement with its contents.

Feldblum’s feeble explanation doesn’t pass the smell test. Did she not know the meaning of “conjugal” — as in the “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage” document’s call for giving government recognition to “Households in which there is more than one conjugal partner”?

Feldblum will likely be passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee today, which would send her nomination to the full Senate. (Watch her November HELP Committee testimony HERE.) We need at least one conservative senator to put a formal hold on the Feldblum nomination – because we suspect that if and when Feldblum is seated as an EEOC Commissioner, she’ll be getting her left-wing, radically “queer” groove back. –Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org.

TAKE ACTION: Call or write your U.S. Senators (202-224-3121;  www.congress.org) and especially Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) (202-224-5754) and ask them to OPPOSE Chai Feldblum’s nomination as EEOC Commissioner. Ask your Senators and especially Sen. Coburn to place a hold on her nomination so that the American people can have more time to learn of the implications of her radical sexual and anti-religious-freedom agenda. Catholic League release is after the jump….

_____________________________________

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights press release:

Catholic League: EEOC Nominee Chai Feldblum ‘Running Scared’
11/19/2009

NEW YORK, NY (Catholic League) – Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the confirmation hearing of Georgetown law professor Chai Feldblum, nominated to join the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

“In 2006, Feldblum signed a statement, “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” that was the most radical, irresponsible assault on marriage and the family ever written.

It maintained that every conceivable “partnership” and “relationship” should be on a par with marriage, and even went so far as to say that “Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households,” should be given governmental and private recognition.

In other words, gay men and lesbians who do not even live under the same roof should be able to adopt a child and then be given exactly the same kinds of governmental benefits afforded normal marital unions.

To top things off, every private institution [read: religious organizations] should be forced to do likewise.

Feldblum, however, sensing that her nomination is in trouble, announced just days ago that she wants her name taken off the anti-marriage and anti-family document.

This is a farce. She is running scared: she knew what she was signing and waited until the 11th hour to bolt. Only a fool would be fooled by this patently insincere move.”

___________________________________

The Catholic League is the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination. It is led by its’ President, William A. Donohue, Ph.D.

A Shocker from Salt Lake City:

The LDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Church now officially endorses so-called “gay rights” laws, specifically a Salt Lake City law prohibiting “discrimination” on the basis of “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity” (cross-dressing).

From the official LDS Church website: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-supports-nondiscrimination-ordinances

ASSOCIATED PRESS: “Mormons throw support behind gay-rights cause”

DESERET NEWS: “Mormon church supports Salt Lake City’s protections for gay rights”

Astoundingly, both the Massachusetts and California supreme courts expressly and specifically cited their states’ identical “sexual orientation” laws regarding employment and housing as a legal justification for their rulings legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage.”  That indisputable fact alone renders the Church spokesman’s claim that its endorsement of the “sexual orientation” ordinance poses no threat to marriage to be utter nonsense, especially since the Church’s new position will certainly boost homosexual activists’ ongoing efforts in the Utah Legislature to enact an identical state law.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Goodridge v. Mass. Dept. of Health: “Several amici suggest that prohibiting marriage by same-sex couples reflects community consensus that homosexual conduct is immoral. Yet Massachusetts has a strong affirmative policy of preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See G.L. c. 151B (employment, housing, credit, services); G.L. c. 265, § 39 (hate crimes); G.L. c. 272, § 98 (public accommodation).” Page14 at: http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf

California Supreme Court, In Re: Marriage Cases: “See, for example, Civil Code section 51 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of services by any business establishment); Government Code sections 12920 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in employment), 12955 (barring sexual orientation discrimination in housing)… In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty — including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family — that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals.” pp 68-69 at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

U.S. House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, reaffirmed the threat such “sexual orientation” laws pose to marriage in commenting on the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), legislation which would add “sexual orientation” to federal civil rights laws regarding employment.  If enacted, Boehner said, ENDA would “put activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states. Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past – liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country. I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.” http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78178

Such laws have also been used to discriminate against and punish individuals and businesses who refuse to approve of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

It is difficult to believe that LDS officials could be so grossly ignorant of the demonstrably proven threat such laws pose to marriage and to the religious freedoms of the individual, special exemptions for “religious organizations” and the government notwithstanding.  It’s further astounding that church officials would endorse a law banning “discrimination” based on “gender identity,” rendering it illegal for an employer to refuse to hire a man because he (1) dresses as and claims to believe he’s a woman; and (2) demands on that basis to use the women’s restroom at work.

It’s notable in contrast that the Catholic Church refuses to endorse forcing such “sexual orientation” laws on the rest of society just because homosexual activists are politically calculating enough to (at least temporarily) exempt churches. [Editor's Note: in certain areas such as Maine, Catholic bishops or leaders have endorsed homosexual activist laws against the teachings of their Church; such backing in heavily Catholic states usually makes the difference in passage of pro-homosexual legislation.]

From a Vatican directive instructing Catholic bishops to oppose so-called “sexual orientation” laws: “Where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws.”  http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.htm

We deeply sympathize with the shock that will no doubt be felt by many members of the LDS Church who do understand the implications of so-called “sexual orientation” laws and have expended great effort to oppose them and to educate others.

For example…

Meridian Magazine / The Place Where Latter-day Saints Gather: “Of course, the problem here is that the term ’sexual orientation’ has no innate meaning (in contrast with ‘race’, which does) and no historic or community value (such as ‘religion’) and would require the Utah State Legislature to fabricate its definition.  In other words, adding the term ’sexual orientation’ to Utah law, as demanded (by homosexual activists), would give lawyers standing to attack employers and property owners.” http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/090204six.html

United Famlies International: “We adamantly oppose the UNHRC sexual orientation provisions for three reasons: 1. Attempts to legalize same sex marriage around the world would be substantially strengthened if homosexual behavior becomes an internationally recognized ‘human right.’” http://meridianmagazine.com/familywatch/040319newsletter.html

UFI brochure on “Sexual Orientation,” perhaps the best and most comprehensive single source on the subject we’ve ever seen… http://unitedfamilies.org/products/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=17

Of course, we now know that Jennings was heavily involved in the anti-religious homosexual extremist group ACT UP — so the case for dumping this conservative-Christian-hating activist just keeps getting stronger. I’m starting to hope that he stays on at the Department Education — because we’ve never had an opportunity like this to teach Americans about GLSEN’s manipulative, child-corrupting agenda. Stay tuned: much more coming from AFTAH on Jennings — including his absurdly “queer” take on the “sexual orientation” of one of America’s most revered presidents. —- Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. If you want a quick education on how depraved the pro-homosexual Left is in this country, consider their main defense of Jennings with regard to the underage sophomore student whom he counseled as a private high school teacher: a boy named Brewster who apparently was seduced by an older homosexual man who picked him up in a public restroom. When Jennings told the story, he said the boy was 15, but it appears Brewster was actually 16 at the time of the seduction. Thus the predatory sex did not violate the Age of Consent law in Massachusetts — a highly technical point that the left-wing group Media Matters and various homosexual activist sites are relying on to buttress Jennings’ case. (Upon learning of the encounter, Jennings wrote that he told the boy, “It’s OK to be gay,” as if the “man-boy” sex somehow confirms homosexual “orientation.”

A list of AFTAH articles on Jennings and GLSEN follows the letter (emphasis and links added):

October 15, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your Administration. It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity.

As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools—an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children. As evidence of this, Mr. Jennings wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Throughout his career, Mr. Jennings has made it his mission to establish special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students to the exclusion of all other students. The totality of Mr. Jennings’ career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality. There is more to safe and drug free schools than can be accomplished from the narrow view of Mr. Jennings who has, for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda.

Equally troubling is Mr. Jennings’ self-described history of ignoring the sexual abuse of a child. In his book, One Teacher in Ten, Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings’ only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the “safe schools” czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.

As the “safe schools” czar, Mr. Jennings is also charged with ensuring our schools and students are drug free. It is clear that Mr. Jennings is unfit to serve in this capacity, as well. His own history of unrepentant drug and alcohol abuse indicates that he is of the opinion that getting drunk and high as a young person is acceptable. In his memoir, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Mr. Jennings describes his use of illegal drugs, without expressing regret or acknowledging the devastating effects illegal drug use can have on a person’s life.

Everyone that deals with the education of the most vulnerable must be a positive role model. Our children are not blessed with the wisdom to discern and reject. Children presume the adults who educate them are approved by the larger society and their parents. Kevin Jennings cannot gain the approval of parents who want their children safe and their schools drug free. You should replace him with someone who has a record of educating children in a safe and moral environment.

Given these very serious issues with Mr. Jennings’ record, we urge you to remove him immediately.

Sincerely,

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

Alexander
Aderholt
Akin
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton
Boozman
Broun
Brown, H.
Carter
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Conaway
Davis, Geoff
Fallin
Fleming
Foxx
Franks
Garrett
Gingrey
Gohmert
Hunter
Issa
Jordan
Lamborn
Latta
LuetkemeyerMarchant
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller, J.
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson, P.
Pence
Pitts
Posey
Rogers (AL)
Rooney
Ryan, Paul
Shuster
Smith, C
Smith, L.
Wamp
Westmoreland
Jones, Walter

_______________________________________

AFTAH Articles on Kevin Jennings and GLSEN:

• Kevin Jennings’ 1997 Transcript: ‘Promoting Homosexuality’ in Schools and Praising Pro-NAMBLA ‘Gay’ Activist Harry Hay
• BREAKING: Obama ‘Safe Schools’ Chief Kevin Jennings Used Pro-Pedophile, pro-NAMBLA Publisher for First Three Books
• GLSEN Founder and Obama Education Appointee Kevin Jennings Said ‘[F- -k] ‘em’ to Religious Right — in a Church
• ‘Gay’ Leader Kevin Jennings Says Dream Is to ‘Promote Homosexuality’ in Schools
• Obama Appointee Kevin Jennings Can’t Remember Saying the F-Word to Bash Christians — in a Church
• Was Troubled Teen Seduced by Adult Homosexual and Counseled by GLSEN Founder Kevin Jennings Really ‘Gay’?
• AFTAH Calls on Obama and Education Sec. Arne Duncan to Withdraw Nomination of Homosexual Extremist Bigot and GLSEN Founder Kevin Jennings to Preside over ‘Safe Schools’
• LISTEN: Audio of Obama ‘Safe Schools’ Czar Kevin Jennings: Told Teen Student ‘Brewster’ that he Hoped he Used a Condom in Sex with Homosexual Predator
• Washington Times: Obama ‘Safe Schools’ Czar Kevin Jennings Enabled Sexual Predator of Teen Boy
• Kevin Jennings’ Statement on ‘Brewster’ Incident: Too Little, Too Late
• Letter - No Shame on Jennings-Alyson Publications-NAMBLA story?
• ‘What’s Fisting?’ Scott Whiteman’s Affidavit on the 2000 GLSEN ‘Fistgate’ Scandal
• Listen Online: LaBarbera, Harvey Discuss Kevin Jennings Appointment at Dept. of Education
• GLSEN’s Indoctrination Agenda: How One Teacher Explained Her Lesbianism to Kindergartners
• Kevin Jennings’ Legacy: ‘Gay Youth Pride’ in Boston
• Rep. Steve King Wants Homosexuality-Promoter Kevin Jennings Gone as ‘Safe Schools’ Chief
• Obama ‘Safe Schools’ Chief Kevin Jennings Gave Dual Histories of Mom’s Participation in ‘Gay Pride’ March
• Educational Malpractice: Waubonsie Valley High School in Naperville, IL, Promotes GLSEN’s ‘Day of Silence’

Folks, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and every Republican who covers up for Schwarzenegger’s liberal follies are helping to destroy the GOP’s “pro-family” brand. Corrupting children’s minds and souls through manipulative school exercises like “Harvey Milk Day” is anti-family and anti-child to the core. You simply cannot be pro-sexual sin and pro-family at the same time.

Thanks to California’s moral weakling of a governor, millions of schoolchildren will be subjected to propaganda extolling San Francisco homosexual crusader Milk — who, as my friend Randy Thomasson of SaveCalifornia.com rightly says — is hardly an appropriate role model for children. Kudos to Randy and other pro-family Californians for working so hard trying to stop this public policy madness. – Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

TAKE ACTION: Contact Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele (chairman@gop.com; 202-863-8700 or -8500) and also your local/state GOP representatives (in office and out) and tell them how offended you are at Republican California Gov. Schwarzenegger’s latest capitulations to the Homosexual Lobby. Tell Steele that moral issues are an important plank of the Republican Party and that “going gay” will sap the strength out of the conservative grassroots. If you are a Democrat, call or write Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine and urge the party to STOP pandering to homosexual activists and undermining traditional marriage. (Kaine is the current Governor of Virginia.)

_____________________________________

SaveCalifornia.com News Release, October 12, 2009

SaveCalifornia.com Appalled at Signing of ‘Harvey Milk Gay Day’

SB 572, opposed by overwhelming majority, signed by “People’s Governor”

CLICK HERE FOR MILK DOCUMENTATION AND BILL FACTS

Sacramento – SaveCalifornia.com, a leading West Coast pro-family, pro-child organization, is appalled that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed SB 572, “Harvey Milk Day,” into law.

“Harvey Milk* was a sexual predator of teens, an advocate of polygamous relationships, a public liar, and is in no way a good role model for impressionable schoolchildren,” said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com. “Sadly, children in public schools will now have even more in-your-face, homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination. This provides the strongest impetus yet for loving parents to remove their children from anti-family public schools.”

“’Harvey Milk Day’ teaches children as young as five years old to admire the life and values of the notorious homosexual activist Harvey Milk” said Thomasson. “The ‘suitable commemorative exercises’ that are part of ‘Harvey Milk Day’ can easily result in cross-dressing exercises, ‘LGBT pride’ parades and mock gay weddings on school campuses — everything Harvey Milk supported.”

Schwarzenegger vetoed ‘Harvey Milk Day” last year; he signed it this year. The Governor also previously claimed to oppose same-sex “marriage,” but now supports destroying the definition of marriage as only between a man and a woman, in court, and by his signing of SB 54, to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages” in violation of Proposition 8.

For several months, SaveCalifornia.com has been leading parents and grandparents to call, email, fax, and petition Governor Schwarzenegger to veto “Harvey Milk Day.” The clear majority of correspondence to the Governor was opposed to SB 572. As a whole, Californians are 4 to 1 against the notion of statewide day of significance honoring the San Francisco gay activist.

For documentation of Harvey Milk’s values and further analysis of “Harvey Milk Day,” see SaveCalifornia.com’s SB 572 veto request letter.

* Randy Shilts, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk (1982)

– end –

Related link: Get more perspective on this issue on Randy Thomasson’s blog

SaveCalifornia.com is a leading West Coast nonprofit, nonpartisan organization representing children and families. We stand for marriage and family, parental rights, the sanctity of human life, religious freedom, financial freedom, and back-to-basics education.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release                                                        October 10, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN DINNER

Walter E. Convention Center
Washington, D.C.
8:10 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, you’re making me blush. (Laughter.)

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Barack!

THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)

To Joe Solmonese, who’s doing an outstanding job on behalf of HRC. (Applause.) To my great friend and supporter, Terry Bean, co-founder of HRC. (Applause.) Representative Patrick Kennedy. (Applause.) David Huebner, the Ambassador-designee to New Zealand and Samoa. (Applause.) John Berry, our Director of OPM, who’s doing a great job. (Applause.) Nancy Sutley, Chairman of Council on Environmental Quality. (Applause.) Fred Hochberg, Chairman of Export-Import Bank. (Applause.) And my dear friend, Tipper Gore, who’s in the house. (Applause.)

Thank you so much, all of you. It is a privilege to be here tonight to open for Lady GaGa. (Applause.) I’ve made it. (Laughter.) I want to thank the Human Rights Campaign for inviting me to speak and for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard in their jobs and care deeply about their families — and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)

For nearly 30 years, you’ve advocated on behalf of those without a voice. That’s not easy. For despite the real gains that we’ve made, there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking. (Applause.) And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives — as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you’re making a difference.

That’s the story of the movement for fairness and equality, and not just for those who are gay, but for all those in our history who’ve been denied the rights and responsibilities of citizenship — (applause) — for all who’ve been told that the full blessings and opportunities of this country were closed to them. It’s the story of progress sought by those with little influence or power; by men and women who brought about change through quiet, personal acts of compassion — and defiance — wherever and whenever they could.

It’s the story of the Stonewall protests, when a group of citizens — (applause) — when a group of citizens with few options, and fewer supporters stood up against discrimination and helped to inspire a movement. It’s the story of an epidemic that decimated a community — and the gay men and women who came to support one another and save one another; who continue to fight this scourge; and who have demonstrated before the world that different kinds of families can show the same compassion in a time of need. (Applause.) And it’s the story of the Human Rights Campaign and the fights you’ve fought for nearly 30 years: helping to elect candidates who share your values; standing against those who would enshrine discrimination into our Constitution; advocating on behalf of those living with HIV/AIDS; and fighting for progress in our capital and across America. (Applause.)

This story, this fight continue now. And I’m here with a simple message: I’m here with you in that fight. (Applause.) For even as we face extraordinary challenges as a nation, we cannot — and we will not — put aside issues of basic equality. I greatly appreciate the support I’ve received from many in this room. I also appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. I want to be honest about that, because it’s important to be honest among friends.

Now, I’ve said this before, I’ll repeat it again — it’s not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago. (Applause.) But I will say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I think it’s important to remember that there is not a single issue that my administration deals with on a daily basis that does not touch on the lives of the LGBT community. (Applause.) We all have a stake in reviving this economy. We all have a stake in putting people back to work. We all have a stake in improving our schools and achieving quality, affordable health care. We all have a stake in meeting the difficult challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Applause.)

For while some may wish to define you solely by your sexual orientation or gender identity alone, you know — and I know — that none of us wants to be defined by just one part of what makes us whole. (Applause.) You’re also parents worried about your children’s futures. You’re spouses who fear that you or the person you love will lose a job. You’re workers worried about the rising cost of health insurance. You’re soldiers. You are neighbors. You are friends. And, most importantly, you are Americans who care deeply about this country and its future. (Applause.)

So I know you want me working on jobs and the economy and all the other issues that we’re dealing with. But my commitment to you is unwavering even as we wrestle with these enormous problems. And while progress may be taking longer than you’d like as a result of all that we face — and that’s the truth — do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach. (Applause.)

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. (Applause.) You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman. (Applause.) You will see a nation that’s valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union — a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there’s no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met with Judy — who’s here tonight with her husband — I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill — a bill named for her son. (Applause.)

This struggle has been long. Time and again we faced opposition. Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. But the Shepards never gave up. (Applause.) They turned tragedy into an unshakeable commitment. (Applause.) Countless activists and organizers never gave up. You held vigils, you spoke out, year after year, Congress after Congress. The House passed the bill again this week. (Applause.) And I can announce that after more than a decade, this bill is set to pass and I will sign it into law. (Applause.)

It’s a testament to the decade-long struggle of Judy and Dennis, who tonight will receive a tribute named for somebody who inspired so many of us — named for Senator Ted Kennedy, who fought tirelessly for this legislation. (Applause.) And it’s a testament to the Human Rights Campaign and those who organized and advocated. And it’s a testament to Matthew and to others who’ve been the victims of attacks not just meant to break bones, but to break spirits — not meant just to inflict harm, but to instill fear. Together, we will have moved closer to that day when no one has to be afraid to be gay in America. (Applause.) When no one has to fear walking down the street holding the hand of the person they love. (Applause.)

But we know there’s far more work to do. We’re pushing hard to pass an inclusive employee non-discrimination bill. (Applause.) For the first time ever, an administration official testified in Congress in favor of this law. Nobody in America should be fired because they’re gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We’re going to put a stop to it. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms. (Applause.)

We are reinvigorating our response to HIV/AIDS here at home and around the world. (Applause.) We’re working closely with the Congress to renew the Ryan White program and I look forward to signing it into law in the very near future. (Applause.) We are rescinding the discriminatory ban on entry to the United States based on HIV status. (Applause.) The regulatory process to enact this important change is already underway. And we also know that HIV/AIDS continues to be a public health threat in many communities, including right here in the District of Columbia. Jeffrey Crowley, the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, recently held a forum in Washington, D.C., and is holding forums across the country, to seek input as we craft a national strategy to address this crisis.

We are moving ahead on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. (Applause.) We should not be punishing patriotic Americans who have stepped forward to serve this country. We should be celebrating their willingness to show such courage and selflessness on behalf of their fellow citizens, especially when we’re fighting two wars. (Applause.)

We cannot afford to cut from our ranks people with the critical skills we need to fight any more than we can afford — for our military’s integrity — to force those willing to do so into careers encumbered and compromised by having to live a lie. So I’m working with the Pentagon, its leadership, and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That’s my commitment to you. (Applause.)

It is no secret that issues of great concern to gays and lesbians are ones that raise a great deal of emotion in this country. And it’s no secret that progress has been incredibly difficult — we can see that with the time and dedication it took to pass hate crimes legislation. But these issues also go to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we can; I believe we will. (Applause.)

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. (Applause.) I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act. (Applause.) And we must all stand together against divisive and deceptive efforts to feed people’s lingering fears for political and ideological gain.

For the struggle waged by the Human Rights Campaign is about more than any policy we can enshrine into law. It’s about our capacity to love and commit to one another. It’s about whether or not we value as a society that love and commitment. It’s about our common humanity and our willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes: to imagine losing a job not because of your performance at work but because of your relationship at home; to imagine worrying about a spouse in the hospital, with the added fear that you’ll have to produce a legal document just to comfort the person you love — (applause) — to imagine the pain of losing a partner of decades and then discovering that the law treats you like a stranger. (Applause.)

If we are honest with ourselves we’ll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That’s why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT families — and not just in front of gay audiences. That’s why Michelle and I have invited LGBT families to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll — because we want to send a message. (Applause.) And that’s why it’s so important that you continue to speak out, that you continue to set an example, that you continue to pressure leaders — including me — and to make the case all across America. (Applause.)

So, tonight I’m hopeful — because of the activism I see in this room, because of the compassion I’ve seen all across America, and because of the progress we have made throughout our history, including the history of the movement for LGBT equality.

Soon after the protests at Stonewall 40 years ago, the phone rang in the home of a soft-spoken elementary school teacher named Jeanne Manford. It was 1:00 in the morning, and it was the police. Now, her son, Morty, had been at the Stonewall the night of the raids. Ever since, he had felt within him a new sense of purpose. So when the officer told Jeanne that her son had been arrested, which was happening often to gay protesters, she was not entirely caught off guard. And then the officer added one more thing, “And you know, he’s homosexual.” (Laughter.) Well, that police officer sure was surprised when Jeanne responded, “Yes, I know. Why are you bothering him?” (Applause.)

And not long after, Jeanne would be marching side-by-side with her son through the streets of New York. She carried a sign that stated her support. People cheered. Young men and women ran up to her, kissed her, and asked her to talk to their parents. And this gave Jeanne and Morty an idea.

And so, after that march on the anniversary of the Stonewall protests, amidst the violence and the vitriol of a difficult time for our nation, Jeanne and her husband Jules — two parents who loved their son deeply — formed a group to support other parents and, in turn, to support their children, as well. At the first meeting Jeanne held, in 1973, about 20 people showed up. But slowly, interest grew. Morty’s life, tragically, was cut short by AIDS. But the cause endured. Today, the organization they founded for parents, families, and friends of lesbians and gays — (applause) — has more than 200,000 members and supporters, and has made a difference for countless families across America. And Jeanne would later say, “I considered myself such a traditional person. I didn’t even cross the street against the light.” (Laughter.) “But I wasn’t going to let anybody walk over Morty.” (Applause.)

That’s the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit. (Applause.)

Tonight, somewhere in America, a young person, let’s say a young man, will struggle to fall to sleep, wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember. Soon, perhaps, he will decide it’s time to let that secret out. What happens next depends on him, his family, as well as his friends and his teachers and his community. But it also depends on us — on the kind of society we engender, the kind of future we build.

I believe the future is bright for that young person. For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow. These ideals, when voiced by generations of citizens, are what made it possible for me to stand here today. (Applause.) These ideals are what made it possible for the people in this room to live freely and openly when for most of history that would have been inconceivable. That’s the promise of America, HRC. That’s the promise we’re called to fulfill. (Applause.) Day by day, law by law, changing mind by mind, that is the promise we are fulfilling.

Thank you for the work you’re doing. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)

END 8:35 P.M. EDT

Promoting Human Wrongs in the Name of Human Rights: HRC and its president, Joe Solmonese, love to smear defenders of traditional marriage and the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality (including preachers) as “haters” and “extremists.” Barack Obama demeans the office of the presidency of the United States by celebrating this radical and profoundly anti-Christian organization.

President Barack Obama is telegraphing his left-wing sympathies and defiance of America’s historic, Judeo-Christian-based morality to the world. The same man who didn’t have time for the National Day of Prayer has worked into his busy schedule a keynote address at a fundraiser Saturday for the world’s largest homosexual lobby group — one that glories in its anti-religious bigotry (masquerading as tolerance, of course). Yes, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is really all about Human Wrongs — whether it’s demonizing as “extremists” Americans who are simply trying to protect the age-old definition of marriage; crusading for legislation that denies our First Amendment right to defend normalcy and Judeo-Christian mores; lobbying for taxpayer funding of transsexual “sex-change” mutilations operations; or its ongoing attempt to redefine the clear Word of God to serve the sinful cause of “proud” homosexuality. (HRC’s Harry Knox — an Obama “faith council” appointee — outrageously calls his own homosexuality a “gift from God.”) At bottom is the HRC press release below highlighting Obama’s address Saturday evening.

Obama’s friend, HRC President Joe Solmonese (above left), is to true respect and “tolerance” what John Edwards and Mark Sanford are to “family values.” Solmonese revels in his role as D.C.’s top homosexual power-broker. A former exec with the pro-abortion PAC EMILY’s List, he embodies the spirit of the age that elevates subjective feelings and libertine, godless ideologies over timeless revelation of right versus wrong. Moreover, Solmonese and fellow “queer” advocates arrogantly behave as if there is no legitimate “other side” to their homosexual movement. He has no problem castigating religious foes of the homosexualist agenda — including pastors, who he accuses of “preaching hatred from the pulpit” for merely agreeing with God about homosexual sin. (Much as they hate religious “fundamentalists,” those homosexual activists sure do have their own set of absolute “fundamentals” down pat, huh?)

Solmonese even has the chutzpah to accuse the Vatican of having a “truth” problem when the Catholic Church tries to deal with its crisis caused by homosexual priests (you know, the ones with a sexual preference for adolescent boys). What he and fellow “gay” activists call a witch-hunt was actually an attempt by the church to prevent further man-boy predations that have badly damaged its reputation. When the pope condemns same-sex “marriage,” HRC and Solmonese dismiss him as “anti-gay” and say he is out to divide “faithful Catholics.” (Last I heard, people who champion sins are not called “faithful.”)

I remember way, way back when HRC joined other “gay” organizations in blacking out its websites following the murder of college student Matt Shepard — and shamelessly used the tragedy as an opportunity to promote “Hate Crimes” legislation. They cynically demonized Christian pro-family groups as somehow having a role in the crime. This is a profoundly anti-Christian organization, so when President Obama celebrates HRC and helps it raise funds, he honors their particular brand of animus and bigotry, which equates genuine, God-fearing Christians (and orthodox Jews, and traditional Muslims) with “hatred” and vile prejudice. That makes this a hateful act by Mr. Obama, and one that demeans the office of the presidency of the United States. Pray for Obama — he cannot serve both God and a Bible-distorting sin group. You can contact the White House HERE. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________

HRC’s press release follows:

President Barack Obama to Deliver Keynote Address at the 13th Annual Human Rights Campaign Dinner

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy will also present first Edward M. Kennedy National Leadership Award to Judy and Dennis Shepard

10/5/2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, announced today that President Barack Obama will deliver the keynote address at the 13th Annual National Dinner on Saturday, October 10th, in Washington, D.C.  U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy will also present the first-ever Edward M. Kennedy National Leadership Award to Judy and Dennis Shepard.  The award is named in honor of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), a champion in the fight for LGBT equality.

“We are honored to share this night with President Obama, who has called upon our nation to embrace LGBT people as brothers and sisters,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.  “It is fitting that he will speak to our community on the night that we pay tribute to his friend and mentor Senator Edward Kennedy, who knew that as president, Barack Obama would take on the unfinished business of this nation – equal rights for the LGBT community, and for every person who believes in liberty and justice for all.”

The event will begin at 7 p.m. at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C.  All media planning to attend the Human Rights Campaign National Dinner must pre-register by Thursday, October 8.  ….

The Human Rights Campaign is America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.

FRC’s Oct. 5 “Washington Update” follows:

“The totality of [GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings'] life has been the promotion of homosexuality, and much of it within education.” — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)

King of the Hill Takes on Czar of the Schools
The Obama administration is spending precious capital protecting its Safe Schools “czar,” but many believe that loyalty carries more political risk than reward. Last week, Kevin Jennings’s “aw, shucks” response to covering up child sexual abuse should have sounded the alarm over at the Department of Education. Instead, Secretary Arne Duncan used the opportunity to praise Jennings as “uniquely qualified” to serve on the team. That may not be the consensus for much longer, since FRC has uncovered a series of op-eds that show Jennings’s incredible hostility toward Christianity.

In at least two Huffington Post columns, Jennings attacks people of faith with complete and utter disdain. When the former director of GLSEN tried to implement a series of Gay Straight Alliances in classrooms back in 2007, Jennings described a Christian who fought the idea as having “not-yet-fully evolved views maybe because of his proximity to the Everglades (from whose ooze he may have recently climbed), [but] I can’t dismiss them as the ravings of a single troglodyte. Instead, they represent a classic example of how right-wing extremists continually try to mislead the public about the nature and purpose of GSAs.”

In another article, “Recruit, Recruit, Recruit!” Jennings called Christian students “hypocrites” and mocked the members of Young Life for trying to evangelize their friends. At one point in the column, Jennings says, “…[T]hey want everyone to have to believe the way they do.” Ironically, that’s what Jennings’ movement has been pushing for all along: forced acceptance! He and his activist friends want tolerance, but not for others.

Maybe that’s why leaders like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) are calling for Jennings ’s head. “The totality of his life,” King says, “has been the promotion of homosexuality, and much of it within education.” His work, says Rep. King, is “a political movement… It’s not about protecting kids, it’s about promoting homosexuality and demanding public affirmation… President Obama should fire Kevin Jennings immediately.”

Obviously, the only “unique qualification” Jennings possesses is an ability to practice the same kind of intimidation his office is trying to prevent. As FRC has said for four months, a man charged with creating safe schools can’t possibly achieve it by turning America’s classrooms into a hostile environment for kids with religious beliefs. Otherwise, we’ve allowed the anti-bullying boss to become the biggest bully of all! For more information on what you can do to stop Jennings, visit our site.

_________________

Here is the original Americans For Truth “Lambda Report” article reporting Kevin Jennings’ comment at a GLSEN conference in 1997 that he indeed looks forward to the day when “promoting homosexuality” in schools will be seen in a positive light:

“‘Gay’ Leader Kevin Jennings Says Dream Is to ‘Promote Homosexuality’ in Schools”

TAKE ACTION: Below are the main homosexual/trans activist bills that we urge you to stand against (call Congress at 202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org):

• Hate Crimes (“Thought Crimes”) — STATUS: passed House and Senate attached as amendment to DoD appropriations bill: HR 1913: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1913&tab=summary; now in House-Senate conference;
• Federal “Special Workplace Rights” Based on Homosexuality and Gender Confusion — ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR 3017; S 1584) — 40 co-sponsors in Senate (all but 2 are Democrats): www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1584; 181 co-sponsors in the House (all but 5 are Democrats): www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3017. More info on this Top Priority bill for “gay” activists: http://americansfortruth.com/news/obamas-homosexual-opm-chief-calls-enda-top-priority-keystone-that-will-propel-rest-of-gay-legislation.html
• Allowing Admitted Homosexuals in the Military — HR 1283, audaciously entitled, “Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009″; 176 co-sponsors: all but one are Democrats: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3017.
• Homosexuality Indoctrination in Schools via “Bullying”/”Safe Schools” Funding — HR 2262, innocuously titled, “Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act”: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2262; 88 cosponsors (all but 1 Democrats); more info: www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34545
• Federal Domestic Partner Benefits for Homosexuals: (HR 2517); sponsored by lesbian Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-WI); “Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act”; 110 co-sponsors, all but 1 are Democrats: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2517
• Repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act); HR 3567: mischievously named the “Respect for Marriage Act”  it would repeal DOMA, which protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages”; homosexual Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) opposes this bill due to timing. See: www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-3567; “Gay” Blade account here: www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=27207
• Homosexual “Couples” Immigration Expansion — “Reuniting Families Act” (HR 2709): “would allow homosexuals to sponsor their “permanent partners” for residency in the United States”;  www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2709; more info: www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=49464

This is the obvious difference between Obama’s “families” that social liberals refuse to acknowledge, or make relevant to public policy. “Queer” parenting and “gay” adoption are a part of radical social experiment in progress — and innocent children are the guinea pigs. Who can know the effect on a young child being raised by two homosexual men like Gay Adoption Poster Boy Dan Savage — who boasts of the “three-way” sex he and “husband” Terry engaged in while parents of an adopted boy. (News flash for the naive: “gay monogamy,” at least for men, is largely a farce.)

It seems that whether he aspires to it or not, President Obama is America’s first anti-Christian president. He does all he can to help pro-homosexual-”marriage” forces even as he claims to support traditional marriage; gets spiritual counsel from notorious homosexual activist Episcopal bishop V. (as in Vickie) Gene Robinson; he distanced himself from the National Day of Prayer; arrogantly (and ignorantly) dismisses Scriptural prohibitions against homosexual practice as “obscure”; and smears opponents of homosexuality as having “worn arguments and old attitudes.” Now, Obama manages to stick it to the traditionalist Christians (and Jews, Muslims and Hindus) once again by including homosexual “parents” in an otherwise forgettable proclamation about families. Thankfully, much of the country is becoming numb to Obama’s secular preaching — because whatever homosexual-led “families” are, they are by definition not the ideal for children. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

_____________________

Here is Obama’s Sept. 28 “Family Day” Proclamation (emphasis added):

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FAMILY DAY, 2009

——-

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Our family provides one of the strongest influences on our lives. American families from every walk of life have taught us time and again that children raised in loving, caring homes have the ability to reject negative behaviors and reach their highest potential. Whether children are raised by two parents, a single parent, grandparents, a same-sex couple, or a guardian, families encourage us to do our best and enable us to accomplish great things. Today, our children are confronting issues of drug and alcohol use with astonishing regularity. On Family Day, we honor the dedication of parents, commend the achievements of their children, and celebrate the contributions our Nation’s families have made to combat substance abuse among young people.

The 21st century presents families with unprecedented challenges. Millions of women and men are struggling to balance the demands of their jobs with the needs of their families. At the same time, our youngest generation faces countless distractions in their social environment. They are coming of age in a world where electronic devices have replaced the playground, televisions have preempted conversation, and pressure to use drug and alcohol is far too prevalent. Parents bear significant stress and burdens to protect their children from harmful influences.

It is our responsibility to talk with adolescents about the risks of abusing alcohol, tobacco, or prescription and illicit drugs, and other harmful behaviors. These substances can destroy the mind, body, and spirit of a child, jeopardizing their health and limiting their potential. Active parents, voicing their disapproval of drug use, have proven themselves to be the most effective preventative method for keeping our children drug-free. A strong and engaged family can make all the difference in helping young people make healthy decisions.

By coming together as a family and discussing the events of the day, parents can foster open communication, share joys and concerns, and help guide their children toward healthy decisionmaking. A strong nation is made up of strong families, and on this Family Day, we rededicate ourselves to ensuring that every American family has the chance to build a better, healthier future for themselves and their children.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 28, 2009, as Family Day. I call upon the people of the United States to join together in observing this day with appropriate ceremonies and activities to honor and strengthen our Nation’s families.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine,

BARACK OBAMA

Ironic Indignation: will Speaker Pelosi work use her unprecedented influence to stop the anti-Christian intolerance and gross incivility toward people of faith in her own congressional district?

Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) accused Americans protesting Obama-care at congressional townhall meetings of engaging in “un-American” conduct. Wrote Speaker Pelosi August 10: “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task [health care reform] for decades.”

Speaker Pelosi, representing the intolerant glass house of San Francisco, should hardly be throwing stones with her selective outrage designed to discredit Americans opposed to expansive government. In her city, “shouting down” opponents has become an art form for the Left. Below is a video by veteran homosexual activist Michael Petrelis, founding member of the homosexual extremist group ACT UP, in which Petrelis shouts down an Americans For Truth-led coalition protest last year condemning San Francisco’s allowance of public nudity and sex in the streets (i.e., at the annual deviance sex-fest known as the Folsom Street Fair). Note in this homosexual activist video how the police officer ignores my plea for speech rights and allows Petrelis to disrupt our press event. — Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

In future posts, we’ll have more on Pelosi’s subsequent ironic pleas for civility. Note the vulgar Petrelis’ simulation of a sex act on a banana and his enthusiastic defense of public sex and nudity in his city. In most other cities, police put a distance between opposing sides so that each can exercise its right to speak out. Shown in the video are AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera (asking police to prevent Petrlelis from disrupting the press conference), Diane Gramley of American Family Association of Pennsylvania, and Linda Harvey of Mission America. The coalition press conference occurred September 27, 2008, a day before the perverse “Folsom Street Fair,” which again “tolerated” public nudity.

TAKE ACTION: Call and write your U.S. Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA; HR 2981) as a Big Government bill that would empower the federal government to force small businesses to subsidize homosexual and gender-confused lifestyles. 

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

Dear AFTAH Readers,

Just in case you are still relying on establishment liberal media like the Associated Press (AP) to get your news, here are some startling photos and links documenting the mammoth, conservative “Tea Party Express” march in our nation’s capital Saturday, September 12th. This was a grassroots taxpayers’ protest of historic proportions — not in the “tens of thousands,” as AP misreported, but between one and two million people coming to make their voice heard in Washington.

I have been to a few big marches on Washington — including the annual March for Life and (as a critical observer) the homosexual activists’ March on Washington in 1993 (Click HERE to watch a very revealing YouTube video about that radical event). Based on the photos of Saturday’s tea party in D.C., this march appears to have dwarfed those past mobilizations. And try as the liberals will to paint Saturday’s marchers as a bunch of extremists, these are regular Americans, many of which had never attended a D.C. mass rally before. (But try this for a glimpse of the extreme 1993 “gay” rally, which had much smaller numbers.)

The Left is already moving to discredit the massive conservative turnout — jumping all over a false claim that ABC News reported the march as drawing between 1 million and 1.5 million. (We hope the Park Service will come up with a fair estimate, but even if they don’t aerial photos tell the story.) When even the left-wing MSNBC (NBC reporter Tom Costello) goes off script and reports that “hundreds of thousands” took part in the rally, you know something very significant has happened in Washington [watch Costello's MSNBC report HERE]. The New York Times reported:

“Many came on their own and were not part of an organization or group. But the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise, with throngs of people streaming from the White House to Capitol Hill for more than three hours.”

Here are some important websites that tell the real story about this huge rally in D.C.:

• Obviously moved by the enormity of the 9/12 march, the British newspaper Daily Mail  — hardly sympathetic to American conservatives — reported (emphasis added): “A million march to US Capitol to protest against ‘Obama the socialist.’” However, the Daily Mail’s original headline was: “Up to two million march to US Capitol to protest against Obama’s spending in ‘tea-party’ demonstration” (it appears that the DM’s editors made some politically correct revisions);
• Michelle Malkin’s original story on the 9/12 march: “Yes, the picture is real, nutroots” [see photo at right]
• Malkin’s follow-up web article: “Celebrating the 9/12 rallies; Turnout estimated at 2 million” ;
• WorldNetDaily.com story on 9/12: “A million or more rock Washington: Taxpayer march could be biggest rally ever in capital”;
• WND founder Joseph Farah’s column: “The shameful non-coverage of 9/12″;
• 9/12 elapsed-time footage of D.C. protesters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjvc6baor8
• Glenn Beck web page with more photos of 9/12 march: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/30493/

It deserves remembering that smug, out-of-touch media types like Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s resident lesbian leftist,  her über-obnoxious fellow MSNBC talker Keith Olbermann, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper viciously mocked the initial mass “tea party” protests with smirking jabs attaching them to “teabagging” — which, as it turns out, is a twisted oral sex act popularized by homosexual activist filmmaker John Waters’ movie “Pecker.” It was certainly a low point in the history of U.S. media to watch highly paid TV celebrities airing their inside dirty joke that compared decent, concerned Americans to a modern perversion. (Thankfully, most normal Americans didn’t know what “teabagging” was.)

Perhaps the liberal media elite’s snide condescension toward everyday Americans simply voicing their discontent — including suggestions that the protesters are racist because President Obama is black — accounted for an extra few hundred thousand protesters arriving in D.C. Saturday to make their presence felt. And that they did: even Maddow, Olbermann and the Huffington Post will have a tough time explaining away these seven-figure crowd numbers.

What does all this have to do with the fight against the Homosexual Lobby? Well, for one, beyond the health care debate, the Obama Administration is pushing to enact a comprehensive “gay” agenda that would greatly expand the government’s power to effectively force businesses and individuals to approve of or subsidize immoral homosexual and “transgender” lifestyles. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) — slated for a House hearing Wednesday, Sept. 23 — would create federal homosexuality- and transsexuality-based “rights” for employees. This would invariably circumscribe the liberties of business owners who oppose homosexuality as a matter of conscience. Our religious and First Amendment freedoms are at stake in this debate.

We trust that the same people who oppose Big Government intruding into our lives will resist the idea that the Government should be forcing businessmen and businesswomen to support homosexual behavior and gender confusion or risk getting sued.

NBC reporter Tom Costello reported that “hundreds of thousands” took part in the rally; the actual number was likely over a million.

 The AP photo above belies the news organization’s own reportage that numbered the massive crowd in the mere “tens of thousands.”

Folks, we have been slow to comment on all the Harvey Milk hype in our liberal-dominated popular culture — hype that is driving this push for an outrageous California bill that would effectively force students to celebrate a man famous for … being the first “out and proud” practitioner of homosexuality to win public office. (Oh boy: another marker for America’s Moral Meltdown.) The more one reads about Milk (see Dan Flynn’s excellent City Journal piece HERE) and the real story about his murder at the hands of Dan White (see caption above), the more preposterous becomes the idea of heralding him as a “civil rights” martyr.

For the media, Hollywood and academic establishments, the fix is in on championing Milk as an American hero. For the rest of us (the silent majority), he was a just a man with a sexual problem who achieved a political first in a city — San Francisco — that devolved into a Mecca for others with the same sexual sin problem. Had he not practiced deviant and unhealthy sex, nobody would care about the name Harvey Milk. Incidentally, this epitomizes what is wrong with “gay” history: it’s mostly written by those with a vested interest in normalizing aberrant and immoral sexual lifestyles.

And now, if Arnold wimps out, California children will learn some more skewed history. They will be taught to associate heroism, nobility and justice with a politician who not only crusaded for a misguided cause — state-enfored “rights” based on homosexuality — but who lied to advance that cause and his career. See my friend Randy Thomasson’s Save California website for more background on Milk, and information on how to urge Schwarzenegger (916-445-2841) to do the right thing by vetoing this bill. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.com

The following is excerpted from Baptist Press (emphasis added); click HERE to sign up for BP alerts.

_______________________________

‘Harvey Milk Day’ heads to Calif. gov’s desk

Baptist Press, Sep 9, 2009

By Michael Foust

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)–A bill that would encourage California public schools to observe “Harvey Milk Day” and to remember the deceased homosexual leader with “commemorative exercises” passed the state Senate Tuesday and is heading to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who hasn’t taken a position on it.

Schwarzenegger actually vetoed a similar bill last year but is under more pressure this year in light of President Obama recently awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Milk, the nation’s first openly homosexual person elected to public office. Milk was a San Francisco city supervisor who was assassinated in 1978 by another supervisor. The fact that the biographical movie “Milk” was released last year only adds to the pressure on the governor.

The bill (S.B. 572) would commemorate Milk with what the state calendar calls a day of “significance.” The only other such days are the Day of the Teacher (second Wednesday of May), John Muir Day (April 21) and California Poppy Day (April 6). Harvey Milk Day would be his birthday, May 22.

Schwarzenegger actually referenced the bill on his Twitter account days ago, writing, “Give me your thoughts on the water package, Harvey Milk Day, and the prison reform bill.”

It passed the Senate, 22-14, and the House, 46-28, along party-line votes with Democrats in the majority….

Individual schools and teachers could decide on their own whether to mark the day, although many certainly would. The text of the bill says “all public schools and educational institutions are encouraged to observe.” The bill says it would be appropriate to have “exercises remembering the life of Harvey Milk, recognizing his accomplishments, and familiarizing pupils with the contributions he made to this state.”

State Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat and the bill’s sponsor, told The San Francisco Chronicle, “It should be kept in mind that he [Milk] literally gave his life so I and others can serve in public office and that every generation of LGBT Californians can pursue their every hope, dream and aspiration.”

But Randy Thomasson, an opponent of the bill and the president of SaveCalifornia.com, said Milk’s sexual escapades make him unfit to be pushed as a role model. For weeks, Thomasson’s press releases have quoted from “The Mayor of Castro Street,” a popular biography about Milk. Milk was 48 when he died but always had a desire for teen boys and men in their early 20s, the book says. He also advocated having multiple partners, it says….

Thomasson said in a [statement:] “Reputable biographies demonstrate that Milk was a sexual predator of teens, a homosexual sex addict who advocated polygamous relationships, and a public liar who justified his deceit. Harvey Milk was and is a terrible role model for kids, including kindergarteners who would be affected by this very bad bill.”

Aug. 7, 2009

A conservative Christian leader says a Senate bill that would ban job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity “turns private sin into a public right.”

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) has introduced a new version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would add perceived and actual sexual orientation and gender identity to categories protected under federal law against discrimination [read homosexual newspaper Washington Blade account of Merkley's ENDA bill HERE]. Proponents of the legislation call it a “fully inclusive” ENDA because it contains “gender identity” in the language. Democrats have been divided over whether the legislation should protect transsexuals and cross-dressers in addition to homosexuals.

Robert Knight (left), the senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, says the Merkley ENDA bill is more dangerous than previous versions because it includes gender identity.

“It takes away the idea that sex is created by God in two different categories — male and female — and it makes it entirely a radical, self-determined persona. The larger problem of this is it turns private sin into a public right,” he contends. “It puts Christian and Jewish employers on the defensive, saying that if you don’t give in and accord civil-rights privileges based on behavior that you know is sinful, ‘We’re coming after you. We’re going to fine you. We’re going to punish you.’”

According to Knight, the bill “criminalizes God’s biblical morality in the workplace.”