By Peter LaBarbera

OK, now it’s official. In three presidential debates to help us decide which man – John McCain or Barack Obama – will lead this nation, the critical issue of homosexual “marriage” didn’t even come up.

Add to that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal “hate crimes” bill and Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), homosexuality in the military, how “gay rights” laws threaten religious and other freedoms, and homosexual adoption of children.

On each of these issues, Obama and McCain strongly disagree, but we never (or barely) got to hear them explain their positions on the same stage – in contrast to Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church debate where at least “gay marriage” was discussed. The only time that homosexuality was raised in the four official debates, including the vice-presidential debate, was when moderator Gwen Ifill asked a poorly constructed question about same-sex benefits and then “gay marriage” to Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden.

The issue of judicial appointments did come up but certainly has received far less attention than it deserves since judges are setting now policy in this country.

Do you feel as gypped as I do by the combination of media bias, campaign jingoism and political correctness that resulted in one of the most important issues facing our nation — whether marriage should be radically redefined to accommodate “rights” based on homosexual behavior – not even being mentioned in the official debates?

There are millions of voters representing both sides of this issue who would have loved to hear Sens. Obama and McCain go head-to-head on “same-sex marriage,” DOMA, etc. — just as we were relieved last night to finally hear the candidates debate a clear question about abortion and Roe vs. Wade from moderator Bob Schieffer (of CBS’ Face the Nation).

Too often reporters cynically treat abortion and homosexuality as mere “wedge issues” manipulated by politicians, thus echoing a central canard of the Libertine Left (and liberal Republicans). There may be some of that going on, but the social issues – like all issues – only have the potential to become game-breakers because so many Americans care about them.

But to many jaded members of the Fourth Estate, the Culture Wars are like a sport, disconnected from truth (what’s that?) and the driving idealism of pro-life, pro-family advocates. Many reporters can barely hide their contempt for the “religious right” (as they disparagingly call us) and don’t view homosexuality as much of an issue anymore. The media increasingly regard even “same-sex marriage” as a matter of declining importance except for its lingering political potential — per the talking heads’ insistence ad nauseam that homosexual “marriage” will not be a decisive issue in this election. (We’ll see if they are right on November 5th.)

Journalists are notoriously secular and ignorant about religion, so many don’t even try to understand the deep motivations of those who oppose homosexual practice as immoral or who fight for pro-life laws to help save innocent unborn babies. Instead, we are told that such  “wedge issues” are raised in a campaign mainly as a vehicle to help the Republican Party – ignoring the growing dissatisfaction of many pro-family advocates with the GOP’s weak advocacy on these issues.

I’ve talked to many reporters over the years who repeat the shibboleth that Culture War issues like abortion and homosexuality are trivial when compared to those that “really matter” – you know, the economy, the environment, health care, etc. But such value judgments are beyond the media’s “pay grade,” to quote Obama. In a fairer journalistic world we would not be subjected to reporters’ condescension and elitism merely because we defend traditional morality and the dictates of our faith in the public square — especially in the crucible of an election.

All we in the pro-family movement ask of reporters, editors and producers is impartiality and equal time with the Social Left to explain our cause. But apparently that is asking too much of the media, who look to dubious professional groups like the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for guidance on how to cover homosexual issues.

Then there is the radical activist group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination) – which has even greater media clout – and which regularly equates Judeo-Christian, pro-family opposition to homosexual practice with “hate” and “prejudice.” GLAAD pressures news outfits not to cover homosexuality’s many downsides (e.g., gay bathhouses and homosexual health risks), and tries to silence and discredit the voices of ex-“gay” men and women who left homosexuality behind.

GLAAD’s intimidation strategy works: Have you noticed how even most conservative opinion-makers like FOX’s Sean Hannity have avoided or downplayed the “same-sex marriage” issue and other aspects of the homosexual agenda this year, even though marriage amendments are on the ballots in three states — California, Florida and Arizona — and homosexual organizations are ramping up their lobbying on Capitol Hill to end the military’s homosexuality ban?

Why are conservatives cooperating with the Left and the media in taking homosexual-agenda issues off the table?

Lemming candidates?
But what about the candidates’ role in neglecting moral issues?  Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain issued statements on the recent Connecticut Supreme Court decision imposing same-sex “marriage” on that state – even though the candidates have very different positions on DOMA and whether government should sanction homosexual relationships. Why the silence? Each has his own reason, which we at AFTAH cannot discuss until the day after the election.

Ronald Reagan was different. He talked above the media and excelled at getting out his conservative, pro-family message directly to the American public even though he was derided by smug reporters as a “B actor” with a penchant for dangerous rhetoric (that Evil Empire stuff). A media-approved candidate never could have defeated Communism; Reagan did – but not by sucking up to the boys on the bus! And he succeeded back in the ‘80s when the Big Three news networks still ruled the airwaves. Now, 20 years post-Gipper, a candidate who takes bold, principled stands can still get his message out by clearly and passionately articulating his beliefs — and using the power of the burgeoning New Media to get around the biased press.

But being namby-pamby or disingenuous on issues of profound moral truth will get you nowhere fast.

The sad reality is that in our dumbed-down, secularized society, homosexuality has become the “third rail” of American politics. Being against homosexuality today is much more political incorrect than being pro-life. Just look at America’s young people, who are more pro-life and yet more pro-“gay” at the same time. The remedy is for each of us to “man up” by committing to defend moral absolutes in the culture — to heck with charges of “intolerance”! (At this point I must point out that many pro-family women like Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness have put men to shame in their willingness to stand up for morality in the culture – shame on us men.)

Perhaps some of the blame we routinely assign to the liberal media for ignoring social issues like life and marriage is more appropriately directed at gutless politicians who lack the conviction and fortitude to defend moral truth given by our Creator — in a culture that increasingly dismisses both.

Peter LaBarbera is founder and president of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (www.aftah.org). He can be reached at americansfortruth@comcast.net.

CLICK ON PHOTO TO ENLARGE. Chicago’s CBS TV affiliate fields a float every year at the city’s bawdy homosexual “pride” parade, but CBS and other major Chicago secular media were no-shows at AFTAH’s pro-family coalition press conference yesterday highlighting a huge and growing pro-family boycott of McDonald’ s (based outside Chicago). McDonald’s was given a high 85% rating by a homosexual lobby group for its pro-homosexuality and pro-transsexuality policies. Photo courtesy Illinois Family Institute.

Dave Diersen, an Illinois Republican activist, has provided a summary of the coverage of our press conference in front of McDonald’s’ world headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois. Predictably, I suppose, we were completely blacked out by Chicago’s and Illinois’ major media — which had no excuse since they were inundated with press releases about the event by four pro-family organizations taking part: Americans For Truth, American Family Association, Illinois Family Institute and Liberty Counsel. It appears that the Fox News item below came from AP.

So once again the major media are doing the work of the homosexual lobby. Many in the media have decided that the “gay” issue is settled, and the homosexual activists have won. (Remember when Big Media thought the abortion issue was pretty much over?) Yesterday’s non-coverage was appalling journalism, even by corrupt Chicago standards. Clearly, the boycott story is compelling — even from a pure business perspective: already, nearly 200,000 people have signed AFA’s boycott petition (www.boycottmcdonalds.com).

The people involved in this boycott of McDonald’s are good family people — not vegans, America-hating leftists, or some other fringe group. And the idea really seems to be catching on. As I said yesterday, millions and millions of Americans have had it with the elite media’s and pop culture’s promotion of homosexuality, but they don’t know what to do about it. Boycotting McDonald’s, an easy target but admittedly not the worst corporate offender — PepsiCo Foundation recently gave $500,000 to the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign Foundation, compared to McDonald’s $20,000 to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce — is something simple to do to stand up for marriage and the natural family.

More coming on this story. — Peter LaBarbera

P.S. Most major Chicago media either field floats or participate in the annual Chicago “Gay Pride” parade, and the local ABC affiliate televises it (see photo above). Now there’s some “news” with wide appeal in Chicagoland!

______________________________

Dave Diersen writes:

[Note for those outside Illinois: the "combine" derogatorily refers to Chicagoland Democrat and Republican politicians and interests that work together (corruptly) to advance their own political and monetary interests irrespective of party and principle.]

News clips and upcoming event information:
GOPUSA ILLINOIS
VERY SAD BUT NOT SURPRISING: The Combine gets its news media members to keep the McDonald’s boycott off their websites – Dave Diersen
www.gopillinois.com
The American Family Association and other groups have called for a boycott of McDonald’s because it promotes homosexual activity. It is very sad, but not surprising, that the Combine got its news media members to keep the boycott off their websites. The boycott was announced at an outstanding 10:00 AM press conference yesterday at the McDonald’s restaurant across from McDonald’s world headquarters in Oak Brook. Because the Illinois Democrat Party Platform promotes homosexual activity and the Illinois Republican Party Platform discourages homosexual activity, the boycott is a political story. I was hoping to see Mary Ann Ahern, David Beery, Mike Flannery, Rick Preason, Andy Shaw, and other political reporters at the press conference, but I did not. Speakers at the outstanding press conference included Matt Barber, Peter LaBarbera, Sandy Rios, and David E. Smith. Sadly, McDonald’s is a member of the Combine. Hopefully, Illinois Republican Party (IRP) Chairman Andy McKenna Jr. will get his father, Andy McKenna Sr., the President of McDonald’s, to get McDonald’s to stop promoting homosexual activity. Also, hopefully, he will get his father to cancel McDonald’s membership in the Combine. IRP Chairman Andy McKenna Jr. was scheduled to meet with DuPage County Republican Central Committee (DCRCC) leaders in Wheaton this evening. Hopefully, all this will be discussed during that meeting and summarized in a DCRCC press release.

FOX NEWS CHANNEL
– Christian Group Boycotts McDonald’s for Supporting Gay Chamber of Commerce
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,383561,00.html
(THE ARTICLE: OAK BROOK, Ill. – A Christian group that opposes same-sex marriage launched a boycott of McDonald’s because of the fast-food chain’s support for the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. American Family Association president Tim Wildmon says almost 200,000 people have signed an online pledge to boycott McDonald’s for promoting homosexuality instead of remaining neutral. McDonald’s spokesman Bill Whitman says the company has made a financial contribution to the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and a McDonald’s executive serves on the chamber’s board. He insists that doesn’t mean that McDonald’s supports “a particular lifestyle or same-sex marriage.”)

LIFE SITE NEWS
– Family Advocates Take McDonald’s Boycott to Home of the Golden Arches After “Hate” Smear – Peter Smith
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071602.html
(FROM THE ARTICLE: OAK BROOK, Illinois, July 16, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The boycott against McDonald’s over its public support of a gay lobby group pushing same-sex “marriage” has now escalated, as the pro-family groups the global hamburger giant accused recently of “hate” have brought the fight right to the home of the famed Golden Arches. The American Family Association (AFA), Americans for Truth, the Illinois Family Institute, and the legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel held a joint press conference Wednesday in front of the McDonald’s restaurant across from McDonald’s corporate headquarters in Oak Brook, Illinois to protest the corporation’s statements that people opposed to its support of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC), were motivated by “hate.” . . . The AFA boycott petition may be found here: http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/ Contact info for McDonald’s: Andrew J. McKenna, President, McDonald’s Corporation USA, McDonald’s Plaza, Oak Brook, IL 60523 Phone: 1-800-244-6227 or: 630-623-3000 Fax: 630-623-5004)

DAKOTA VOICE
– Protest at McDonald’s HQ Over Promotion of Homosexual Agenda – Alexander Sheffrin
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/07/protest-at-mcdonalds-hq-over-promotion.html
(FROM THE ARTICLE: McDonald’s, however, has been unapologetic about its pro-gay stance, asserting that organizers of the boycott are motivated by a hateful agenda against homosexuals. “Hatred has no place in our culture,” McDonald’s USA spokesman Bill Whitman told The Washington Post. “That includes McDonald’s, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment,” he explained. But the AFA is arguing that its boycott is about the record of McDonald’s and its duty to be a responsible and neutral corporation. “This boycott is not about hiring homosexuals, or homosexuals eating at McDonald’s, or how homosexual employees are treated,” the AFA said. “It is about McDonald’s, as a corporation, choosing to put the full weight of their corporation behind promoting the homosexual agenda, including homosexual marriage,” the group explained. In an e-mail to boycott supporters, Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth, which organized a press conference outside McDonald’s headquarters Wednesday, said that the accusations of “hate” and prejudice from McDonald’s were a reflection of the food chain’s own deeply embedded anti-Christian views. “When we’ve reached the point where belief in the Bible and traditional morality is routinely equated with hatred, America has become hostile territory for people of faith,” he said. “Sadly, ‘diversity’ is becoming a corporate code-word for anti-Christian bigotry – forcing people of faith to imbibe politically correct ideologies that violate their beliefs,” he added. According to a press release, boycott organizers “are encouraging families to do two things: sign, print and distribute a Boycott McDonald’s petition at www.boycottmcdonalds.com; and call the local McDonald’s to politely tell the manager they are boycotting the chain until it stops promoting the gay agenda.”)

WICHITA EAGLE
– Not ‘lovin’ it’: McDonald’s supports gay group – Brent Castillo
http://www.kansas.com/opinion/castillo/story/465759.html
(FROM THE ARTICLE: Bigot. Homophobe. Hater. These are the terms that many gay activists and their supporters use to label you if you oppose gay marriage, or believe homosexuality is immoral. What is surprising is to see the spokesman for McDonald’s USA, Bill Whitman, incorporate some of the same rhetoric when justifying the company’s support and involvement in the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The chamber lobbies Congress on a wide range of issues, including the promotion of same-sex marriage. “Hatred has no place in our culture,” Whitman said in an interview with the Washington Post. “That includes McDonald’s, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment.” The “hatred” he is referring to is the American Family Association’s call for a boycott of the restaurant chain.)

PAM’S HOUSEHOLD BLEND
– DIERSEN HEADLINE: VERY SAD: “tfeminist” a) denigrates Christians as being “religious wingnuts” and “kooks” and b) defends McDonald’s promotion of homosexual activity
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showComment.do?commentId=69952
(THE POSTING: My view on McDonalds – McDonalds is a corporation based in eastern DuPage county. As much as DuPage gets a wrap for being conservative, lets be clear, the wing nut section is in Wheaton, eastern DuPage is some pockets of liberalism and corporate conservatism. The eastern part of DuPage draws employees from Cook and Chicago. It is really just a gigantic corporate office park, especially Oak Brook. McDonalds, secondly exists in Illinois and is a stones throw from “gay friendly” Chicago (I still love the fact that Mayor Daily turned down the Republican Convention saying he was to busy with the gay games). They have to play to Dem Politics to keep State Tax incentives. Illinois is not going to turn red any time soon, the state has become indigo, as younger blue collar folks, and their white collar brethren are starting to share a common political vision for the state. Dem Politics in Illinois, has become pro-queer as a result. Some of it has to do with the increasing progressive nature of the state, and some is pure economics. They want the state to be a “creative class” one that rivals California. They have done a pretty good job of it so far. The state is without question getting an increasing amount of corporate relocations, sees major Hollywood movies regularly (both Batman and Wanted were filmed there). McDonalds, wants to be part of this effort, they have strong ties with the interests of the state and the City of Chicago. McDonalds, a long time sponsor of the Olympics, also wants to see the games in their back yard. So to say they have increasing ties to the democratic party in the state would be an understatement. They may as well be a million miles from these religious wingnuts, they exist in another political reality and honestly are not influenced by these kooks. Their reality that is more about tax incentives, the Olympic games in Chicago and recruiting, than right wing boycotts, really don’t have much of an impact. Either way, I am encouraged that McDonalds is ignoring the boycott. When it gets down to it the company has always been one that success is tied to urban areas and urban politics more than anything. I am not saying McDonalds is great, rather . . . that they are a corporation that exists in Illinois and influenced by the politics of the state. A corporation that exists in a pragmatic reality unaffected by right wing politics, and more centered on their own corporate interests.)

Click HERE to listen online to the CWA broadcast, and HERE to download it. Click here for AFTAH’s original story on the case: “Illinois Teen Faces Three Years Jail Sentence for Potentially Fraudulent ‘Hate Crime.’”

In the interview, Knight calls Champaign TV station WCIA-3’s initial story on the incident — in which reporter Amanda Evans interviewed only one side of the dispute — a “classic case” of media bias. More from Knight:

The message here is that there’s a special class of victim. If a homosexual is involved in this equation at all, the media and the legal system are supposed to presumably come to the aid of the homosexual every time. And it’s that selective victimization that you’re talking about, Matt, that’s so frightening.

Brett VanAsdlen

TAKE ACTION: 1) Urge Champaign County, Illinois State’s Attorney Julia Rietz (phone: 217-384-3733) to drop the government’s one-sided felony “hate crimes” prosecution against 18-year-old student-athlete Brett VanAsdlen — based on the inconsistent and likely exaggerated claims of Steven Velasquez, a homosexual University of Illinois (U of I) student who may have initiated physical contact with VanAsdlen. Already, Brett is being smeared as violent “gay-basher” by Velasquez and pro-homosexual activists in the media. Pray for Brett and his family.

2) Call or write WCIA-3 TV, the local CBS affiliate, and urge them to be fair in their coverage of this unfortunate story. Call (217) 373-3650 and ask for Producer Nancy Foreman. WCIA reporter Amanda Evans has led the TV coverage of the story, but her reporting appears to heavily favor Velasquez. It is wrong to smear the reputation of young man by airing all the accusations against him without presenting the other side of the story.

_____________________________

By Peter LaBarbera

CHAMPAIGN-URBANA, Illinois — Two young men — one homosexual, one heterosexual — tell very different stories about an argument that occurred late on a Friday night (April 11) in this college town, but only one — the straight student-athlete — faces a felony “hate crime” conviction with a maximum penalty of up to three years in prison.

Brett VanAsdlen faces a Class 4 felony hate crime after originally being charged with aggravated battery following an incident in which he pushed 20-year-old homosexual University of Illinois student Steven Velasquez to the ground. The critical question is: why did he push Velasquez and who was aggressor? VanAsdlen’s family says it was Velasquez who — after Brett made a comment about Velasquez and his homosexual partner — first “got in Brett’s face,” to which Brett responded by pushing Velasquez away. Velasquez claims that Brett attacked him unprovoked because of his homosexuality.

You can read and watch WCIA-TV’s initial, one-sided account of the incident featuring an interview with Velasquez HERE — which set the tone for those seeking to portray VanAsdlen as a violent hate criminal.

Obviously, it is difficult ascertain the facts about this case because we lack direct access to the principals. AFTAH has not been able to acquire a police report of the incident, but we have learned the aggravated battery charge has been dropped. Velasquez is getting his version of events out in the sympathetic media, and it is being trumpeted as a vicious “hate crime” by various homosexual and leftist websites including Daily Kos, but Brett’s side of the story is not getting out. We did speak with Brett’s mother, as did pro-family advocate Ted Pike, who first alerted the nation to the story. Here is an excerpt from Pike’s original account, based on his phone conversation with Rona Lee VanAsdlen (emphasis added):

The police department of Champaign, Illinois is reported to be under pressure from higher authorities to increase its quota of hate crimes convictions. Brett VanAsdlen, an 18 year-old Christian college student on a baseball scholarship, didn’t know this. On April 12 he and a friend saw two homosexuals leaning on each other and holding hands, walking toward them on the sidewalk. “Look at those two guys holding hands,” Brett said to his friend and walked past them. According to Brett’s mother, the next thing he knew, one of the homosexuals (whom he perceived to be drunk) had grabbed him by the shoulder, putting his face up to Brett’s and repeatedly shouting, “What did you say?” Brett told him to go away several times and then pushed him. The homosexual fell over backwards. On his back, the homosexual told his partner to call the police. In eight minutes, four officers arrived. Two interviewed Brett and his friend and assured them there would be no problem. Brett had been physically accosted and detained, clearly an assault. The other two officers interviewed the homosexual, who was taken to the hospital.

Note that we cannot vouch for the accuracy of this account, which of course is coming from a source (Brett’s mother) very sympathetic to the young man now charged with a “hate crime.” It is conceivable to this writer that young VanAsdlen might have made an untoward or derogatory comment about the homosexual couple, sparking the confrontation. But there is no law against speech critical of homosexuality (yet) and if it is true that Velasquez grabbed Brett, then perhaps he was the real (i.e., physical) aggressor.

Brett’s mother, Rona Lee, confirmed the account above to Americans For Truth, although she did not say what exactly Brett said to the homosexual couple. She did say that Brett did not initiate physical contact with Velasquez but that the homosexual “grabbed” Brett first — and then badgered him about the comment he had made. She said Velasquez was yelling at Brett and “in his face” and that Brett told him twice to get away from him before pushing him away. She and others familiar with the encounter said that Velasquez never lost consciousness.

Rona Lee described her son as a “happy, good natured” kid who “never dreamed that something like this could happen to him.” She said he did not take the arrest as seriously as he should have — especially after police told him it would be no big deal — and that Brett may even have neglected to state in the official police report that Velasquez was the first to make contact — a critical point in the story.

The VanAsdlen family is Christian and attends the nondenominational Minooka Bible Church, in Minooka, Illinois. Rona Lee says her son Brett, her oldest child (he has two brothers and a sister), is a “people person” — a conservative Christian but “not straight-laced” — who is “so naive it’s scary. … he had no idea what was in store for him.”

Rona Lee said she was very thankful that one of Brett’s teammates, Kevin Crane, was with him when the incident occurred, and can serve as a witness to what truly happened that night. She said neither she nor her husband have seen a police report of the incident.

Athletic Director says Brett is no hater

Brett transferred from Purdue University to Parkland College, a junior college in Champaign, after receiving a baseball scholarship and assurances that he would get more playing time than if he had remained at Purdue. After the alleged “hate crime” April 12, Brett was suspended from the baseball team pending the outcome of his court case.

Parkland College Athletic Director Rod Lovett told AFTAH that VanAsdlen’s removal from the team was handled as an “internal matter” for violating the college’s athletic code of conduct. He said Brett will have a right to appeal to be returned to the team following the resolution of the court case, and hoped it will be resolved by this summer so that Brett can train with the team in August. Lovett was skeptical of the trumped-up “hate crime” aspect of the case and said he hopes for a speedy resolution of the matter.

Lovett said he is aware of “both sides of the story” and sympathetic to Brett’s plight. “He didn’t set out to have conflict” that evening, he said. Asked if while on the Parkland baseball team, Brett ever exhibited irrational hatred of the type associated with “hate crimes,” he said no, and that he saw no “ongoing issue” in Brett’s life of “brewing” animosity toward any particular group.

“He’s a typical 18- or 19-year-old kid,” Lovett said, granting that young men that age can an do act immaturely. Lovett said he “wasn’t particularly thrilled” by WCIA’s coverage of the incident, including one story in which an activist accused VanAsdlen of a “brutal attack” against Valasquez.

“Regardless of what it was, it was never a brutal attack,” he said, adding that WCIA is the only TV station in Champaign giving major attention to the story.

I attended yesterday’s brief preliminary hearing, where Brett VanAsdlen — a strapping, clean-cut, All-American looking young man — and his family members learned that his next court appearance (another preliminary hearing) will be July 1, when Brett turns 19. Afterward, Amanda Evans, the WCIA reporter, interviewed Brett VanAsdlen’s attorney, Steve Beckett, who said that this case is about “two kids who ran into each other on the streets,” and that the facts are disputed.

He said, he said

So this is a case of “he said, he said” — but the special treatment of it thus far illustrates why conservatives and traditionalists oppose “hate crimes” laws as fundamentally unfair and open to abuse:

• Brett VanAsdlen’s name and reputation are being sullied by the media and “gay” and leftist blogs without regard to any objective record of the incident;
• With all the late-night altercations that happen in a college town, why does a young man face a felony conviction because of this one? (If convicted, Brett would be banned from voting for life and his record would be stained permanently; his mother noted that it would hinder his ability to be hired as a teacher or coach, one of his goals);
• If it is true that the aggravated battery charge against VanAsdlen was dropped, why are prosecutors continuing to pursue the felony hate-crimes charge against the young man?
• Are Champaign police are under pressure to make “hate crimes” arrests?
• If it is true that the alleged homosexual victim, Stephen Velasquez, is distorting what happened the night of April 12 to further an agenda — there have been many examples of fake “hate crimes” reported across the country — it is fascinating how much mileage he has gotten from it, all at the expense of Brett VanAsdlen. When you are at the top of a politically correct hierarchy of victims, much injustice can occur whether there is a trial or not to sort it all out.

Selective prosecution

The true danger of hate-crimes laws is selective prosecution and unequal protection under the law. If a homosexual were to push an obnoxious Christian onto the ground, or things got out of control after a verbal spat, would he be facing a felony hate-crime conviction and possible jail time in Champaign, Illinois right now? I think most readers know that answer to that question, and it speaks volumes.

In 1996, pro-family activist and Pilgrims Covenant Church pastor Ralph Ovadal, then with Wisconsin Christians United, was punched in the left ear from behind by a pro-homosexual activist while protesting a pro-homosexual event in Madison, Wisconsin. Ovadal was knocked unconscious and taken to the hospital with serious injuries from the blind-side assault. Although police first charged the attacker with “substantial batter,” Dane Country prosecutors did not even secure a misdemeanor conviction against Ovadal’s assailant.

According to Ovadal’s website, “The day before the trial of Pastor Ovadal’s assailant, the D.A. calls to inform Ovadal that there will be no trial because his attacker’s charges are being dropped from substantial battery to an ordinance violation because he ‘does not want to have a criminal record.’ Pastor Ovadal continues to suffer neck and leg pain from the brutal attack which is fully documented with police reports.”

Clearly, Ralph Ovadal’s case was not treated as a “hate crime” because he was the wrong type of victim. If it were the other way around and Ovadal had beaten a homosexual activist, Ralph would probably still be in jail today.

Now, here in Illinois, we see a case in which a boy has words with a homosexual, who then apparently became so agitated that he got in Brett’s face until the boy pushed him away. (We do not know; they may have shared guilt in causing the conflict.) Now this young man, Brett VanAsdlen, faces a felony conviction and jail time — not to mention that his good name is being destroyed by “gay” activists and the sympathetic media and that he will miss the baseball season after transferring to the team to make the most of his talents.

And Mrs. VanAsdlen worries that legal costs to defend her son may rise to $20,000 or $30,000. AFTAH will be following this case closely. Meanwhile, please pray and take action:

TAKE ACTION: 1) Urge Champaign County, Illinois State’s Attorney Julia Rietz (phone: (217) 384-3733) to drop the government’s one-sided felony “hate crimes” prosecution against 18-year-old student-athlete Brett VanAsdlen — based on the inconsistent and likely exaggerated claims of Stephen Velasquez, a homosexual University of Illinois (U of I) student who may have initiated physical contact with VanAsdlen. Already, Brett is being smeared as violent “gay-basher” by Valasquez and pro-homosexual activists in the media. Pray for Brett and his family.

2) Call or write WCIA-3 TV, the local CBS affiliate, and urge them to be fair in their coverage of this unfortunate story. Call (217) 373-3650 and ask for Producer Nancy Foreman. WCIA reporter Amanda Evans has led the TV coverage of the story, but her reporting appears to heavily favor Velasquez. It is wrong to smear the reputation of young man by airing all the accusations against him without presenting the other side of the story.

CBS’s Lesley Stahl: “I’m surprised at how many people really, really hate you. These are some things we’ve been told: ‘He’s evil;’ ‘He’s a Neanderthal;’ ‘He’s going to drag us back to 1789.’ They’re threatened by what you represent and what you believe in.”

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “These are people that don’t understand what my interpretive philosophy is. I’m not saying no progress. I’m saying we should progress democratically.”…

Stahl: “But his critics argue that originalism is a cover for what they see as Justice Scalia’s real intention: to turn back some pivotal court decisions of the ’60s and ’70s. He’s been labeled a ‘counterrevolutionary.’”

– CBS’s 60 Minutes, April 27, 2008, as reported by Media Research Center’s “Notables Quotables,” May 5, 2008.

Posted: 09/21/2007, Human Events Online

Most liberal media outlets reacted in similar fashion to Tuesday’s major Maryland Court of Appeals ruling, which upholds the state’s law defining marriage as one man-one woman. They presented it through the lavender lens of homosexual activism. 

CBS News’ Web site ran this headline: Maryland Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Calling the law a “gay marriage ban” is as misleading as describing it as a “ban on polygamous marriage,” or a “ban on incestuous marriage” or perhaps a “ban on interspecies marriage.” For the record, the Court in Conaway vs. Deane notes that neither the 1973 law nor the legislative debate at the time address “sexual orientation” nor any “gay” issue. All the law does is reiterate the fundamental nature of marriage for legal purposes. 

To liberal journalists, however, a law merely acknowledging the timeless definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is unacceptable.  Such a law must be depicted only as a negative, as a ban rather than an affirmation.

The CBS article itself was straightforward at the top, but devolved into passages like this:

Many of the plaintiffs have children, and they argue that their families are being denied the stability and legal protection that comes from having married parents.

Lisa Kebreau, 39, and her partner, Mikki Mozelle, 31, who live in Riverdale, have three children – ages 17, 2 and 20 months.

“We really wanted them to understand how normal and good their family is – that their family is just like any other family,” Kebreau said.

CBS quoted no pro-marriage spokesman in response who might have argued that kids deserve to have both a mother and a father. The story also did not explain the court’s key finding that “sexual orientation” is not a civil rights class such as sex, race and ethnicity.

The Baltimore Sun ran this headline: Court Upholds Md. Gay Marriage Ban

The story, a cardinal example of advocacy journalism, was devoted to homosexual activists and liberal jurists complaining about the ruling or vowing to create “gay marriage” by other means. Not a single pro-marriage spokesperson was quoted.

The Washington Post’s article gave a more balanced account, but spent most of its ink criticizing the decision and discussing how to circumvent it. The opening sentence reflects the Post’s bias, describing Maryland’s marriage law as “the state’s ban on gay marriage” and “the controversial law.”

In fact, the marriage law is not controversial, at least outside homosexual activist and liberal media circles. All 50 states have laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman (even Massachusetts, which still has no business issuing same-sex marriage licenses without a change in the law).

What is controversial is Baltimore Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock’s nutso January ruling striking the law down. Murdock wrote that the law violates a state constitutional provision guaranteeing equal rights. By her reasoning, any specific definition of a relationship or status could violate the rights of somebody who does not qualify.  Perhaps we should all be considered “doctors,” not just those folks who graduated from medical school.

Click HERE to read the entire article in Human Events Online

The following is Allyson Smith’s first installment on the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) conference in San Diego — which she attended representing Americans For Truth. Note the casual mixing of homosexual media with “mainstream” media – all sharing and strategizing around a pro-gay perspective — and the complete lack of opposing voices present at the NLGJA panels. (Allyson tells me that at one panel on “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell,” the moderator said that opponents of homosexuals in the military were invited to speak but declined to attend.)

All this begs the question of whether homosexual reporters working in establishment media can truly be objective — i.e., fair and balanced –  especially when they are assigned to cover homosexual-related issues. Also, note that for ease of reading, we have not put quote marks around the word “gay” as we would normally do. – Peter LaBarbera

By Allyson Smith

Gay Activists & Journalists Mingle and Strategize Together at National Gay Journalists Conference: Day 1 at the NLGJA

On Thursday, August 30, I attended the first of three days of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association convention, held at the Westin Horton Plaza Hotel in downtown San Diego. Although I have been to many homosexual conferences and events since the dawn of the millennium, at times using my real name and at other times an assumed name, this would be my first time to attend such a convention as a totally “out” Christian conservative reporter under the auspices of an organization many homosexual activists hate: Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), headed by longtime pro-family activist Peter LaBarbera.

“What will all these homosexuals do,” I wondered, “once they find out someone from Americans For Truth is here? Will they kick me out? Will they try to embarrass me? Will they call me names? Will they just ignore me?”

Having “prayed up” before arriving at the NLGJA convention, I felt that deep peace which passes all understanding as I opened the Westin’s door. After checking in at the registration desk – so far, so good – I headed to the first session, titled The Right Approach: Covering LGBT Conservatives.

Wayne Besen ’Outs’ Me
Entering the conference room, I encountered session moderator Wayne Besen. Besen is the executive director of Truth Wins Out, described on its website as “a non-profit think tank and educational organization that counters right-wing disinformation campaigns, debunks the ex-gay myth, and provides accurate information about the lives of GLBT people.” Besen is also author of the books Anything But Straight: Debunking the Scandals and Lies behind the Ex-Gay Myth and, most recently, Bashing Back: Wayne Besen on GLBT People, Politics and Culture.

[Editor's Note: for more on Wayne Besen, see AFTAH's posts: Wayne Besen Has Been Taking his Hate Pill again; ‘Gay’ Militant Seeks to ‘Shut Down’ Americans For Truth and Files False Complaint to Illinois AG; CWA Interviews LaBarbera Regarding Deceptive Wayne Besen Complaint.]

It wasn’t the first time I’d encountered Besen that day. Earlier in the morning, while I was still at home getting ready to go to the convention, his name had appeared in my inbox as the result of his copying me on an e-mail discussion he was having with pro-family advocate Guy Adams of ValuesUSA, over the cause of Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s recent bathroom bust. According to Besen, such episodes occur because “fundamentalists” “drive people deep into the closet (or ex-gay ministries, a fancy closet).” Adams and other conservatives, on the other hand, had attempted to point out that homosexual behavior is actually the cause.

Thus, this e-mail conversation was fresh on my mind as I met Besen in the conference room doorway. He glanced at my name badge, noting that I was with AFTAH. I shook his hand, introduced myself, and told him that Peter LaBarbera had sent me. Using the epithet he coined and by which a few of the more nasty homosexuals activists refer to Mr. LaBarbera, Besen in turn told me to say hello to “Porno Pete.” (Ironically, the conference would later feature a session about how to cover stories involving name-calling against homosexuals.)

“Now, just wait,” I thought, “he’ll announce me to the whole room.”

Besen opened the session by introducing the other three “LGBT conservative” panelists:  Dan Blatt, a Los Angeles-based writer who blogs on the GayPatriot.net website and founded the Log Cabin Republican Club of Northern Virginia; Scott Olin Schmidt of West Hollywood, an elected member of the 42nd District Republican Central Committee who also serves on the executive committee of the Los Angeles County Republican Party; and James Vaughn, director of Log Cabin Republicans of California, who said it’s his job to tell Republicans why they’re wrong.

That Larry Craig was on many conference-goers’ minds was evident when Besen fired off his first question to the panelists, asking them for their take on the scandal.

Blatt responded that there had been “terrible saturation” coverage by the media and that Craig had exercised “terrible judgment.” Schmidt said, “This isn’t a gay issue; this is an issue of people who pursue anonymous sex.” Vaughn asserted that Craig’s behavior “shows how dangerous the closet is.” Most of the scandals, he said, came from people living in the closet, not those who live as open homosexuals.

About 20 minutes into the discussion, Besen announced, “We have a friend of ours here, Allyson, from Americans For Truth Against [sic] Homosexuality.”

Waving my hand, I said light-heartedly, “I’m from the right wing. I’m the opposition researcher.” Many people in the room laughed. “I’m friendly; I don’t bite,” I assured them, and the discussion continued.

GOP Drifting ‘Gay’-ward?
Besen asked what it’s like for a gay Republican to walk into a party convention. “Is it better or worse than when you walk into a gay bar?” Here he was joking about his expose a few years back exposing that John Paulk – then an ex-gay spokesman with Focus on the Family – had visited a homosexual bar while on a business trip to D.C.)

The gay Republican, Vaughn, drew laughter as he answered, “Absolutely. It is much easier . . . to walk into a Republican convention and say you’re gay than it is to walk into a gay bar and say you’re a Republican.” Vaughn said he’d been having a lot of meetings recently with elected officials — and that most of them or their staffers said, “We’re with you,” and that homosexuality is not an issue for them.

Vaughn said that conservative groups like Lou Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition can’t hold a meeting that would fill a small conference room these days, when in the past they used to fill convention centers, “because they’re just not relevant anymore. They’re fading; they’re going away. People are getting over the gay issue.”

“What we lack in the Republican Party is not support. What we lack is leadership,” he said, confirming that elected officials have told him privately they support same-sex “marriage” but don’t dare say so publicly for fear of their constituents’ reactions.

Blatt, the Los Angeles writer, confirmed a similar experience, saying he finds it easier to be gay in Republican circles than to be Republican in gay circles. Libertarian in many of his views, Blatt said he does not support hate crimes legislation or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), because he favors less government.

Schmidt asserted that there is a big divide between activist Republicans and the rank-and-file. “Most Republicans are moving toward the center.”

Blatt said, “The party knows it can’t win by being anti-gay.” Vaughn added that if enough GOP leaders “come out” in favor of homosexual issues, it will help to change the party’s rhetoric.

As I was leaving this session, a young woman approached and asked if she could interview me. She turned out to be a Georgia State University student who was attending the conference, along with several other college students from throughout the United States, to report on the NLGJA conference proceedings. According to the NLGJA conference booklet, this is the 10th year that student journalists have come to the convention. We made arrangements to conduct the interview later in the day.

‘Gay Games’/Clear Channel Media Marketing
The next session I attended was Mainstream Media and the LGBT Press: Co-opting or Cooperation? Moderated by Court Passant, executive producer of CBS News on Logo, the panel included Cynthia Laird of the homosexual newspaper Bay Area Reporter, San Diego Union-Tribune writer Pat Sherman, Jared Cohen of Clear Channel Communications, and Kevin Boyer, director of public relations and marketing for All Terrain in Chicago.

Cohen described his experience being interviewed by Clear Channel. Cohen told the interviewer that, if hired, “I would develop a gay and lesbian wing for Clear Channel,” adding that he explained a model and a method for a national development that could be tailored to local markets. “Two years later, we’re in 19 markets . . .”

Boyer discussed some of the strategies and methods he used to publicize the 2006 “Gay Games,” held in Chicago. He said that he had to do a mainstream public relations effort because he wanted the mainstream media to report on the Gay Games the way the LGBT press would, through sports stories, business stories, and the like. [The event was covered that way by the local, Chicago-area media – especially the Chicago Sun-Times, which also sponsored the “Gay Games” -- as if an event for homosexual athletes was something of daily interest to the media-consuming public. – Editor]

Boyer said he employed one strategy for the mainstream press and another for the homosexual press. Key themes were “inclusion,” “everybody enjoys sports,” “personal best,” and “straight people are always welcome at the Gay Games.” With the mainstream media, he helped educate reporters on homosexual issues; did athlete profiles, making sure to include men, women, elders, youth, and heterosexuals; and promulgated the message “This is a human interest story, not just a gay story.”

Cynthia Laird talked about some of the areas of cooperation and dissension between the mainstream media and the homosexual press. For example, she said there was a lot of support in the mainstream media for “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” after General Peter Pace commented that homosexuality is immoral. On the other hand, she said, mainstream papers fail to give credit to GLBT papers. 

Citing Bill Gates’ recent $26.2 million investment in PlanetOut, Pat Sherman said the gay press is not in danger of being usurped by the mainstream media. “People will always want to go to the gay press” because it can provide history that the mainstream press cannot.

Sherman later added that there is room for both types of media, but the gay press may have to adapt and move toward niche publications, since it lacks the money or resources of the mainstream media.

During the question and answer period, discussion ensued regarding whether homosexual newspapers should report the names of men arrested for public sex. David Webb, a staff reporter for the Dallas Voice, noted that the Dallas police department has begun publicizing names and wondered how such stories should be reported if they involve prominent gays. One respondent said both the good and the bad must be reported.

After this session, I gave an interview to the college student.

Hillary Goes to ‘The Advocate’
Sponsored by the Gill Action Fund and Gill Foundation, organizations founded by Denver software entrepreneur Tim Gill to advocate and finance homosexual causes, the luncheon plenary was themed 40 Years of The Advocate: A Conversation with Anne Stockwell. The Advocate is a national homosexual magazine and website.

However, editor-in-chief Stockwell was unable to participate, so the magazine sent publisher Michael Phelps and deputy editor Rachel Dowd in her place. During the plenary, which was moderated by homosexual blogger and news reporter Rex Wockner, Phelps and Dowd discussed how The Advocate, whose parent corporation is PlanetOut, has evolved and stays relevant, as well as upcoming style and editorial changes planned for the magazine.

Dowd said “The Advocate used to be the only place to hear gay news, and now that’s just not the case . . . We’re not only covering same-sex issues, but we’re also covering things the New York Times is covering.”

When Wockner asked what the magazine will do to make gay people want to pick it up, Phelps answered, “We do a lot of exclusive interviews that you can’t find anywhere else.” An upcoming issue, he said, would feature an exclusive interview with [a major Democratic presidential candidate]. “She decided to do an interview with gay media, and of course sees The Advocate as the one and only place so far. And for a presidential candidate to come and seek you, a gay publication, this far in advance, really is groundbreaking.”

Larry Craig, Covering ‘Public Sex,’ and ‘Emotional Entrapment’
Wockner brought up the Larry Craig scandal and noted that there are some questions he hasn’t seen answered yet: “Why is it illegal to tap your foot in a bathroom? How is that breaking the law? To what extent was he [Larry Craig] entrapped into this?”

“How are you going to cover this story?” Wockner asked the panelists.

The Advocate’s Dowd said she had been involved in an editorial meeting about that topic just the previous day. “When did the bathroom become a beat? It’s kind of an odd question. So that was one angle we were actually looking at.” Another angle, said Dowd, is “perspective.” “We reached out to [former New Jersey governor] Jim McGreevey to write a piece for us on what happened to Larry . . . and it’s from his perspective. We look at it as a Republican phenomenon, what’s going on of living a double life, but that Jim understands perhaps emotional entrapment as being in Congress, and how political personas and political life creates a natural closet.”

Not all was sweetness and light, however, in the open question and answer period that followed. One audience member said, “I don’t feel The Advocate has much relevance to me and my life as I get older” because he isn’t familiar with a lot of the pop culture personalities it features. Another complained that the magazine used to address police entrapment issues, but not anymore, and wondered how many readers had canceled subscriptions as a result.

Gays in Charge of Gay Images
The final session I attended was Gay Panic: LGBT Media Merger Mania, where participants discussed mergers within the homosexual media and whether “gay” media will ever merge with “straight” media.

Moderated by Libby Post, a nationally syndicated commentator on homosexual issues for Q Syndicate and WAMC/Northeast Public Radio, the panel included Stephen Macias, a senior vice president at here! Networks; Sue O’Connell, publisher of Bay Windows, New England’s largest homosexual newspaper; Fred Kuhr, editor of Press Pass Q; editor Kevin Naff of the Washington Blade, “the nation’s oldest and largest LGBT newspaper;” and Joanne Jacobson, vice president of business development and operations at Logo, MTV Network’s homosexual cable channel, whose parent company is Viacom.

Post asked Macias how media mergers impact the way the gay community sees itself. He answered that one benefit is “you have gays and lesbians in charge of gay and lesbian images, whether it’s a media company that is as enormous as Viacom or an independent company like our company predominantly being run by gays and lesbians.”

O’Connell talked how homosexual community newspapers lose local flavor when they are owned by large conglomerates, harkening back to the early days of the homosexual press: “We were all picking up the mimeographed bar rags, and we were not looking at them to see where our rights were coming from. We were looking at them to see where drag night was going to be held.”

Kuhr lamented the fact that there are often identical stories on homosexual websites such as Gay.com and Advocate.com because they are owned by the same parent company.

In response to a questioner who said he still picks up the Washington Blade every Friday but no longer reads it because it lacks “local voices,” editor Naff responded in part, “I always tell people, ‘Write something.’” O’Connell agreed, citing the difficulty getting and keeping good writers due to the fact that they can now write for the mainstream press or blogs, as well as the poor pay.

As she said this, I nodded my head, remembering some of my own experiences as a freelance writer trying to collect payment. Fred Kuhr noticed and said, “Even she’s nodding.”

“We have the same issues in the conservative press,” I said.

One audience member asked Jacobson why there was no one from the gay press, yet there were non-journalists like lesbian rock musician Melissa Etheridge, on the panel during the recent presidential forum on homosexual issues, which was broadcast by the MTV offshoot Logo.

Jacobson replied that she had been at Logo from the beginning, and that she was one of the people who “pitched” Logo to Viacom chairman Sumner Redstone. “Is everything we do perfect? No. But were we able to do a national forum where these guys were seen in 28 million homes about issues that are important to us? Yes. Would I have picked Melissa Etheridge personally? I’m not answering that question (laughter). . . Afterwards, the quotes that were picked up [were hers], and everyone said that she really had the voice of the community.”

After this session, I left the conference for the day, missing the LGBT Media Summit Closing Reception, the Chapter Meet & Greet, the NLGJA Newcomers’ Reception, the Welcoming Reception with remarks by NLGJA national president Eric Hegedus (whose column equating pro-family critics of homosexuality to racists can be seen HERE on the NLJGA site) and executive director David Barre, and a screening of the documentary film Tell – a film critical of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on homosexuals.

Look for the Next Installment on the 2007 NLGJA Conference

The photo at right appeared in the homosexual newspaper Dallas Voice’s story on Allyson Smith, who attended the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists (NLGJA) conference in San Diego representing Americans For Truth. Smith received a lot of attention at the annual event as a lone voice opposed to homosexuality. The NLGJA event is financed and sponsored each year by “mainstream” media corporations, including FOX News, which also recruited there. 

The following article first appeared on the blog of Mike Heath, who directs the Christian Civic League of Maine, and who is Chairman of the Board of Directors at Americans For Truth. As one who has both attended several National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) conferences (openly, as a critic), and even spoken as a panelist at one, I will add that the NLGJA events have an odd mix of activism and journalism. They prominently feature activists like Besen who can fairly be described as pro-homosexual culture warriors, but they also are attended by professional journalists who claim to be objective, mostly as open homosexuals. (I would suspect that the typical media consumer has no clue that the NLGJA reporter they’re reading, watching, or listening to is “gay.”) 

Wayne’s predictable jibes are far less important than the question of whether openly (or “closeted”) homosexual journalists can cover homosexuality-related issues with any semblance of objectivity and fairness. — Peter LaBarbera 

A ‘Christian Crusader’ amidst the World of ‘Gay Journalism’
By Mike Heath | September 7, 2007

Most of us don’t even know that there is such a thing as a homosexual press.  If someone told us there was one we’d look at them askance and wonder which airport bathroom stall they just crawled out of.  Alas, not only is there such a thing … it is thriving.  How do I know?  It wasn’t FoxNews that told me.  Turns out FoxNews sponsors the homosexual press, and recruits from their ranks.  Fox was one among many familiar news sources who showed up to sponsor the National Gay and Lesbian Jounalist Association convention in San Diego a couple weeks ago.

One intrepid truth teller took time to show up.  Allyson Smith, a San Diego resident, attended the entire conference representing (openly) Americans For Truth.  It is important to know that Allyson lives in San Diego.  Truth tellers about homosexuality in the west have learned to live on fund-raising fumes.  It is harder to raise funds for truth telling about homosexuality than it is for Larry Craig to figure out his “intent.”  If Smith didn’t live in San Diego, the important and underrated organization Americans for Truth wouldn’t have had anybody at the conference.  They don’t have the money.  It is easy to raise money by loving all things gay, hating gays or helping gays.  It is hard to raise money to tell the truth about the so-called “gay” movement.

Send your check today to Americans for Truth by visiting their website HERE.

Since Allyson Smith was close by, she was able to attend the conference that was a sinkhole for immorality — sponsored by many in the mainstream media.  Maybe it would be more accurate, given the news these days, to describe the conference as a toilet down which the objectivity and credibility of the media is being flushed.

I’ll bet you didn’t know there’s a homosexual newspaper called “The Dallas Voice.”  Being that this Convention was for journalists it is only right that they would practice on Allyson.  The Dallas Voice wrote a story about Allyson’s presence entitled “Christian Crusader.”  While they obviously use the term “crusader” to evoke scary images of Muslim fanatics, Allyson is — I’m sure – undeterred.  Allyson, unlike most people today, knows what the Crusades were really all about.

Included in the “Voice” article about Allyson is the token soundbite of what passes for “gay” reasoning these days.  Wayne Besen is a master.  He is the one the “Voice” turned to for a quote.  Besen allows that Allyson is nice, and turns her kindness around on her.  He perverts, if you will, her motives.  No surprise that a master of perversion would use this tactic, I suppose.

Then Besen is quoted indicating that Allyson represents something terribly evil and insidious.  He says that, “Her sole purpose of being at this conference was to demean and smear gay and lesbian people and to distort and twist everything that was said. That was her mission.”  He then concludes, “they are just really trying to take away your rights and essentially put you in a cage by passing sodomy laws and having you arrested.”

In the lexicon of gay-speak, “demeaning and smearing” is what reasonable people call truth-telling.  If you don’t believe me, just go to the Americans for Truth website and read it.  There is nothing “demeaning or smearing” on it.  And, the only distorting and twisting I’ve seen over the years has been done by “gay” activists.  They are always distorting and twisting everything.  Everybody knows that.

The last point Besen makes might be worth addressing.  He suggests that we want to take away rights and jail homosexuals.  There is a problem with this argument.  There is no such thing as a legal right to do wrong.  Think about adultery.  Homosexuality is morally no different from adultery.  If there were a loud and powerful adultery rights group clamoring for rights, would that mean that adultery isn’t wrong anymore?  Substitute any sinful behavior.  You see what Besen is doing.  I don’t know what the technical word is to describe this rhetorical twisting and distorting, but I’m no fool.  Only fools are drawn in by arguments like this.  There are many fools around today, aren’t there?  You need look no further than FoxNews.

The Bible says that only the fool says in his heart that there is no God.  Paul the Apostle tells us in Romans that the end of foolishness is vile affections for one another.  Paul reports that the public embrace of homosexuality is a clear sign of Godless priorities.

Thank God for courageous truth tellers like Allyson Smith.  Go and read the truth today.  Go to the Americans for Truth website.

As at past NLGJA conferences, conservative-leaning Fox News Network was among the sponsors and recruiters.

Titled “Breaking Stories, Breaking Waves,” the convention, held in downtown San Diego’s Westin Horton Plaza hotel, featured a one-day LGBT media summit, six receptions, and more than 50 sessions and workshops ranging from “Covering LGBT Conservatives” (oddly, the Christian-conservative-bashing Wayne Besen was a panelist), to “Will Gays Matter in ’08?” to “Sex Writing for Fun and Profit.”

Attendees included print and broadcast professionals from top U.S. mainstream news agencies such as CNN, Associated Press, ABC/Primetime, NBC, CBS, Fox News Network, Hearst Newspapers, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Bloomberg News, Newsday, the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, New York Post, CNBC, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Time Warner/Turner Broadcasting, Washington Post, Hartford Courant, People Magazine, NPR, Clear Channel Communications, Wired Magazine, Cox Enterprises, and USA Today.

Among major homosexual media outlets represented were the Washington Blade, Dallas Voice, San Diego’s Gay and Lesbian Times, GO Magazine, Gay News Watch, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Bay Area Reporter, IN Los Angeles Magazine, Sirius OutQ Radio, CBS News on LOGO, and here! Networks.

Other organizations who sent employees to the convention, according to an attendee directory distributed with the registration package, included Cirque de Soleil; MGM Mirage; USC Annenberg School of Communications; Human Rights Campaign (HRC); Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); Arizona State University Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication; JetBlue Airways; Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard; several Canadian tourism agencies; Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN); Lambda Legal; Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation; Out and Equal Workplace Advocates; Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Bureau; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The convention included plenary sessions on the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and immigration issues affecting homosexuals, as well as a general session featuring a conversation with Larry Kramer, founder of the AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power (ACT UP), a radical, “in your face” demonstration group that made headlines in December, 1989, for disrupting a Catholic Mass and destroying a consecrated Communion host at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.

The Canadian Tourism Board was the presenting sponsor for the convention. Other sponsors included JetBlue Airways, CBS News, CNN, ESPN, General Motors, Toyota automobiles, Orbitz, Bloomberg, Coca-Cola,  the Gill Foundation, Sony Pictures and Television, visitBritain, ABC News, Fox News Network, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Washington Post.

Among “Career & Community Expo” participants were the Associated Press, Dow Jones, Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, MGM Mirage, Reuters, Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau, the New York Times, Fox News Network, and NBC Universal.

Other events occurring during the convention included a student projects, a documentary film screening, a “not so silent” auction, 12-step meetings, and a “San Diego Night Out.”

Americans For Truth sent reporter Allyson Smith to the convention for three days, where she attended more than a dozen sessions and raised issues of concern to pro-family advocates — including the biased manner in which “mainstream media” covers homosexuality-related issues. A full report about the sessions that Smith attended will follow in coming days.

Chicago’s CBS affiliate joins other local media by fielding a float in the city’s annual “gay pride” parade.  It’s up to us to tell the truth about homosexuality as a sin that can be overcome — since the media and political liberals have decided to celebrate it, casting aside God’s Word. 

“Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one ‘to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.’” – Nineteenth-Century Christian Commentator Albert Barnes describing the “shameful sin of Sodom,” as condemned by the Apostle Paul in the Book of Romans.

By Peter LaBarbera 

Tonight, America witnesses the sad spectacle of the major Democratic presidential candidates gathering for a “debate” built around the acceptance of homosexuality. The “debate” is being sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the world’s leading homosexual pressure group, and HRC’s President, Joe Solmonese, will serve as one of the questioners. Needless to say, there will be no open critics of the homosexual activist agenda asking questions to balance Solmonese’s pro-”gay” queries.

The mere occurrence of this “debate”/panderfest has significance well beyond the realm of politics. The “pride” and arrogance of homosexual activists is swelling in direct proportion to their growing power in American culture. Who could have imagined this scenario in U.S. politics even a decade ago? Just remember: God is never mocked.

Fact is, a large swath of the American nation is fleeing God, Who, if you believe the Bible, is quite clear in His condemnation of all homosexual behavior as sin. (That hasn’t stopped liberal Lutherans affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Having already won the ordination of “gay”-identified clergy, the ELCA’s pro-”gay” wing pushed this week to build upon that heresy by fighting for the “right” of said clergy to be involved in “committed same-sex relationships.”) 

Memo to Christians tempted to backpeddle on moral issues: the ELCA’s treacherous debacle is further proof that the liberal, activist wing of ’christianity’ cannot be appeased. It is man-centered, sin-tolerant, Bible-denying and always on the offensive; if you concede one point to this errant movement, it will only demand further concessions. Ditto for the aggressive homosexual lobby’s modus operandi in all aspects of culture. So it’s best not to give in one inch.

Man knows best? 

The sum and substance of the modern liberal, “gay”-affirming argument on homosexuality is that man thinks he knows better than God. Nothing new there – haughtiness and disobedience toward God fills the Bible’s pages.  But let’s not kid ourselves that America’s trendy embrace (tolerance) of homosexuality and, lately, gender confusion, is not a serious sign of our moral and spiritual decline as a nation.

We sing “God Bless America,” but why should He when we spurn His moral laws?

Our Christian forefathers didn’t struggle over homosexuality

Albert Barnes (1798-1870) was a popular Presbyterian minister and Bible commentator who crusaded against slavery and lived to see it outlawed. Wikipedia (I know, they’re biased…) reports that over a million volumes of Barnes’ commentaries on New Testament books were sold by 1870.

Thanks to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, you can view Barnes’ entire commentary on Romans 1 online HERE, but below are some excerpts from Romans 1:26-28. We’ve largely lost the Biblical notion of homosexual acts as desperately wicked, but that’s hardly the only sin that “live and let live” America has decided is OK. After all, affirming that sex should be reserved for marriage and that young people should remain virgins until their wedding day is about as radical these days as saying that homosexuality is a sin. (I take some comfort in that: I suppose there exists a lot of abstinence-phobia among liberal, “safer sex” types that has to be dealt with.) And when was the last time you heard the word “fornication”?

Yet think of the sexual diseases, heartache and abortions that would be avoided if more young men and women would cast aside the pop culture’s cynicism and return to that simple truth!

Are homosexual acts now right before God?

So ask yourself: what is the justification for discarding the historic Christian view laid out by Barnes against what the King James Bible calls the “vile affection” of sodomy? If there is none — i.e., no serious indictment to be made against Biblical truth in this area, as the leading Bible-and-homosexuality scholar Rob Gagnon asserts – then we need to get back to the basics on homosexuality. 

Sure, compromised politicians and media groveling before a sin-based movement will evade, distort, water down, and outright lie about homosexuality, but does it really matter what they say?  The same politicians and media have for decades cast the abortion debate as one about “choice” – as if man, not God, has authority over life and death, and has some “right” to consign innocent babies to a horrifying execution in the womb.

Reform begins in our churches, with more pastors preaching — and speaking out boldly in the public square — from a fear of God, not man. And each of us, too, must commit ourselves to “agreeing with God” on this issue — and speaking and fighting for truth — no matter what the culture, your favorite politician, or a politically correct friend, says.  

Let’s commit to honor God, stop fearing men (that includes the media), and reach out with Gospel love to men and women struggling with homosexual temptation.  Go for it!

___________________________

Here are some passages from Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans 1: 

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

 

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;  (Romans 1:26-28)

Barnes’ commentary (emphasis added in bold):

[Verse 26] Vile affections. Disgraceful passions or desires. … The sins which he proceeds to specify are the most indelicate, vile, and degrading which can be charged on man. But this is not the fault of the apostle. If they existed, it was necessary for him to charge them on the pagan world. His argument would not be complete without it. The shame is not in specifying them, but in their existence; not in the apostle, but in those who practised them, and imposed on him the necessity of accusing them of these enormous offences…There is still abundant proof on record, in the writings of the heathen themselves, that these crimes were known and extensively practised.

For even their women, etc. Evidence of the shameful and disgraceful fact here charged on the women is abundant in the Greek and Roman writers…

Verse 27. And likewise the men, etc. The sin which is here specified is that which was the shameful sin of Sodom, and which from that has been called sodomy. It would scarcely be credible that man had been guilty of a crime so base and so degrading, unless there was ample and full testimony to it. Perhaps there is no sin which so deeply shows the depravity of man as this; none which would so much induce one “to hang his head, and blush to think himself a man.” And yet the evidence that the apostle did not bring a railing accusation against the heathen world, that he did not advance a charge which was unfounded, is too painfully clear. It has been indeed a matter of controversy whether paederasty, or the love of boys, among the ancients, was not a pure and harmless love, but the evidence is against it. See this discussed in Dr. Leland’s “Advantage and Necessity of Revelation,” vol. i. 49—56. The crime with which the apostle charges the Gentiles here was by no means confined to the lower classes of the people. It doubtless pervaded all classes, and we have distinct specifications of its existence in a great number of cases. Even Virgil speaks of the attachment of Corydon to Alexis, without seeming to feel the necessity of a blush for it. Maximus Tyrius (Diss. 10) says, that in the time of Socrates this vice was common among the Greeks; and is at pains to vindicate Socrates from it as almost a solitary exception. Cicero (Tuscul. Ques. iv. 84) says, that “Dicearchus had accused Plato of it, and probably not unjustly.” He also says, (Tuscul. Q. iv. 33,) that the practice was common among the Greeks, and that their poets and great men, and even their learned men and philosophers, not only practised, but gloried in it. And he adds, that it was the custom, not of particular cities only, but of Greece in general. (Tuscul. Ques. v. 20.) Xenophon says, that “the unnatural love of boys is so common, that in many places it is established by the public laws.”…

Among the Romans, to whom Paul was writing, this vice was no less common. Cicero introduces, without any mark of disapprobation, Cotta, a man of the first rank and genius, freely and familiarly owning to other Romans of the same quality, that this worse than beastly vice was practised by himself, and quoting the authority of ancient philosophers in vindication of it. (De Natura Decrum, b. i. eh. 28.) It appears from what Seneca says, (epis. 95,) that in his time it was practised openly at Rome, and without shame. He speaks of flocks and troops of boys, distinguished by their colours and nations; and says that great care was taken to train them up for this detestable employment. Those who may wish to see a further account of the morality in the pagan world may find it detailed in Tholick’s “Nature and Moral Influence of Heathenism,” in the Biblical Repository, vol. ii., and in Leland’s Advantage and Necessity of the Christian Revelation. There is not the least evidence that this abominable vice was confined to Greece and Rome. If so common there—if it had the sanction even of their philosophers—it may be presumed that it was practised elsewhere, and that the sin against nature was a common crime throughout the heathen world. Navaratte, in his account of the empire of China, (book ii. ch. 6,) says that it is extremely common among the Chinese. And there is every reason to believe that, both in the old world and the new, this abominable crime is still practised…

That which is unseemly. That which is shameful, or disgraceful.

And receiving in themselves, etc. The meaning of this doubtless is, that the effect of such base and unnatural passions was to enfeeble the body, to produce premature old age, disease, decay, and an early death. That this is the effect of the indulgence of licentious passions, is amply proved by the history of man. The despots who practise polygamy, and keep harems in the east, are commonly superannuated at forty years of age; and it is well known, even in Christian countries, that the effect of licentious indulgence is to break down and destroy the constitution. How much more might this be expected to follow the practice of the vice specified in the verse under examination! God has marked the indulgence of licentious passions with his frown. Since the time of the Romans and the Greeks, as if there had not been sufficient restraints before, he has originated a new disease [Editor's note: assuming this is syphillis], which is one of the most loathsome and distressing which has ever afflicted man, and which has swept off millions of victims. But the effect on the body was not all. It tended to debase the mind; to sink man below the level of the brute; to destroy the sensibility; and to “sear the conscience as with a hot iron.” The last remnant of reason and conscience, it would seem, must be extinguished in those who would indulge in this unnatural and degrading vice. See Suetonius’ Life of Nero, 28.

Verse 28. And even as they did not like, etc. This was the true source of their crimes. They did not choose to acknowledge God. It was not because they could not, but because they were displeased with God, and chose to forsake him, and follow their own passions and lusts.

To retain God, etc. To think of him, or to serve and adore him. This was the first step in their sin. It was not that God compelled them; or that he did not give them knowledge; nor even is it said that he arbitrarily abandoned them as the first step; but they forsook him, and as a consequence he gave them up to a reprobate mind.

To a reprobate mind. A mind destitute of judgment. In the Greek the same word is used here which, in another form, occurs in the previous part of the verse, and which is translated “like.” The apostle meant, doubtless, to retain a reference to that in this place. “As they did not approve, edokimasan or choose to retain God, etc., he gave them up to a mind disapproved, rejected, reprobate,” adokimon; and he means, that the state of their minds was such that God could not approve it. It does not mean that they were reprobate by any arbitrary decree; but that, as a consequence of their headstrong passions, their determination to forget him, he left them to a state of mind which was evil, and which he could not approve.

Which are not convenient. Which are not fit or proper; which are disgraceful and shameful; to wit, those things which he proceeds to state in the remainder of the chapter.

Click HERE to read more of Albert Barnes’ commentary on Romans. 
 

The girls on “The View” are unanimous: Homosexuality is not only morally right but probably ought to be encouraged if we want to keep our military strong.OK, maybe mandating homosexuality in the military won’t fly just yet. For now, the ABC morning show’s talkers will have to be content fighting amongst themselves as to who is more outraged by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace, who told the Chicago Tribune that homosexuality, like adultery, is immoral.

The gals were in good media company. Not one of Tuesday’s morning or evening news shows on ABC, NBC or CBS featured a single person defending the general’s remarks. The tone was overtly hostile, with stories moving smartly through a laundry list of talking points found on homosexual activist groups’ websites. The Washington Post managed a March 13 trifecta: an editorial, “The Right to Serve,” an op-ed by Republican homosexuality booster and former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson, “Bigotry That Hurts Our Military,” and a news article by Ann Scott Tyson, “Sharp Drop in Gays Discharged From Military Tied to War Need.”

It’s not as if the American people are clamoring for the military to welcome open homosexuality. Despite some profoundly distorted polls like the recent Zogby survey of military personnel, a large segment of the American people believe, as Gen. Pace does, that homosexual behavior is immoral. According to the Cultural and Media Institute’s National Cultural Values Survey released on March 7, which polled 2,000 demographically representative Americans, 49 percent say flatly that homosexuality is “wrong.” Only 14 percent of Americans say homosexuality is “right.” The stampede to end the ban isn’t coming from the public, but from the media and some liberal politicians backed by the homosexual lobby.

On “The View,” the ladies opened the March 13 program by trashing the general, who wasn’t there to defend his honor.

Nor was anyone else inclined to do so, even designated “conservative” Elizabeth Hasselbeck. She openly wondered whether Pace harbors vices of his own that drove him to say what he did. This is a standard homosexual propaganda technique: Attribute dark motives to anyone who won’t salute the rainbow flag. You can look it up in their strategy manual, a book entitled “After the Ball.”

Rosie O’Donnell, a famous out lesbian, predictably came unglued. Over the past few years, she has defined herself primarily by her sexual behavior, and then claimed that people with moral qualms about homosexuality are bigots who are assailing her identity.

Here are portions of the five-minute discussion:

Joely Fisher: “We need to open General Pace’s closet and see what’s in there.”

Joy Behar: “Do you think people who are homophobic are gay closeted cases themselves?”

Fisher: “Or sexually repressed or uncomfortable with their own sexuality in any way?”

O’Donnell: “So if you are a gay person you are immoral. You are innately bad. You are less than, because you are gay. It’s like saying all lefties are witches.”

Hasselbeck: “He likened it to adultery, an adulterous person in the armed services would face some sort of punishment or some sort of slap on the wrist. …”

Fisher: “But it’s OK to kill people.”

Behar: “If you’re saying it’s immoral the way adultery is, then let gay people get married. Then it won’t be immoral.”

O’Donnell: “Can you be a straight person who is a horrible person, who is adulterous and has no morals?”

Fisher: “And have a leg up”

O’Donnell: “But it’s impossible for a gay person ever to be treated equal, which is the premise of this country, that all men and women are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, all people, even the gay ones. (Bares her teeth, shouts) General Pace, wake up! It’s 2007. There’s a war on! Leave the gays alone!” (applause)

After Rosie’s outburst, Hasselbeck explained why everyone doesn’t just go ahead and cheerfully accept homosexuality as moral:

“What happens is there’s this group of, you know, religious believers, be it Christian or whoever, who believe certain sins are worse than others. They do believe homosexuality is a sin, because they are not guilty, guilty of it, then they say, ‘It’s not my sin so I will focus on that,’ then pretty much hide the fact that I’m guilty of some other things as well.”

Later, she opined that, “We should not judge one another. I feel that’s the root of Christianity. You shall not judge.”

Does that mean we’re not to judge adultery? Promiscuous sex? Polygamy? Prostitution?

Inquiring Viewers want to know.