One of the three panelists, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, went out of his way in a concurring opinion to dispute that either the U.S. Constitution or the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it provided “a member of the armed forces (with) a constitutionally protected right to engage in homosexual acts or to state that he or she is a homosexual while continuing to serve in the military.”

O’Scannlain also criticized the lower court judge who invalidated “don’t ask, don’t tell” last year, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips. He accused Phillips of willfully failing “to apply established law” so she could issue a ruling “that invalidated a considered congressional policy and imposed a wholly novel view of constitutional liberty on the entire United States.”

Per the usual, the Log Cabin Republicans put their pro-homosexuality activism way ahead of loyalty to the conservative Republican Party platform. (After all, for homosexual activists, it’s all about “me.”) The question now is: will the same conservative Republicans and GOP candidates who rightly pledge to repeal Obama-care also work to reinstate the homosexual military exclusion policy – or will they capitulate to the Left’s (and libertarians’) radical social agenda for the Armed Forces? If they surrender, pro-homosexual “diversity” policies will turn the Pentagon into massive “gay rights” bureaucracy that undermines religious freedom and the very conservative values that make our military strong. We shall see. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Excerpted from the Sept. 29, 2011 Associated Press article by Lisa Leff (emphasis added):

Appeals court tosses gays in military lawsuit

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court refused Thursday to decide the constitutionality of the military’s now-repealed “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning openly gay troops, saying the issue has been resolved since Americans can enlist and serve in the armed forces without regard to sexual orientation.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco tossed out a lawsuit that had challenged the military policy as a violation of gay service members’ civil rights. In doing so, the appeals court also dismissed a Southern California trial judge’s year-old ruling that the policy was unconstitutional.

The gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans filed the lawsuit in 2004 challenging the policy. The group’s lawyer, Dan Woods, said he would ask the full 9th Circuit to review the panel’s decision.

The group recently argued the lower court ruling, which also barred enforcement of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should remain in effect despite this month’s repeal because future administrations and lawmakers could reintroduce a ban on gay service.

The three judges strongly disagreed in their Thursday opinion, saying the case is moot because there is nothing left to challenge regarding the policy enacted as section 654….

The panel specifically rejected Log Cabins’ assertion that the appeals court should decide the underlying constitutional issues to prevent future limitations or outright bans on military service by gay and lesbian Americans….

Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper said he was disappointed, noting that the favorable ruling his group obtained in the lower court played a major role in persuading policy makers to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Log Cabin Republicans v. United States said more than `don’t ask, don’t tell’ should be repealed – it stood for the fundamental constitutional rights of service members not to be discriminated against by the nation they serve,” Cooper said. “This decision by the 9th Circuit denies more than 14,000 discharged gay and lesbian service members an important means of obtaining justice for the wrong perpetuated against them under the ban, and leaves open the possibility of future violations of service members’ rights.”

One of the three panelists, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, went out of his way in a concurring opinion to dispute that either the U.S. Constitution or the Supreme Court’s interpretation of it provided “a member of the armed forces (with) a constitutionally protected right to engage in homosexual acts or to state that he or she is a homosexual while continuing to serve in the military.”

O’Scannlain also criticized the lower court judge who invalidated “don’t ask, don’t tell” last year, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips. He accused Phillips of willfully failing “to apply established law” so she could issue a ruling “that invalidated a considered congressional policy and imposed a wholly novel view of constitutional liberty on the entire United States.”

The following presentation [click HERE to listen] is excerpted from a speech by Liberty University School of Law Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen was made at the Truth Academy in Columbus, Ohio, April 1-2, 2011 — sponsored jointly by Americans For Truth About Homosexuality and Mission America. We aired Prof. Lindevaldsen’s talk (edited down slightly from the original, without the ‘Q&A’ session) on the “Americans For Truth Hour” radio program May 21, 2011. Lindevaldsen discusses the escalating ”gay” activist campaign to establish homosexuality — and same-sex “marriage” – as a “civil right.” She discusses the growing threat to religious and First Amendment freedoms arising from pro-homosexual court rulings and policies. Lindevaldsen explains how President Obama is undermining the Defense of Marriage Act, and warns that religious liberty will suffer a crushing blow if homosexuals receive favored “suspect class” status in the law. NOTE: All of Prof. Lindevaldsen’t excellent presentations at AFTAH’s Truth Academies are available below:

Order Truth Academy Sets: DVDs of Chicago 2010 or CDs of Columbus 2011 – Rena Lindevaldsen has spoken at both of AFTAH’s Truth Academies.  Columbus 2011: A 13-CD AUDIO set of this year’s two-day Truth Academy in Columbus, OH – co-sponsored by Mission America — is available for just $49 postpaid.  This 13-CD set includes the full talk above by Prof. Lindevaldsen, as well as presentations by Greg Quinlan, Matt Barber, Linda Harvey, Gary Glenn, Prof. Rob Gagnon, Peter LaBarbera and WorldNetDaily’s David Kupelian. Chicago 2010: A DVD-video set of the entire three-day Truth Academy — featuring two talks by Rena Lindevaldsen — is available for $89 (including postage). Other Chicago speakers include: Robert Knight, Barber, Quinlan, Ryan Sorba, Laurie Higgins, Gagnon, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid and AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera. Double order discount: Order BOTH Truth Academy sets (the Chicago DVD-VIDEO and the Columbus CD-AUDIO) for a discount price of $129 (postage included). Send your check and specify your order to AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522; or give online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (please use PayPal if possible). Send queries to americans

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file, supported in most operating systems by Windows Media Player, Quick Time and/or I-Tunes.  Do not use Real Player.  It is not supported and there may be difficulty listening with it.  Left click once on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment or two to load.)  OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

5-21-11, Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen

Admitted homosexual Judge Vaughn Walker

By J. Matt Barber

Proposition 8 is an amendment to California’s State Constitution. It was passed by a comfortable margin via ballot initiative in 2008. Prop 8 maintained the age-old definition of marriage in the Golden State as requiring binary male-female compatibility. It remains tied-up in Federal Court today.  

Back in February of 2010 it became rumored that retired Federal Judge Vaughn Walker – who presided over the case at the District level – was a practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle. It was further reported that he had a longtime male lover. Judge Walker refused to confirm or deny the rumors. At the time I was one of the few people to publicly call for his recusal. It’s inexplicable that attorneys defending Prop 8 didn’t make such a motion.

With Judge Walker’s recent admission that he does in fact practice homosexuality, the case for recusal has been proven. His ruling on the Prop 8 case should be immediately vacated as he possessed both an incontrovertible and disqualifying conflict of interest.

Federal law is clear. The code of judicial conduct requires that a judge step down from a case if “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” or when he “has a financial … or any other interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.”

By manufacturing from thin air a Constitutional “right” to same-sex “marriage” – something the Framers of the US Constitution could not have conceptualized, much less endorsed – Judge Walker abused his position on the bench to create for himself a new privilege that he previously did not possess. It’s undeniable that he had an “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” 

Stemming from his own bizarre and contrived legal findings in the case, Judge Walker’s ruling made it possible for both he and his male sexual partner to “marry.” Prior to his ruling he could not. Subsequent to his ruling – and if the ruling is upheld – he could. This is not opinion. It’s an objective matter of fact. Judge Walker unilaterally and arbitrarily gave himself a newfangled “right.”

Furthermore, the U.S. Code, Section 455 (a) states: “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” U.S.C. Section 455 (b) (1) also states that a judge must be disqualified if he “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”

No reasonable person can deny that Judge Walker held a “personal bias” as his decision directly affected him on a very personal level.

A few proponents of so-called “gay marriage” have slapped me in the face with the following red herring: “Why, using your logic a heterosexual judge would also have to recuse himself. No judge could ever preside over a case involving same-sex ‘marriage.’”

This is apples-to-oranges nonsense. On a case concerning the novel question of radically redefining marriage to include same-sex pairs, a heterosexual judge, by definition, would not possess a personal “interest that could be affected substantially by the outcome of the proceeding.” A heterosexual judge is precisely what Federal law requires under such circumstances.    

By analogy, if a Federal Judge were presiding over a case to determine the merits of a new gambling law, and that judge happened to have a gambling addiction, law would require that he recuse himself due to a clear conflict of interest. At a minimum, “the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Or consider an instance where a judge crossed state lines to legally use medical marijuana for cancer treatment. If he were later presented with a case covering issues related to the legality of medical marijuana, he would necessarily be disqualified and also expected to recuse himself.

An honorable man – an honorable judge must step down from any case where there is even the remote appearance of a conflict. In Judge Walker’s situation, the conflict proved to be absolute.

His was the textbook example of a conflict requiring recusal. It’s now the textbook example of judicial activism. This outrageous decision must be vacated and attorneys defending Prop 8 should immediately file a motion to that effect. 

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action. Barber is also a Board Member of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality.  Facebook/jmattbarber / Twitter/@jmattbarber (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)  

Three elitist Iowa Supreme Court Justices down, four to go.

When the ACLU is whining about how “extremists” are taking over America, it is generally a sign that something good has happened in this nation. “We the People’s” repudiation of President Barack Obama’s and the Democrats’ left-wing agenda extended to a rejection of “homosexual marriage” and other extreme policies. Iowa voters tossed out three state Supreme Court justices who were part of the 7-0 decision to impose counterfeit “same-sex marriage” on the state in 2009. Good for them!

This is only the most important of many defeats for the Homosexual Lobby and its elitist liberal defenders on Election Day. We will try to alert you to some other significant pro-family victories on what was truly a pivotal day for the United States of America. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

As reported by WorldNetDaily.com, excerpted below:

Voters tell 3 Supreme Court justices: You’re fired!
Ouster follows imposition of same-sex ‘marriage’ on Iowans

——————————————————————————–
Posted: November 03, 2010
11:21 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

Iowa voters have expressed their opposition to court-mandated same-sex “marriage” in their state by firing three of the state Supreme Court justices who created the new “right.”

Now those who campaigned for voters to reject Marsha Ternus, David Baker and Michael Streit say they are hoping that the message will reverberate across the country and other judges will begin reining in their activism.

“The people have spoken. Time for the elitist judges to understand there is a constitution and that government is owned by the people,” wrote Dennis S. in a forum at the Topix.com website.

Pastor Cary Gordon of Cornerstorne World Outreach in Sioux City, [Iowa] was one of the pastors who coordinated a letter to churches asking them to speak out against homosexual “marriage.”

He told WND that the letter reminded pastors of their moral obligation to cry out against evil and address arrogance and injustice in the courts.

Hundreds of pastors responded, he said.

“There were Catholics, Methodists, Wesleyans, Baptists; the list just goes on and on. It was humbling to see all those who wanted to do [their] duty,” he said.

The message from voters that resulted, the dismissal of the three justices up for retention votes, was “colossal,” he said.

“The message is very clear,” he said. “The left just doesn’t understand their error. The worst talking point they have had throughout this is ‘voting no is an abuse of the system.’”

Members of the Iowa Supreme Court who unanimously adopted same-sex ‘marriage’ for the state

But that’s dishonest, he asserted, because the retention vote is part of the system.

“Citizens don’t have to give a reason why they vote one way or another” he said. “The problem with the judges, we have remedied this morning.”

He said the judges who change the law, and in the case in Iowa step into the role of the executive branch of government by issuing orders to counties regarding marriage licenses, are “truly elistist,” he said.

He said he understands why progressive billionaire George Soros is traveling around giving millions of dollars to campaigns to remove voters from the process of picking and keeping judges.

“Euthanasia, the violation of property rights, the most egregious and barbaric ideas have come not from ‘we the people,’ but from elitist judges,” he said.

Judge Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court who runs the Foundation for Moral Law, told WND that the Iowa justices rejected the will of the people and the law they adopted.

Their removal, he said, “is a tremendously overwhelming message to the rest of the nation, that judges can be held accountable,” he said.

“This sends a message. Maybe judges won’t be as complacent and as radically activist if they realize people will rise up,” he said….

 [Continue reading at WND.com]

Barack Obama may be setting new highs when it comes to presidential appointments of People Practicing Homosexuality (PPH) in his administration — already more than 150, according to AP – but he’s setting new lows everywhere else. Yesterday, leftie Comedy Central “anchor” Jon Stewart referred to the Commander-in-Chief as “dude” in the course of his half-hour interview with Obama. (Obama is the first president to appear on the show.) 

Read liberal Washington Post writer Dana Milbank’s slam on Obama and his appearance (“On Comedy Central, the joke was on President Obama Wednesday night”) HERE, and watch the “dude” reference in context starting at about 1:45 on Part 3 of the videos of the Daily Show interview HERE.

I agree with this comment responding to a YouTube critical of Obama’s Daily Show disaster: “Obama has diminished himself so many times enough already that even liberals don’t treat him with presidential respect.” We at AFTAH are not nearly as cool as Jon Stewart, and don’t have anything approaching his cultural sway (especially with young people), but here are some questions and comments we wish he would have delivered to the Dude-in-Chief:

• Dude, stop undermining our military by using illegal means to homosexualize it (under the existing law that only Congress can change, homosexuals are barred from serving in the Armed Forces; see www.cmrlink.org); 
• Dude, abortion is the murder of an innocent life; stop promoting it and don’t make taxpayers subsidize it;
• Dude, aren’t you trashing the Defense of Marriage Act and the Constitution by granting via Executive Order marriage-type benefits to homosexual “spouses“?;
• On the same point: dude, you really pulled the wool over America’s eyes (and Rick Warren’s…) with all that talk in the 2008 campaign about how you believe marriage should be preserved as between a man and a woman. If that were true, why didn’t you use your Bully Pulpit to criticize the homosexual activist judge who recently single-handedly overturned California’s Proposition 8 — even though this marriage-defense amendment had passed in a statewide referendum?
• Dude, homosexuality is a sin, according to the Big Guy Upstairs (the real Annointed One) who created the world, so could you stop celebrating homosexual “pride” and stop promoting “gay” identities to impressionable young people?
• Speaking of which: dude, do you get to change God’s transcendent moral code just because you’re the coolest cat who ever sat in the Oval Office (the pro-homosexuality-obsessed Jon Stewart also might ask that of himself…);
• Dude, fire Kevin Jennings. He hates Bible-believing Christians (at least those who object to his homosexual lifestyle) — and the organization he founded, GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network), promotes reckless sexual behavior and gender confusion to minors; what message are you sending by stubbornly keeping this bigoted extremist on the Obama Team?
• Dude, stop making a sham of your public profession to be a Christian by using your tremendous executive powers to distort historic Christian teachings – and promoting sexual immorality as a “right” and abortion-on-demand as a “choice”;
• Dude, before you made that YouTube video about bullied gay youth, shouldn’t you at least have looked into the massive health risks linked to gay sex? Is the proper response to bullying to promote dangerous lifestyles and identities based on unnatural and unhealthy behaviors?
• Dude, we get it: you respect Muslims, but enough with the “America is not a Christian nation” comments already;
• Dude, since you respect Muslims so much, why not learn from their strong moral disapproval of homosexuality and abortion?
• Dude, a federal bill granting “civil rights” based on homosexuality and gender confusion (ENDA, the Employmen Non-Discrimination Act) will be used to take away the rights of other citizens who disagree with homosexuality. What about their “civil rights”?; in fact, the woman you appointed to the E.E.O.C., Chai Feldblum, has essentially affirmed that the courts will grant superior rights to homosexuals at the expense of Americans’ religious liberties; “Gays win, Christians lose,” she says; is that fair in a nation founded on religious liberty?
• Dude, why don’t you expand your vision by “vetoing” Political Correctness and inviting some EX-”gays” to the White House? Wouldn’t that be consistent with your commitment to “diversity”?
• Dude, why did one of your “gay” appointees urge his fellow homosexual activists visiting the White House to lobby for coverage of transsexual “sex-change” operations under Obama-care? I feel sorry for these terribly confused people,  but should Americans be forced to pay for their grotesque, body-disfiguring operations with their hard-earned tax dollars?…. 

We could go on and on, but there is too much work to be done to spend time pondering the degree to which Obama has degraded the Office of the Presidency, and harmed the United States of America with his left-wing agenda (after running for office posturing as a moderate). There’s a big election Tuesday. Change is coming. Yes, we can, dude — er … Mr. President. Yes, we can. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

“Consistent with our long-standing policy of allowing the military to police its own requirements and standards for service, The American Legion requests you appeal this decision and seek a stay on the current injunction,” National Commander Jimmie L. Foster wrote in a letter to the White House. “No action by a single federal judge should obviate the policy of Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell before the Department of Defense completes its review.”

In meetings held in May, the organization passed a resolution urging Congress not to take any action that would alter the Department of Defense policy of DADT before it had a chance to complete the review.

“For an unelected judge with lifetime tenure to issue such a ruling while the military was in the process of surveying its troops on the impact of such a policy change is outrageous,” Foster said. “She is basically saying that she knows more than our military leadership, our Congress and our elected commander in chief.”

The Dept. of Defense has always established fitness for duty criteria and standards of conduct consistent with the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“Our military is engaged in two wars,” he added. “Military commanders have much more important issues to deal with. This is not about politics. It’s about doing what’s best for our troops and not distracting from the war effort. Our military should not be micro-managed by judicial edicts.”

We hate to rely on a story by AP (Always Politically Correct), but our friends at AFA’s OneNewsNow did so and we will as well. I have not yet read the details of this latest homosexuals-in-the-military case. But I do know this: as with the rest of society, when everyday officers and servicemembers imbibe the “new” American morality (which is at its core merely a rejection of God and true, biblically-based morality) and defend open homosexuality in the ranks, it undermines the preservation of a noble military.

That is just another way of saying that a degraded military reflects a degraded society.

When the practice of homosexuality — once widely regarded as sinful and abhorrent, deviant, and a sign of bad character — becomes a trivial matter, it is not surprising that efforts to disconnect it from punishment will gain in popularity. These efforts will be abetted by corrupt, liberal judges who yearn to make law — not interpret it — because … well, because they think they’re smarter than the rest of us, and even smarter than lawmakers. Hence the successful “gay” campaign to decriminalize anti-sodomy laws. (Cunning homosexual activists took it up a notch by making their favored perversion the basis for a new brand of “civil rights” — one that apparently even supersedes the rights of moral citizens to act based on their disagreement with this disordered lifestyle.)

America does not need a post-moral military, but it may be what we deserve. The irony is that if President Obama and his determined “queer” allies succeed in turning our Armed Forces into a driving force for immorality, it will only hasten the deterioration of our culture to the point, ultimately, where weapons and soldiers cannot save us from oblivion. If America rejects God, her prospects are dim. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

See story after the jump

_______________________________________

Judge orders lesbian reinstated to Air Force

GENE JOHNSON – Associated Press Writer – 9/24/2010 4:50:00 PM

TACOMA, Wash. — A federal judge ruled Friday that a decorated flight nurse discharged from the Air Force for being gay should be given her job back as soon as possible in the latest legal setback to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton came in a closely watched case as a tense debate has been playing out over the policy. Senate Republicans blocked an effort to lift the ban this week, but two federal judges have ruled against the policy in recent weeks.

Maj. Margaret Witt was discharged under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and sued to get her job back.

A judge in 2006 rejected Witt’s claims that the Air Force violated her rights when it fired her. An appeals court panel overruled him two years later, leaving it to Leighton to determine whether her firing met that standard.

Witt, of Spokane, joined the Air Force in 1987 and was suspended in 2004 just short of retirement after her commanders learned she was in a relationship with a civilian woman. She was a flight nurse with an aeromedical evacuation squadron responsible for transporting and caring for injured soldiers.

Her attorneys, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, insisted that Witt was well respected and liked by her colleagues, that her sexuality never caused problems in the unit, and that her firing actually hurt military goals such as morale, unit cohesion and troop readiness. Several members of the squadron testified to that effect and said they would welcome Witt back to the unit.

Lawyers for the Air Force said such evidence was irrelevant. Military personnel decisions can’t be run by unit referendum, they said.

The homosexual activist group Log Cabin Republicans is listed as Plaintiff on the 86-page decision by District Court Judge Virginia Phillips striking down the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule against self-avowed homosexuals in the military as "unconstitutional." Several prominent Republican lawmakers led by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) are slated to speech at a Log Cabin event in Washington, D.C., Sept. 22nd.

Like we always say: homosexual activists first, Republicans second. What do you do when your Democratic Commander-in-Chief is ramming the pro–homosexual agenda down the military’s and the nation’s throat? Make the Republicans more pro-perversion — yeah, that’s the ticket!

Perhaps the GOP could get a leg up on the Democrats by pushing immediately for the admission of open transsexuals (in addition to homosexuals) into the Armed Forces – with military-covered “gender reassignment surgery” (aka sex-change operations) for gender-confused transgender soldiers as a recruitment incentive. Sen. Cornyn, I’m being facetious…. Read the activist judge’s ruling HERE. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_________________________

Courtesy LifeSiteNews.com:

Federal Judge Deems Military ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Rule ‘Unconstitutional’

By Kathleen Gilbert, LifeSiteNews

RIVERSIDE, California, September 10, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A federal judge in California Thursday night ruled that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy banning homosexuals from disclosing their sexual orientation while serving in the U.S. military is unconstitutional.

The ruling, which the judge vowed to follow up with a permanent injunction against the policy in two weeks, arrived less than three months before the results of a Pentagon study evaluating the possible detrimental effects of repealing the policy is due to be presented to Congress.

In an 86-page opinion, Judge Virginia A. Phillips claimed that the defendants, listed as the United States and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have failed to prove that DADT “was necessary to significantly further the Government’s important interests in military readiness and unit cohesion.” The Log Cabin Republicans, a national homosexualist Republican group, was plaintiff in the case.

Pro-family leaders immediately condemned the ruling.

“It is hard to believe that a District Court level judge in California knows more about what impacts military readiness than the service chiefs who are all on the record saying the law on homosexuality in the military should not be changed,” said Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, a Marine veteran, in a statement late Thursday. “This is a decision for Congress that should be based upon the input of the men and women who serve and those who lead them.”

Phillips argued that the ban violates homosexuals’ First Amendment right to free speech because it disallows them from discussing their sexuality.

“Heterosexual members are free to state their sexual orientation, ‘or words to that effect,’ while gay and lesbian members of the military are not. Thus, on its face, the Act discriminates based on the content of the speech being regulated,” she wrote.

While noting that courts traditionally “apply a more deferential level of review of military restrictions on speech,” Phillips said that DADT fails to win the special protection because it “encompasses a vast range of speech, far greater than necessary to protect the Government’s substantial interests,” as it restricts off-duty socializing and other casual speech.

Phillips also argued that DADT’s restrictions “actually serve to impede military readiness and unit cohesion” by discouraging military employees from reporting anti-homosexual harassment.

The suit was first launched in 2004, but stalled due to the health problems and retirement of the first judge assigned to handle the case, the plaintiff’s attorney, Dan Woods, told the Associated Press.

Defense Department attorneys did not summon any witnesses to defend the policy, presenting only DADT’s legislative history as a defense, and arguing that the debate was a political issue that should be left to Congress. 

The House of Representatives passed a repeal of the ban in May that would go into effect if Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, confirm that the repeal is sensible in light of the Pentagon report.

Psychologist Mike Campion was vindicated when the City of Minneapolis settled with him for $211,000 rather than try to prove in court their false charge that he was an anti-gay bigot who could not professionally do his job of evaluating police and firefighter candidates -- due to his past affiliation with a Christian pro-family group.

“Former City Council Member Scott Benson, who is gay and a lawyer, sent a note to then-interim Police Chief Tim Dolan and asked, ‘How did Dr. Michael Campion, who was a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (a notoriously discriminatory anti-gay group) become the psychologist for the Minneapolis Police Dept. for screening new hires etc?’

“The same month the city suspended work with Campion and hired another firm to do screening, citing better ‘diversity and transparency’ issues at the firm.” – Minneapolis Star Tribune, “Minneapolis settles suit with fired psychologist for $210,000″

By Peter LaBarbera

The City of Minneapolis just admitted its guilt and, in effect, shameful anti-Christian bigotry by settling with psychologist contractor Michael Campion for $210,000 rather than go forward with a U.S. District Court trial that it surely would have lost on First Amendment grounds. See the Minneapolis Star-Tribune article reprinted below. 

I know Mike Campion and his wife Kathy. He is a good and decent Christian man whom compassion-challenged liberals put through the grinder merely because he supports the objective truth that homosexuals can change their lifestyle (as countless have). His firm, Campion, Barrow & Associates, is one of the most professional in its field and evidently the City of Minneaopolis could not find anyone who would testify that Mr. Campion had mistreated or discriminated against them on the basis of “sexual orientation.”

In other words, unlike the liberals who sought to destroy him, Campion is no bigot. Pathetically, some city officials even tried to smear Campion as a racist to achieve their goal. End justifies the means, right?

Note the comment by homosexual activist Scott Benson above: a “gay” politician, working with pro-homosexual city officials, gets Campion fired because he was once a board member with a “notoriously discriminatory organization,” the Illinois Family Institute (IFI).

Most of AFTAH’s readers know of IFI, where I served as executive director from 2003-2006. This fine group and its followers merely defend the historic Christian and biblical teaching that homosexuality is outside of God’s expressed will. They believe that this sinful behavior is changeable through trusting in Jesus Christ, who in His grace and love and truth offers forgiveness to all sinners. Neither Mike nor IFI “hate” or “fear” homosexuals, and such spurious accusations — now tossed recklessly at any Bible-believer who expresses disagreement with sodomy, is itself a manifestation of reactionary, anti-Christian prejudice. 

Are you seeing the folly and frightening potential of this Orwellian sexual agenda: all across America and the world, homosexual activists are smearing Christians or even working aggressively to get them FIRED (or arrested) – in the name of “fighting discrimination”! The bald-faced hypocrisy of the pro-homosexual Left is exposed — and anyone not blinded by politically correctness (which unfortunately covers many in the media) can see it.

Truth is — as lesbian activist and Obama-appointed E.E.O.C. Commissioner Chai Feldblum asserts — there is a “zero-sum game” between homosexualist ideology/”sexual orientation”-based “rights” and our First Amendment freedoms. To the committed homosexualist, it doesn’t matter if you are black, white or brown – it only matters whether or not you affirm homosexuality. And if you don’t or, God forbid, you belong to a church or organization that questions the cherished myths of the powerful “Gay” Lobby, watch out! You could be in trouble with the Sexual Thought Police. (Read Julea Ward’s story HERE; Crystal Dixon’s story HERE; and Elaine Huguenin’s story HERE.)

How dare the liberal Left lecture us about ”rights” as they take away others’ rights and promote a vicious, new form of discrimination that cynically equates God-honoring moral convictions with “hate” and punishes them accordingly.

A new civil rights movement

The encouraging news is that the seeds of a new civil rights movement are growing — made up of Americans and citizens of all creeds and colors worldwide demanding that their freedom to live by their religious and moral beliefs be respected and made inviolable. This noble freedom-of-conscience movement will rise up against any and all attempts — government and corporate – to punish people for their deeply-held moral convictions. It will stand aggressively against laws and policies that belittle and demonize traditionalist and religious views – and which demand that our morality be shoved into some personal closet or church away from the workplace and public square.

America is a freedom-loving nation. We must not let it become a freedom-crushing nation, especially in the name of a misnamed ”tolerance” that will not tolerate dissent and a (non-diverse) “diversity” that punishes and maligns adherents of moral truth. (See my expulsion and then crude demonization by the curiously-named DiversityInc magazine and its hateful publisher, Luke Visconti.) In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, we will not tolerate government-enforced tyranny, and certainly not in the name of “rights” based on sexual misbehavior or any errant secularist cause that seeks to recast our God-given liberties to affirm worldly trends.

We understand that many social liberals hate us for defending biblical and moral truth, but that hatred does not allow them to steal way our rights. So, like past patriots, we WILL fight back against the Liberal, Pro-Gay Thought Police at every turn. Because our freedom — like Mike Campion’s — is non-negotiable.

__________________________________________

Star-Tribune article on Campion’s victory:

Minneapolis settles suit with fired psychologist for $210,000

Michael Campion was fired because of concerns over his ties to an “anti-homosexual” organization

By ROCHELLE OLSON, Star Tribune

September 3, 2010

A psychologist who screened potential Minneapolis police officers will receive a $210,000 settlement from the city over his firing, which stemmed from his affiliation with the Illinois Family Institute and his support for treating the “problem” of homosexuality.

The City Council unanimously agreed Friday after a closed-door session to pay Michael Campion of Campion, Barrow & Associates of Illinois Inc. (CBA) rather than go forward with a U.S. District Court trial scheduled to start Sept. 13 before U.S. Judge Joan Ericksen.

Council Member Gary Schiff, who is gay, said, “It was clear the settlement was in the city’s best interest.”

The Family Institute has stated that it opposes the “gay lifestyle.”

If the city had lost at trial, it could have been made to pay Campion’s attorney’s fees. Schiff said the settlement amount includes legal fees.

In reaching the decision, Schiff said, the council leaned heavily on an 18-page pretrial ruling from Ericksen, in which she wrote, “The court observes, at this preliminary state, that plaintiffs’ First Amendment interests appear to be strong.”

Jim Campbell, of the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, said the settlement “reinforces that the government cannot penalize Christian contractors for their beliefs.  The court had already issued a decision finding that the City of Minneapolis removed Dr. Campion because of his constitutionally protected involvement with a Christian organization, noting that Dr. Campion’s constitutional rights were strong.”

Schiff said the council realized that Ericksen’s ruling signaled an uphill legal fight.

CBA began working for the city in 2004, about a year after a federal mediator came to town to address concerns about biased policing and low numbers of minority officers. In 2006, members of the Police Community Relations Council, which grew out of the federal mediation, raised concerns about racial bias in CBA’s work. Another firm reviewed the work and found no such evidence.

Campion met with the community council in August 2006 and concerns were raised about his affiliation with the Family Institute, founded by James Dobson, and the “anti-homosexual” nature of the organization, the judge’s order said.

Former City Council Member Scott Benson, who is gay and a lawyer, sent a note to then-interim Police Chief Tim Dolan and asked, “How did Dr. Michael Campion, who was a board member of the Illinois Family Institute (a notoriously discriminatory anti-gay group) become the psychologist for the Minneapolis Police Dept. for screening new hires etc?”

The same month the city suspended work with Campion and hired another firm to do screening, citing better “diversity and transparency” issues at the firm.

CBA sued, claiming the city violated Campion’s First Amendment rights by taking action against him because of his association with the Family Institute.

The city argued that the decision to part ways with CBA stemmed not from Campion’s speech but by “concerns about bias.”

Campion’s business, based in Champaign, Ill., has performed psychological testing for 35 years for more than 100 law enforcement agencies, including St. Paul. A portion of Campion’s testing was developed through a U.S. Department of Justice grant in which he sampled St. Paul residents on what characteristics were important in an officer.

Before receiving the psychological exam, applicants are given a conditional job offer. If they are rated unqualified, they generally are not hired.

Campion has not commented on the case. His lawyers didn’t return a phone call.

Rochelle Olson • 612-673-1747

Even (homosexual) U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker noted the inadequate defense of Proposition 8, Liberty Counsel reported.

The following press release was sent out August 4, 2010, by Christian legal defense group Liberty Counsel:

California Judge Strikes Down Prop 8 Marriage Amendment

San Francisco, CA – Today U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that Proposition 8, defining marriage as the union of one woman and one man in the California Constitution, violates the U.S. Constitution. Every court until today has rejected the argument that there is a “right” to same-sex marriage under the U.S. Constitution. In November 2008, California voters amended their state constitution by passing Prop 8, and the California Supreme Court upheld the marriage amendment.

Although Liberty Counsel has defended the marriage laws in California since the battle began in 2004, the Alliance Defense Fund, representing the Prop 8 initiative, opposed Liberty Counsel’s attempt to intervene on behalf of Campaign for California Families. The California Attorney General did not oppose Liberty Counsel’s intervention, but ADF did. Liberty Counsel sought to provide additional defense to Prop 8 because of concern that the case was not being adequately defended. After ADF actively opposed Liberty Counsel, ADF presented only two witnesses at trial, following the 15 witnesses presented by those who challenged the amendment. Even Judge Walker commented that he was concerned by the lack of evidence presented by ADF on behalf of Prop 8. Liberty Counsel will file an amicus brief at the court of appeals in defense of Prop 8.

The California Supreme Court previously stated, “The right of initiative is precious to the people and is one which the courts are zealous to preserve to the fullest tenable measure of spirit as well as letter.” Moreover, the U.S. Constitution cannot be stretched to include a right to same-sex marriage.

Except for this case, since Liberty Counsel was excluded by ADF, Liberty Counsel has represented the Campaign for California Families to defend the state’s marriage laws since 2004 and has argued at the trial, appellate and state Supreme Court levels.

Mary McAlister, Senior Litigation Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “This is a classic case of judicial activism. The Constitution is unrecognizable in this opinion. This is simply the whim of one judge. It does not reflect the Constitution, the rule of law, or the will of the people. I am confident this decision will be overturned.”

Tentative Speakers Schedule

Thursday, August 5 – Saturday, August 7, 2010

Location: Christian Liberty Academy, 502 W. Euclid Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60004;

Cost: Adults: $149 for 3-day conference; Single day rate: $50/day; Married couples discount: $199 for full conference; Youth: $99 (scholarships available to attendees ages 14-25)

Contact info/queries/RSVP: E-mail americansfortruth@gmail.com ; phone: 630-717-7631; more background information HERE.

Truth Academy Instructors:

• Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel ; Board Member, AFTAH
• Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media
• Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author, The Bible and Homosexual Practice
• Arthur Goldberg, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change
• Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute
• Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism, keynote presenter
• Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
• Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law
• Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network
• Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California

_______________________________________________________

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5 (Day One)

All presentations are 45 minutes followed by 15 minutes of Q & A.  There will be a panel discussion and Q & A on Thursday and Friday, and a special evening presentation each of those evenings.

8-9:30 – Light breakfast;  Registration

9:30 – 10:00 – Opening Prayer, Calvin Lindstrom, pastor, Church of Christian Liberty;

Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:

“From gay pride to gay tyranny”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”

11:20-12:20 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel; Board Member, AFTAH:

“Masculine Christianity: a non-defensive approach to the Culture War over homosexuality”

12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:

“The ‘born gay hoax”

2:30 – 3:30 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

“Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments”

3:40-4:40 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change:

“Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality”

4:50-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme:  “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?”

Panelists:  Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, and Greg Quinlan, Cliff Kincaid; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

Special Thursday evening presentation (Q & A will follow talk):

7:45 – 9:15 – Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network:

“An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality”

__________________________________________________________________________

FRIDAY, AUGUST 6 (Day Two)

8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast; Registration

9:00 – 10:00 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival, Accuracy in Media:

“The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms”

11:20-12:20 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

“Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda”

12 :20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality:

“The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”

2:30 – 3:30 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”

3:40-4:40 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty U. School of Law:

“The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”

5:00-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme:  “Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”

Panelists:  Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid, Robert Knight, Robert Gagnon, Gregg Quinlan; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

Special Friday evening keynote presentation (Q & A will follow talk):

7:45 – 9:15 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism:

“From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”

__________________________________________________________

SATURDAY, AUGUST 7 (Day Three)

8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast; Registration

9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“’But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: Answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”

10:10 – 11:10 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries:

“Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”

11:20-12:20 – Greg Quinlan, PFOX, Pro-Family Network:

“The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”/”How to lobby effectively”

12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media:

“Combating pro-homosexual media bias, confronting pro-gay ‘conservatives’”

2:30-3:40 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”

3:50-4:50 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:

“Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”

5:00-6:00 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH Board Member:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”

6:00-6:20 – Closing remarks, Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

The judicial confirmation process has become a spectacle almost as comical as one of Al Franken’s (D-MN) jokes. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was not grilled on whether she believes Americans have a First Amendment right to oppose homosexuality — i.e., whether their religious and moral liberties are overridden by “sexual orientation” laws.

“Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s ['sexual orientation' nondiscrimination] policy would have excluded the Catholic Church.” –CNSNews.com, reporting on Kagan’s confirmation hearing

By Peter LaBarbera

Solicitor General Elena Kagan has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 13-6 vote — after hypocritically dodging and weaving her way through the farce that now masquerades as the judicial confirmation process. Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) was the lone Republican to vote for her — despite the fact that South Carolina is conservative while Kagan is the ideological cousin of our elitist, far-left president. (Click HERE for the MassResistance report on Kagan’s pro-homosexual record at Harvard.)

Kagan’s future now rests with the Democrat-dominated Senate — where most pundits (betting on listless GOP opposition) expect her to win confirmation; the vote is expected to come in early August.

Americans now face the prospect of a radically pro-abortion and pro-homosexuality social Leftist-for-Life sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, potentially  for 30 or more years. In just 105 days, on Election Day (Nov. 2), U.S. citizens will be able to cripple Barack Obama’s power — a day anticipated by millions of citizens outraged over his arrogant and reckless presidency. In two more years, Obama could be voted out of office a la Jimmy Carter.

Not so with Kagan. Unless Republicans summon up the guts to actually block her via filibuster (don’t bet on it), she likely will soon become Justice Kagan until she retires at an old age. There, if her past is any indication, one day she will vote to create a new “fundamental right” of “same-sex marriage” out of an “evolving” Constitution –  all the while protecting that old make-believe “constitutional right,” sacrosanct to liberals, of abortion-on-demand. (See this Omaha World-Herald story on Kagan’s manipulation of  expert testimony in the Clinton administration to fight legislative attempts to ban the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion.)

And why not? The same Supreme Court that upheld anti-sodomy laws as constitutional in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 struck them down as unconstitutional just 17 years later in Lawrence v. Texas. Will the same fate befall laws and state amendments banning “same-sex marriage”? Could a Justice Kagan be in the minority in a Court decision that rejects homosexual “marriage” (in its current conservative-vs.-liberal composition) — and then be in a majority that later overturns that decision, as happened with homosexual sodomy laws?

There hasn’t been ”rule of law” in America for decades, at least as it was understood by our Founding Fathers, and they knew a thing or two. The best evidence of that — and, indeed, of the folly of the U.S. legal system –  is our national difficulty in banning what is essentially legalized infanticide (partial-birth abortion; see description of this killing procedure HERE). How appropriate that Kagan herself played a central role in that — essentially the legal preservation of infant murder. (Perhaps she will find her ideological soulmate in current Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who strayed off the “pro-choice” talking points in a racist interview comment about Roe v. Wade:  ”I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”)

Rule of Law?

Without a foundation in transcendent moral truth and biblically-based (Judeo-Christian) justice, “constitutional law” becomes whatever liberals (or libertarians) interpret it to be, according to the whims of the age and as long as they can muster a one-vote majority. Remember the Boy Scouts of America — who came within a single vote of being forced to allow homosexuals as Scoutmasters despite the Scouts’ “morally straight” oath? These are the sorts of cases Kagan could be deciding for decades — subjectively applying her liberal “empathy” standard per Obama’s mandate.

(Whenever I hear a liberal like Obama talk about “empathy,” I wonder where it disappeared to regarding the protection of  the unborn – who are slaughtered in the womb in the name of adult “choice” because it would be inconvenient for them to be born. Never allow yourself to be intimidated by liberals pontificating on ”compassion” — they generally show greater “empathy” for the lives of death-row inmates guilty of committing heinous crimes than unwanted innocent babies in the womb. On the homosexuality issue, liberals are quite willing to encourage homosexual sex, which leads to “gay” men dying young, so great is their compassion.)

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Given her long record of social radicalism — including harassing the U.S. military as Harvard dean because the latter would not allow homosexuals to serve — it’s not too difficult to predict how a Justice Kagan would behave on the Court. As Sen. Grassley states below, Kagan even wants to incorporate “international law” into America’s jurisprudence — and we know the result of ”sexual orientation” laws in countries like Britain and Canada. Both nations are becoming pro-homosexuality police states — arresting Christians for preaching publicly against sexual sin — even merely for expressing “anti-gay” ideas. Will America follow those laws? Will we honor and respect the European Union’s legal precedents? (See this European Parliament press release on “transgender” rights.)

The following is Sen. Charles Grassley’s (R-IA) statement of opposition to Kagan, followed by an article reprinted from CNSNews.com. The latter item illustrates the perils of pro-homosexuality “nondiscrimination” law. We wish Senators had demanded more answers from Elena Kagan on the “zero-sum” game between religious and First Amendment liberties and “gay rights” — because if she is confirmed she could become a leader on the court of Justices willing to impose their version of morality on Christians and others who refuse to lend legitimacy to homosexual practice.

Lastly, why is that Republicans so often fail to pull out all the stops in opposing a dangerous left-wing ideologue like Kagan. As Randy Thomasson writes HERE, the GOP could have upped the ante and refused to vote out Kagan — using a little-known provision that requires at least one minority member vote to approve a nominee out of committee after a member moves to block the vote. Maybe it would have only stalled the nomination further — but that’s what the Left would try to do were this a Republican-appointed nominee with a history of right-wing activism at a major university!

The Republican Party could do the nation a big favor by using the Kagan nomination to educate the nation on Obama’s extremist policies and goals. That way, even if she wins confirmation, they would undermine Obama’s potential to do further damage. But as is typical in these situations, the Democrats play hardball while the Republicans play wiffle ball. And unless they grow a backbone and quick, they’re about to strike out again by not doing everything possible to stop Kagan’s undeserved assent to the highest court in the land. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________________________

Sen. Grassley’s Opposition Statement on Kagan:

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement regarding his vote on Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court:

“Since the nomination hearing for Solicitor General Kagan ended, I have spent time reviewing the hearing record. Thorough consideration has led me to conclude that I cannot vote for Solicitor General Kagan to be the next Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court.

“In her hearing testimony, Solicitor General Kagan failed to answer directly many of the questions posed to her.  This was extremely disappointing, especially since she previously took the position that Supreme Court nominees should be forthcoming in their answers on substantive issues.  Because she has no previous judicial experience, candid answers were essential for us to ascertain whether she has the appropriate judicial philosophy.

“Solicitor General Kagan’s record shows that she allows her politics and personal views to steer her legal thinking and takes an outcome-based approach when analyzing cases. She also has praised jurists who endorse an activist judicial philosophy. At the hearing, she declined to fully commit to upholding the constitution when it came to the Second Amendment. She appeared reluctant to recognize any constitutional limits on federal power, and also indicated that she would use international law for ‘good ideas’ when making decisions on the bench.

“Solicitor General Kagan is an accomplished political lawyer, but my vote must be based on the nominee’s ability to be an impartial jurist who would exercise judicial restraint and strictly adhere to the Constitution. Based on the record and the nomination hearing, I am not convinced that Solicitor General Kagan will be able to shed her deeply held personal ideological beliefs, political views and experiences, and check those biases at the door of the Supreme Court. Therefore, I must vote against her nomination.”

____________________________________________

CNSNews story:

Kagan Dodges Question On Whether Catholic Recruiters Would Be Banned from Harvard
Friday, July 02, 2010
By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68904

(CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, who banned military recruiters from Harvard Law School’s career services office when she was dean of the school, declined to say whether she would have also banned the Catholic Church from recruiting on campus….
While testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, Kagan was questioned several times about her decision to ban the U.S. military from Harvard Law School’s Office of Career Services. Kagan maintained that she was merely applying the school’s non-discrimination policy and was not targeting the U.S. military recruiters.

While at Harvard, Kagan prohibited the U.S. military from using school resources because she claimed the military’s ban against open homosexuals – the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” — violated the school’s policy. The policy says that prospective employers who would recruit on campus cannot discriminate based upon sexual orientation, among other criteria.

On Wednesday,  Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Kagan whether she would have applied the same policy to the Catholic Church, if it were looking to recruit and hire lawyers on Harvard’s campus.

The Catholic Church does not allow women to become priests, Graham noted. Catholic teaching, incidentally, also says that homosexuality is a moral disorder and the practice thereof cannot be condoned.

Kagan did not deny that her application of Harvard’s policy would have excluded the Catholic Church. The exchange between Sen. Graham and Kagan occurred as follows:

Sen. Graham: “Would it [the Harvard policy] apply to the Catholic Church, if they wanted to come and recruit lawyers from the law school because they don’t have women priests?”

Kagan: “Well, the way we enforced this policy is if an employer comes, we give the employer a form, and the form basically says, ‘I comply with the following policy’ that says, ‘I will not discriminate on the basis of.’ And then it says something like race and creed and gender and sexual orientation and actually veterans’ status as well. And if the employer signs the form, the employer can get the services of the Office of Career Services. And if not, not [get them].”

The Office of Career Services is the office that coordinates between students and prospective employers, and was the office from which Kagan banned the U.S. military and its recruiters.

Amy Contrada of MassResistance has exposed the radical pro-homosexual agenda of Elena Kagan (shown above) as Dean of Harvard Law School. Kagan is President Obama's second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Here is AFTAH’s July 3, 2010 interview with Amy Contrada, Research Director for MassResistance and main author of the MR report, “How Elena Kagan Helped ‘Queer’ Harvard Law School.” Contrada — who has degrees from Tufts and Brown Universities and who once worked as an administrator at Harvard — writes for the MassResistance blog. Working with MR founder Brian Camenker (see AFTAH Camenker interviews Part One HERE and Part Two HERE), Contrada has written extensively on the “gay” activist movement in Boston and has authored an extensive report on radical transsexual rights bill under consideration in Massachusetts.  Both Amy and Brian have joined the faculty of the ongoing Americans For Truth Academy.

HOW TO LISTEN: This is an mp3 file.  Left click on the link below to play.  (Please be patient, depending upon the speed of your internet connection it may take a moment to load.) OR right click the link then “save target as” to download the whole show.

7-3-10, Amy Contrada, All

Our second Truth Academy — to be co-sponsored with our good friends at Mission America – in Columbus, Ohio, is 10 days away:  April 1-2, 2011. Each Truth Academy — the first was in Chicago (see tape ordering info below) — is an intensive seminar designed to educate citizens from a conservative perspective on the homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda. The Columbus Truth Academy – focusing on the “‘hate’-labeling of Christians” –features some of the world’s top pro-family experts on the homosexualist agenda. Basic information follows:

What: Truth Academy: Columbus 2011: theme: “The ‘Hate’ Labeling of Christians—Why it’s Happening and What We Can Do”

Co-sponsored by Mission America ( www.missionamerica.com) and Americans for Truth ( www.americansfortruth.com ).

David Kupelian, author of "The Marketing of Evil" and "How Evil Works," is keynote speaker Friday evening.

When: Friday, April 1 and Saturday, April 2, 2011; ;  doors open Friday, April 1 at noon; program begins at 1:00 PM; Friday evening dinner-lecture by award-winning journalist David Kupelian, WorldNetDaily editor and author, “The Marketing of Evil,” and “How Evil Works,” Saturday: program runs from 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM [see hourly schedule below]

Where: Columbus, OH. Discover Christian Church, 2900 Martin Rd., Dublin, OH 43017 [see map HERE]; near the intersection of Sawmill Rd. and Rt. 161, near the airport.

Cost: $75 prepaid ; $99 at the door; make payment online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate/ (using Paypal or your Visa or MasterCard); or send your check for $75/attendee (with “Truth Academy” in the memo line), made out to Americans For Truth, and send to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522

Payment – online or through the mail: Online: www.americansfortruth.com/donate/. Regular mail: check payable to “Americans for Truth” to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

Specal Pastors/Students Discount: $25 for all pastors and students (high school and college*); also, please consider sponsoring a pastor or young person to attend the Truth Academy with your donation of $75 per attendee: www.americansfortruth.com/donate/

*We reserve the right to refuse admission and/or charge any Truth Academy attendee the full admission rate ($99); disruptions of presentations will not be tolerated.

RSVP: Reserve your spot at: americansfortruth@gmail.com or info@missionamerica.com; or call: 630-717-7631 (Americans For Truth) or 614-442-7998 (Mission America)

Tentative Speakers Schedule:

“The Hate Labeling of Christians: Who’s Behind It and What We Can Do”

 

Linda Harvey

Truth Academy: Columbus, Ohio, Discovery Christian Church, 2900 Martin Rd., Dublin, Ohio [see map HERE], April 1-2, 2011; co-sponsored by Americans For Truth and Mission America:

FRIDAY, APRIL 1:

Noon – -1:00 pm —Registration

1:00 pm –1:15 pm—Opening prayer, remarks and welcome: Linda Harvey, Mission America

Peter LaBarbera

1:15 pm—2:00 pm— “Homosexual Activism: How it is Undermining Faith and Freedom in America”—Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

2:00 pm—2:45 pm— “Christian Theology and Homosexuality: Why God Has Not Changed His Mind”—Dr. Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor, New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary [Listen to AFTAH's radio interviews with Gagnon HERE.]

2:45 pm –3:00 pm—Break

Prof. Rob Gagnon

3:00 pm—3:45 pm – “Sexual Anarchy in the Military: the Implications for Christian Faith and National Security,” J. Matt Barber, Attorney, Vice President, Liberty Counsel Action [Listen to AFTAH's radio interviews with Barber HERE.]

3:45 pm—5:00 pm Panel: “Why Should Christians Care about Homosexual Activism and ‘Gay Rights’?”

Moderator: Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth

Panel Members: J. Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel

 

 

 

SATURDAY, APRIL 2:

Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen

9:30 am—9:45 am—Prayer and opening remarks—Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality

9:45 am —10:30 am — “Marriage and Family in the Crosshairs”— Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Associate Professor, Liberty University School of Law [Listen to AFTAH's radio interviews with Lindevaldsen HERE.]

10:30 am—11:15 am— “The Corruption of Youth and Schools: How Christians are Being Compromised in America,” Linda Harvey, Mission America [Listen to AFTAH's radio interviews with Harvey HERE.]

11:15—Noon— “The Reality of Leaving Homosexuality and the Attacks on the Ex-Gay Witness,” Greg Quinlan, President, PFOX ( Parents and Family of Ex-Gays and Gays) [Listen to AFTAH's radio interview with Quinlan HERE.]

Matt Barber

Noon—1:30 pm—Lunch on your own

1:30 pm—2:15 pm —“Propaganda or Journalism? The Role of the Media in Undermining Christianity”— David Kupelian, World Net Daily

2:15 pm—3:00 – “Current Controversies in the Campaign to ‘Christian-ize’ Homosexuality,” Prof. Rob Gagnon, www.robgagnon.net

3:00-4:00 pm –Panel: “How to Be Overcomers in a Today’s America” and Q & A

Moderator: J. Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel

Panel: Peter LaBarbera, Americans for Truth

Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty Counsel

Greg Quinlan, PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays)

Dr. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Please tell your network of friends about this exciting and informative event!  RSVPs and e-mail inquiries to americansfortruth@gmai.com or info@missionamerica.com. Phone: AFTAH (630-717-7631) or Mission America (614-442-7998)

---

TAPE ORDERING INFO FOR DEBUT “TRUTH ACADEMY: Chicago 2010″ (held outside Chicago, August 5-7, 2010)

Three-day teaching seminar answering “gay” misinformation was one of most comprehensive pro-family teach-ins  on the Homosexual Agenda ever held

Click HERE for a PRINTABLE DVD/CD ORDER FORM (For Faxing and Mailing)

______________________________________

Conference DVD/CD Order Form – Truth Academy: Chicago 2010

Two ordering options: full set (DVD/video or CD/audio) OR individual speaker sets (DVD/video or CD/audio). Attendee discounts available only to those who attended Truth Academy: Chicago 2010.

By Fax: Fill and print out order form and fax to AFTAH at 630-839-0799;

By Regular Mail: send check with completed form to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522;

Order online: go HERE and order with a standard credit card (Visa or MasterCard) or via PayPal. For PayPay orders, send a separate e-mail indicating your payment and what you ordered to americansfortruth@gmail.com.

_______________________________________

Truth Academy: Chicago 2010 – Conference DVD/CD Order Form

FULL SET: Check to order [get easier-to-print ORDER FORM here]

_____ Full DVD set (all speakers including Q&As and panel discussion): $179 [all prices include shipping and handling]

_____ **Special Truth Academy attendee DVD discount rate** (full DVD set): $149

_____ Full CD set (audio only): $119

_____ **Special Truth Academy attendee CD discount** (full CD set): $99

TOTAL: $___________

_____________________________________________________________

INDIVIDUAL SPEAKER sets:

Individual speakers ($25 per speaker set DVD/ $20 per CD set; each set includes ALL talks by speaker; Laurie Higgins’ presentations available only on CD). Select speaker presentations:

INDICATE: ___ DVD (video)     OR        ___ CD (audio)

___  Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel (one talk with Q&A and Thursday panel discussion)

___  Prof. Rob Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (3 talks w/ Q&A)

___  Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing); (2 talks w/ Q&A)

___  Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute (2 talks w/ Q&A) [audio only available for Laurie Higgins]

___  Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media (3 talks w/ Q&A)

___  Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries (2 talks)

___  Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth (Welcoming remarks and Saturday talk)

___  Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University Law School (3 talks w/ Q&A)

___  Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (2 talks w/ Q&A)

___  Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California (2 talks w/ Q&A)

____ TOTAL # sets order: indicate: ___ DVD (video)      or     ___ CD (audio only)

TOTAL # of Speaker Sets: ____ @ $25 per set DVD= $_______  OR @ $20 per set CD

TOTAL=  $___________

Customer Information:

__________________________________________________________________

Full Name

___________________________________________________________________

Address

________________________________                  ______________            ________________

City                                                                              State                                   Zip Code

Credit Card information (M/C or Visa only):

Card #: ________________________________________________  Exp. Date _____/__________

Security code (3-digit # on back of card): __________

Send completed form and payment to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522;

Fax to AFTAH: 630-839-0799; inquiries: americansfortruth@gmail.com ; ph: 630-717-7631.

___________________________________________________________________

Truth Academy: Chicago 2010 Instructors:

Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries

Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California

Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media

Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University Law School

Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel

Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute

Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays

Prof. Rob Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; see www.RobGagnon.net

Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality)

For more information about ordering Truth Academy DVDs or audio CDs, – or to inquire about holding a Truth Academy in your area – send an e-mail to americansfortruth@gmail.com. Or call AFTAH at 630-717-7631.

_____________________________________________________________

AFTAH Truth Academy: Chicago 2010

Full Speakers Schedule:

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5 (Day One)

All presentations are 45 minutes followed by 15 minutes of Q & A.  There will be a panel discussion and Q & A on Thursday and Friday, and a special evening presentation each of those evenings.

8-9:30 – Light breakfast pastries;  Registration

9:30 – 9:35 – Opening Prayer, Calvin Lindstrom, Pastor, Church of Christian Liberty; Christian Liberty Academy

9:35 – 10:00 – Welcoming Remarks, Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality:

“From gay pride to gay tyranny”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“History of modern ‘gay’ activism and the courts”

11:20-12:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media:

“No criticism of homosexuality allowed: combating pro-homosexual media bias”

12:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:

“The ‘born gay hoax”

2:30 – 3:30 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

“Using reason and logic in answering pro-homosexuality arguments”

3:40-4:40 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering Healthy Alternatives to Homosexuality), author, Light in the Closet: Torah, Homosexuality, and the Power to Change:

“Can gays change? Is gay parenting good for kids? Presenting the research on homosexuality”

4:50-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme:  “Can the effort to ‘mainstream’ homosexuality in American culture be stopped?”

Panelists:  Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, and Greg Quinlan, Cliff Kincaid; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

Special Thursday evening presentation (Q & A will follow talk):

7:45 – 9:15 – Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX); Pro-Family Network:

“An Ex-Gay Christian Discusses Love, Truth and Homosexuality”

__________________________________________________________________________

FRIDAY, AUGUST 6 (Day Two)

8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast pastries; Registration

9:00 – 10:00 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival, Accuracy in Media:

“The battle over blood: ‘gay’ health risks and public policy”

10:10 – 11:10 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University School of Law:

“The zero-sum game: homosexuality-based ‘rights’ vs. religious and First Amendment freedoms”

11:20-12:20 – Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute:

“Corrupting children, politicizing schools: the homosexual youth agenda”

12 :20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Arthur Goldberg, JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality:

“The gender confusion agenda: ‘transgender rights’”

2:30 – 3:30 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“From abomination to ‘gay’: answering ‘queer theology’ — Old Testament”

3:40-4:40 – Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty U. School of Law:

“The legal strategy to stop homosexual ‘marriage’: triumphs and pitfalls”

5:00-6:00 – PANEL DISCUSSION and Q & A:

Theme:  “Returning the debate to behavior – getting off the ‘GLBT’ playing field”

Panelists:  Rena Lindevaldsen, Matt Barber, Laurie Higgins, Ryan Sorba, Arthur Goldberg, Cliff Kincaid, Robert Knight, Robert Gagnon, Gregg Quinlan; Moderator: Peter LaBarbera

Special Friday evening keynote presentation (Q & A will follow talk):

7:35 – 7:45 – Special introduction by Sandy Rios, FOX News contributor and Chicago radio talk show host

7:45 – 9:15 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries; author, Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism:

“From destroying DOMA to homosexualizing the military: Obama’s radical homosexual/transsexual agenda for America”

__________________________________________________________

SATURDAY, AUGUST 7 (Day Three)

8:00-9:00 – Light breakfast pastries; Registration

9:00 – 10:00 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“’But Jesus never said anything about homosexuality’”: Answering ‘Queer Theology’ — New Testament”

10:10 – 11:10 – Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries:

“Destructive legacy: Alfred Kinsey and the (Homo)Sexual Revolution”

11:20-12:20 – Greg Quinlan, PFOX, Pro-Family Network:

“The big, pink plan for a lavender culture”

:20-1:20 – Lunch Break; light lunch provided

1:20-2:20 – Cliff Kincaid, America’s Survival; Accuracy in Media:

“Can you be in support homosexual activism and be conservative’? Confronting the pro-’gay’ Right”

2:30-3:40 – Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary:

“Agreeing with God: a truly biblical approach toward ‘out and proud’ homosexuality”

3:50-4:50 – Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California:

“Confronting the zeitgeist: new strategies to turn around younger Americans on ‘gay rights’”

5:00-6:00 – Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel, AFTAH Board Member:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed: stopping Obama’s campaign to homosexualize the U.S. military”

6:00-6:20 – Closing remarks, Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth

__________________________________________________________________________

Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen will teach at the AFTAH Academy on the inherent battle in the law between "gay rights" and Americans' precious religious and First Amendment liberties.

Dear Readers,

We’re delighted to announce the debut of our ongoing “Americans For Truth Academy,” designed to train Americans young and old how to answer “gay” activist misinformation and fight the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda. We hope and pray that ‘Truth Academy: Chicago 2010′ will be the first of many Truth Academies held across the United States, and maybe outside the USA some day.

This debut Academy will be one of the most important pro-family conferences on homosexuality ever held in the United States.  Please consider sponsoring a student/young person (ages 14-25) to attend for $99 or attending yourself (or encouraging your pastor to attend). RSVP to: americansfortruth@gmail.com. Rarely will you get a chance to learn from such brilliant teachers on the homosexual issue all in one rigorous seminar.

To reserve a spot, go online to www.americansfortruth.com/donate (designate AFTAH Academy); to sponsor a young person ($99/student), specify “Youth Scholarship” on the online form. Or mail your check to: AFTAH, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Please RSVP to americansfortruth@gmail.com.

UPDATED ADULT PRICING POLICY: Adults, full 3-day conference: $149, or $50/day; youth ages 14-25: $99 (scholarships available); married couples discount: $199.  Pay online by designating “Truth Academy” however you choose to pay (Paypal or Credit Card) at www.AmericansForTruth.com/donate. Or send your check to: Americans For Truth, P.O. Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.

This August 5-7, AFTAH will bring together some of the country’s leading pro-family experts on homosexuality to teach both young and old how to answer the lies and myths that so readily emanate from the “GLBT” (“gay”) camp. I am very excited about this new project’s potential to reverse years of pro-”gay” brainwashing in the schools and popular culture — corrupting the hearts and minds of  our young people.

Let’s face it: much of the conservative establishment has dropped the ball on fighting the homosexual agenda (or given up entirely), so AFTAH is stepping up to train a new generations of activists to contend with the sexual sin movement that has fooled so many Americans into treating a human wrong — changeable same-sex behavior — as a “civil right.” Please help us make this future-oriented event possible with your tax-deductible donation to Americans For Truth at www.americansfortruth.com/donate. God bless you. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________________________

Free Book Offer Selections for Sponsoring AFTAH Academy Student:

• “Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far,” by the late Dr. Charles Socarides, who fought the American Psychiatric Association’s gay-pressure-induced “normalization” of homosexuality in the early 1970s [hardcover: 312 pp]; or
• “Out from Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parenting,” by Dawn Stefanowicz. This harrowing yet beautifully written story about Dawn’s troubled upbringing with her promiscuous “gay” dad is required reading for anyone who is tempted to embrace “gay parenting.” (Dawn has agreed to be an instructor at future AFTAH Academy seminars.) [Softcover: 245 pp.]

To order these books without donating to the AFTAH Academy, send $20 postage paid per book (specify which book you’d like to order) or $35 postage paid for both books. Order online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate, or send your check or money order to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522.  Complete this online form to apply.

Mission America and Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (www.aftah.org)

9:00 am –9:30 am—Registration—Coffee/donuts in Global Cafe

“And in DC, Kirk wasn’t all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay.”

*          *          *

“In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way [against the repeal of the ban on homosexuals-in-the-military], the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk.” – Homosexual “outing” activist Michael Rogers, “Truth or Consequences”

Homosexual blogger Mike Rogers "outed" Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois; pictured above) as a homosexual after Kirk voted against the repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military. Rogers says that Kirk once told him he was "gay."

By Peter LaBarbera

The following is a post by homosexual “outing” activist Michael Rogers, reprinted from his “Blogactive” website. (It was picked by the left-wing Huffington Post.) Note Rogers’ pro-”gay” standard for political “outing” (publicizing a person’s alleged homosexuality): as long as the presumably homosexual legislator helps the “gay” activist movement, he is left alone. But when he — like Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) — votes the “wrong” way on a high-profile piece of legislation important to the Homosexual Lobby,well, as Rogers puts it, “the gig is up.” (Note below that Kirk has very high pro-gay scorecard ratings for a Republican, as measured by the nation’s leading homosexual organization.)

In this case, Kirk voted AGAINST the repeal of the military’s ban on homosexuals, thus igniting a new round of online homosexual wrath that could affect his bid to win the U.S. Senate seat once held by Barack Obama. (In the GOP Illinois Senate primary, long-shot candidate Andy Martin ran radio ads statewide targeting Kirk for his alleged homosexuality.)

I have written before about Rogers, who has taken “outing” activism to a new level. Note how Rogers and his followers take credit for the pro-ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) vote switch by “conservative” Republican Rep. David Dreier (CA). (Dreier’s alleged homosexuality was reported by the liberal alternative press–i.e., beyond just the gay press; two Dreier staffers separately hung up on this writer inquiring about his sexual preference, as one reportedly did to this L.A. Weekly reporter coming at the issue from an opposite perspective.)

Folks, this is serious business: if secretly homosexual politicians are subject to pro-”gay”-agenda voting pressure by the likes of Rogers, their constituents (and the wider public) certainly have a right to know — just as they have the right to know if a “pro-family” legislator is mocking those values through the act of adultery. This is why Americans For Truth refuses to play the “outing game” by “gay”/liberal activist rules, which are mainly designed to embarrass hypocritical, conservative Republicans.

Here is the liberal rationale for outing as provided by L.A. Weekly writer Doug Ireland (emphasis his):

I have always taken the view that outing a gay person should be approached with caution, and that in doing so one should strictly adhere to the Barney Frank Rule. As articulated by the openly gay Massachusetts congressman during another anti-gay GOP witch-hunt over a decade ago, when Frank threatened to out a number of gay-baiting Republican fellow congressmen, the rule insists that outing is only acceptable when a person uses their power or notoriety to hurt gay people.

This homosexuality-affirming rationale enjoys increasing though not yet widespread respect in the “mainstream” media, which often shills for the GLBT agenda. To the contrary, AFTAH supports exposing (“outing”) covert homosexuals who either:

1. are using their position of power to advance the pro-homosexuality agenda –  a mission more effectively accomplished by stealth because it masks the obvious conflict-of-interest that being open about their homosexuality would present (CNN reporter Anderson Cooper, who is reported to be homosexual by OUT magazine and other “gay” media, would fall into this category); or
2. threaten to undermine pro-family public policy goals through being targeted by the brand of “queer extortion” employed by Rogers (e.g., case of Rep. David Dreier); or
3. are “living a lie” by practicing behavior that flouts either the traditional values of their own constituents or the pro-family platform that the politician publicly espouses. (Note the similarity of this criterion to exposing heterosexual philandering pols who are publicly pro-family.)

When — as in years preceding the Mark Foley scandal — talk of the VIP’s reported homosexuality becomes so widespread that it demands clarification, AFTAH and this writer ask politicians, potential judges and VIP media members the “Homosexual Question.” Deeply-held private biases affect public policy, so the voting public has a right to know those biases, especially when they are the target of hard-ball pressure politics. Of course, Michael Rogers — who queried this writer on the same question — comes at it from the opposite perspective. The following is reprinted from Rogers’ “Blogactive” website:

Truth or Consequences

Blogactive, by Michael Rogers, June 1, 2010

If you’ve been around long enough, you’ll remember the original television game show Truth or Consequences. (For those around longer, it was preceded by a radio show of the same name and format.) It was rather simple, answer a question correctly or “suffer” the consequences. In this case, consequence meant the performance of “usually a zany and embarrassing stunt.” I use the term “suffer” lightly, as most contestants tried to give the wrong answer just so they could perform the assigned punishment activity.

The same game exists in politics. In DC, the format is a bit different. Instead of a handful of players each week, this version has 535 contestants: 435 in the House, the remainder in the Senate. And, sometimes, you have to wonder if these guys are purposefully getting the answer wrong just so they get to perform the stunt. In this case the punishment is unwanted and is usually an appearance before a camera, humiliation of his wife, and blaming the whole damned thing on the environment in DC while invoking god. Wouldn’t it have been simple enough To Tell the Truth? (Oh, wait, that’s a different game show.)

In many cases, players decide not to play the Capitol’s version of the game, and that’s just fine. If someone doesn’t get up and get the first part wrong, they never face part 2.

Sometimes it’s not so simple.

Why report on Mark Kirk (R-IL)? Why now?

Until now, Mark Kirk elected not to play the typical Washington game. Instead of supporting his party’s dismal record on gay rights, Kirk received Human Rights Campaign ratings of 67% in 2002, 88% in 2004, 76% in 2006 and 85% in 2008. That’s more impressive than a lot of Democrats. I even let Kirk slide by when he didn’t co-sponsor earlier legislation relating to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. My thoughts then were that he wasn’t THAT bad on gay stuff and that the bill was going nowhere anyway.

Times have changed. Now, for the first time in his congressional career, Mark Kirk really had the chance to stand up and do what is right with the power of a vote. When I heard that five GOPers voted to lift the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ban I instinctively thought Kirk would be one of them. What a disappointment when he wasn’t. The five were: Judy Biggert (R-IL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Ron Paul (R-TX), Joseph Cao (R-LA), and Charles Djou, (R-HI).

“Where was Mark Kirk?” I wondered. I left a messages at both the campaign and DC offices of the Representative who wants to be Senator. No one responded. Shocker.

In an effort to move the base in the Illinois Senate race, Kirk decided to tack right and that means throwing the gays (like him) under the bus. And once he voted that way, the phone began to ring. Not one or two, or three but 5 separate individuals contacted me about the now divorced Mr. Kirk. (Mr. and Mrs. Kirk were married from 2001 to 2009, the marriage produced no children.)

Within hours of the DADT repeal vote I was contacted by two people who knew Kirk from his college days.

“In law school in DC everyone knew Mark was gay,” the first source told me. I explained that the information was intriguing, it would not be enough to go on. He continued, “But I had sex with him a number of times.” Well, now we’re onto something I thought. “Could someone verify for me that you knew Kirk and went to school with him?” I asked. “Yes” was the swift reply. “Could you recall personal details about Kirk that others may not know?” “Yes,” he said.

And he did.

The next source claimed to have gone to undergraduate school with Kirk. I asked for proof that he and Kirk were in school together and once that was shared with me, I met with the source. The source introduced me to a man who had also been friends with Kirk in college. They both shared with me their interactions with Kirk, including one sexual in nature. The source who claimed to have sex with Kirk described personal details about the House, um, er, “member.” The description was the same as the first source.

And in DC, Kirk wasn’t all THAT closeted. You see Mark Kirk told me he was gay. Before I had BlogActive, I had a life in Washington. As a fundraiser I raised major gifts from $5,000 to over $1,000,000… You don’t do that kind of work at a keyboard, you do it at events attended by people with money. The movers and shakers and their friends.

It was early 2004 when I was at a social gathering on Capitol Hill. I’m guessing there were 35-40 people present, including the guy who brought me as his guest. While the party was no means a “gay” party, I’d guess that of the men at least 75% were overtly gay. The others present were either straight men or their women friends.

It was at that party that I met Mark Kirk. I was introduced to him by the person I came with and at the time did not realize he was a member of the House. As my friend walked away, Kirk asked me if the man who introduced us was “single or attached.” When I said that he had a partner, Kirk replied disappointingly, “oh, well.” At the end of that interaction I walked away and didn’t think much of it at the time.

Then Kirk became a hypocrite. Kirk voted against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, despite his being a closeted gay man in the military. As a Commander in the Navy Reserves Kirk has voted to keep a policy that if he were investigated under he would be tossed.

Recently we learned that it’s not just his being a closeted gay man that Kirk lies about; he has a habit of making up awards supposedly given to him by the Navy.

Nice try, Mark. The gig is up.

__________________________________

Related articles:

“NBC: The guy trying to out Mark Kirk also outed Mark Foley, Larry Craig” (Republican News Watch)

“Gay community pushes Mark Kirk out of the closet” (Republican News Watch)

“Mark Kirk outed by filmmaker Mike Rogers — just as we told you this would happen. Waiting for response from Fran Eaton and Illinois Review.” (HillBuzz blog)

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

Here’s another terrific piece by our friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber. We should note that (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan’s reported zealousness for the homosexual activist cause does not depend on her being a lesbian. In fact, these days some of the most vocal pro-homosexual activists are “straight” (e.g., actress Judith Light). Ideological bias is the most important factor in evaluating Kagan’s suitability for the nation’s highest court, but clearly a newly seated, suddenly “out of the closet” Justice Kagan–or even a Justice Kagan whose lesbianism is slowly revealed over a period of years–could have extraordinary sway in a “same-sex marriage” case or other homosexuality-related questions before the Court.

For that matter, an officially “closeted” Justice Kagan whose homosexuality nevertheless becomes an open secret on the Supreme Court (wink, wink) could also win sympathy among fellow justices and thus skew decisions in favor of “gay” activism. So Ms. Kagan herself, and not her surrogates, needs to speak directly to this issue. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

[See AFTAH news release: "If Elena Kagan Is a Lesbian, She Should Say So because Public Has a Right to Know."]

_________________________________________

Kagan a Lesbian? Why It Matters

Posted: May 20, 2010 by WorldNetDaily

By J. Matt Barber

I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it’s one of their own––when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny––its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.

Media, here’s your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality––or a lack thereof––a pertinent factor in contemplating one’s fitness for any public service––chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors rightly filed under “sexual immorality.” Indeed, the majority of folks around the world––billions, actually––count this a timeless truth.

But the controversial nature of homosexuality is but one point of concern. Another involves potential conflicts of interest, “real or perceived.” If we had a judicial nominee – widely believed a compulsive gambler––tapped to preside over gambling cases, would it not matter? If we had a nominee credibly rumored to use medical marijuana who might someday rule on the legality of medical marijuana, wouldn’t such information be germane?

And before you liberals throw out that favorite red herring: “By this logic, Clarence Thomas shouldn’t rule on cases involving race or sexuality because he’s a black heterosexual male”––remember: skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being black is what someone is.

On the other hand, being “gay” is what someone does. It involves feelings and changeable behaviors. Homosexual conduct is more akin to the aforementioned gambling or pot smoking behaviors than it is to skin color (and for those in the lifestyle, especially men, sodomy most definitely involves rolling the dice). To compare “black” or “heterosexual” to “gay” is to compare apples to oranges. Understandably, many African Americans find this disingenuous comparison tremendously offensive.

Moreover, “heterosexual” is the state of sexual normalcy. It’s our God-given design. There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary. Homosexual conduct is but one of many sexually deviant behaviors. Even Darwin’s theory of evolution, which imagines “survival of the fittest,” would seem to bolster this self-evident truth. You can choose political correctness. I choose moral and biological correctness.

Still, Kagan’s “sexual orientation” remains the pink elephant in the room: Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some––including that very justice––while, at the same time, eliminating certain free-speech and religious-liberties rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell,” etc.)

In April, CBS News published an online column identifying Kagan––should she be confirmed––as the “first openly gay justice.” The White House pounced, demanded CBS remove the article and called the assertion “false charges.” CBS dutifully complied, tail twixt legs, whimpered away and curled up behind the rest of Obama’s slobbering media lapdogs.

Whereas every liberal hack on the planet tripped over one another to demand Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and, most recently, George Rekers divulge the most intimate details of their own bizarre (allegedly) sexual appetites, with Kagan, they’ve suddenly lost interest.

Although the mainstream media refuse to do their job, some in the homosexual-activist press are stepping up to fill the vacuum.

Homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, for instance, writing in The Atlantic, opined: “In a free society in the 21st century, it is not illegitimate to ask [whether Kagan is gay]. And it’s cowardly not to tell.”

But Kagan ain’t tellin’, and the media ain’t askin’. Of course, even if they were inclined to ask, they’d have a difficult time doing so. The White House has Kagan wrapped-up tighter than Barney Frank in a bustier.

The question is important for context. The answer, for instance, might explain why Kagan drop-kicked our brave men and women of the armed services in the solar plexus, during a time of war, by banning military recruiters from Harvard while dean of the law school. She did so in protest of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, calling it “a profound wrong” and “a moral injustice of the first order.”

As it turned out, Kagan’s actions were illegal, and the very Supreme Court upon which she hopes to serve slapped her down with its 8-0 decision upholding the Solomon Amendment, which would have allowed the Department of Defense to withhold federal funding to Harvard if it failed to reverse its discriminatory policy.

Ed Whelan, head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said of Kagan’s activism: “At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists.”

Newt Gingrich took his criticism a step further. While addressing the controversy, he bluntly said of Kagan’s nomination: “That is an act so unbecoming of an American that she should be disqualified from the very beginning.”

I agree.

Indeed, whether or not Elena Kagan self-identifies as a lesbian, she has proven herself a radical anti-military, pro-homosexual ideologue and activist. There’s little doubt that she would take this activism with her to the high court.

So, Ms. Solicitor General, if in fact you are “totally not gay,” as some of your friends and your president claim, then it’s my hope that a few Republican U.S. senators might take the time to introduce you to a nice fellow by the name of Phil A. Buster. Believe me, it’s a match made in heaven.

________________________

Matt Barber (jmattbarber@comcast.net) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.) This article first appeared in WorldNetDaily.

Homosexual "outing" activist Mike Rogers takes credit for Rep. David Dreier's and Rep. Jim McCrery's pro-homosexual voting switch on ENDA in 2007.

“Gay” “outing” activist Mike Rogers (right) attempts to expose the secret homosexuality of politicians who vote against the homosexual activist agenda. Below he responds to my call for potential Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist to answer the question of whether they practice (or have practiced) homosexual behavior.

Rogers’ questions, though perverse, are fair, I suppose, since AFTAH is demanding transparency and honesty from others in the public arena who will influence public policy on the homosexual issue. But once again I disappoint our many homosexual critics because I do not have — and never had — a homosexual problem.

Shocking claim: As you can read HERE on my political site, Rogers takes credit for Rep. Dreier  (and Rep. Jim  McCrery, R-La.) switching in 2007 to support ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would federalize employment “rights” based on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. If his report is even close to the truth, then it constitutes further evidence of the dangers of hidden homosexuality in the Republican Party.

We’ll see if the GOP leadership — which still can’t say no to homosexual activist “Republicans” — has learned anything from the Mark Foley scandal. (Dreier’s staff hung up on two calls by this writer inquiring about the Congressman’s sexual preference.)

My response follows Rogers’ very “queer” query after the jump. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

________________________________

From: Mike Rogers <[--------]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:01:29 -0500
To: <americansfortruth@comcast.net>
Subject: [AFT Web Site] Peter

The following message was sent from the Americans for Truth Web site:

——————————————————————————–
Quoting my work in a press release [RFFV release HERE]…how exciting! I guess one could ask the same of you, right? Have you ever had a sexual and/or physical interaction with another man at any time? (By \’sexual and/or physical interaction\’ I mean kissing, sharing a bed with physical contact, oral/anal sex, mutual masturbation and/or masturbation in another man\’s presence.)
–
Michael Rogers
Page One News Media

—————————————–

LaBarbera responds:

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:24 PM, <americansfortruth@comcast.net> wrote:

Nope to all the above. Sorry to disappoint you, Mike. — pl
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

—————————————-

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

____________________________________

Solicitor General Elena Kagan

CHICAGO, Ill. — In the wake of AP’s report that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is President Obama’s choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reiterates its call for Kagan to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?’

According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian — to which AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responds:

“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.

“Kagan has a strong pro-homosexual record, including, as Harvard dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off the campus because the military bars homosexuals. Americans certainly have a right to know if her activism is driven by deeply personal motivations that could undermine her fairness as a judge.”

“Besides, in an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it’s ridiculous that Americans should be left guessing as to whether a Supreme Court nominee has a special, personal interest in homosexuality.

“Given the important homosexual-related issues coming before the Supreme Court , Kagan should say so if she has a personal interest in lesbianism. Similarly, any legislator — especially one representing a conservative district — should come clean on the homosexuality question particularly if it is an ‘open secret’ like Rep. Mark Foley’s homosexuality (years before the congressional page scandal) or becomes the subject of wide speculation.

“We appeal to Kagan and all potential “hiding-in-the-closet” public officials to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual or do you consider yourself homosexual (gay)?’ Homosexuals’ privacy interests simply do not outweigh the public’s right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their judges and lawmakers.”

Elena Kagan

Folks, in an era of ubiquitous pro-”gay” messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it is ridiculous that citizens and constituents should be left guessing as to whether a judicial nominee or politician has a special interest in homosexuality. Speculation is rife over whether potential Supreme Court nominee and Solicitor General Elena Kagan is a practicing lesbian. Kagan has a radical pro-homosexual record, including, during her tenure as Harvard law school dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off campus because the military bans open homosexuals.

Given the important issues dealing with homosexuality and opposition to it that could come before the court, Kagan should answer the question of whether she has a special, personal interest in lesbianism. In the same way, any politician — especially those representing more conservative areas — should come clean on the homosexuality question, especially if it is an “open secret” or becomes the subject of wide discussion. Just as a “conservative” politician’s constituents have a right to know whether he is secretly a skirt-chaser, they have a right to know if he is practicing immoral homosexual behavior.

Our appeal to Ms. Kagan and all hiding-in-the-closet pols: answer the question — “Are you a practicing homosexual or do you consider yourself homosexual (gay)? — and move on. Homosexuals’ privacy interests do not outweigh the public’s right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their representatives and judges. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

American Family Association’s “One News Now” reports:

————————————————

What the people don’t know could hurt them

By Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow – 4/28/2010

The president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) addresses whether a candidate for public office, including the Supreme Court, should declare their sexual preference or leanings.

LaBarbera has raised the question because of hints in the press that some of the possible picks for a Supreme Court vacancy are either homosexual or heavily favor special rights for homosexuals.

“I think it’s time that the public be informed if a politician or a high court nominee has a special interest in homosexuality — that is, they are practicing homosexuality or maybe they once practiced homosexuality,” the AFTAH president contends. “I think the public has a right to know.”

He explains that this information is important because the judges’ decisions will impact all of society, not just one segment of it.

“They will affect Christians and people of faith who oppose homosexuality,” he notes, pointing out that “we came within one vote on the Supreme Court of the Boy Scouts losing their freedom not to hire openly homosexual and atheist Scout masters.”

But LaBarbera adds that homosexuals are not the only ones who promote their causes, as many heterosexual liberals are equally as pro-homosexual in their politics as activists. The AFTAH president fears Americans’ freedoms are at stake, so he feels the public should be provided the knowledge.