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

For the last few weeks I’ve been working with Mass Resistance’s Amy Contrada, who has pulled together a wealth of information about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s time at Harvard University, where she served as Dean of the Law School. Many will be shocked at just how extreme Harvard has become — and the radical sexual/gender policies advanced by Kagan. Kudos to Contrada and our friends at Mass Resistance for doing the reporting that most in the liberal media refuse to do (because too many agree with Kagan’s left-wing social agenda). And thanks to Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt of the Pray in Jesus Name Project for supporting this work. Please read the full report, which ends with questions that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should be asking Kagan.

TAKE ACTION: Fax and e-mail the Kagan report to Judiciary Committee members and request that they question Kagan on her full record at Harvard, which is way out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. Click on the names of the individual Committee members HERE and fax to their MULTIPLE offices (D.C. and local); request that the Senator ask Kagan the questions at the end of the report (reprinted below). Do the same to your own two U.S. Senators. (Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121.) – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

Read our Mass Resistance report, “How Elena Kagan Helped “Queer” Harvard Law School (Will she now help “queer” the US Supreme Court’s decisions?)”

Read our Mass Resistance report, “How Elena Kagan Helped “Queer” Harvard Law School (Will she now help “queer” the US Supreme Court’s decisions?)”

Homosexual male "couples" are notorious for tolerating outside sex in their disordered relationships. Dan Savage, a homosexual activist who adopted a baby boy (hence his book "The Kid"), recommends "nonmonogamy" as an alternative to marital fidelity. He writes that he and his "husband" twice engaged in sexual "three-ways" even after adopting the boy.

News Release

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

June 21, 2010

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631

_________________

CAROL STREAM, Illinois — Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) President Peter LaBarbera today condemned President Barack Obama for “gaying down” the noble institution of fatherhood by extolling “nurturing families” with “two fathers” in his Father’s Day proclamation yesterday.

Obama proclaimed:

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.

“If an adult man chooses to embrace homosexuality, that’s one thing. But two men imposing their homosexual lifestyle on an innocent, impressionable child — thus intentionally denying that child a mother — is something quite different. Shame on Obama for ‘gaying down’ the noble institution of fatherhood to appease his homosexual activist supporters.”

Obama is the most pro-homosexual-agenda president in American history, and is currently working to subvert both the legal ban on open homosexuals serving in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which affirms traditional marriage in federal law.

“Who can deny the notorious promiscuity that is rampant in the gay male subculture – and which often continues even after two homosexual men adopt a child,” LaBarbera said. “Witness gay parenting’s poster-boy, Dan Savage, a sex-advice columnist and author of The Kid: What Happened When My Boyfriend And I Decided to Go Get Pregnant. Savage promotes ‘non-monogamy’ as an alternative to marital fidelity — and admits that he and his ‘husband’ twice engaged in sexual ‘three-ways’ even after they adopted a baby boy. (One wonders who babysat ‘the kid’ during their homosexual sex romp.)”

Such is the extent of tolerated outside sex in male homosexual relationships that their “negotiated” rules for “nonexclusivity” are studied by academics. “The gay community’s normative acceptance of casual sex, anonymous sex and nonmonogamy in couple relationships represents a dramatic departure from heterocentric norms and values,” wrote researchers Johnson and Keren in 1996.

“As a gay therapist who has seen hundreds of male couples in a vast range of unconventional, loving, and sustaining relationship configurations — including monogamy, nonmonogamy, three-partner relationships and more — I have grown to respect the fluidity and customized relationship forms that can work well for gay men (and potentially for all people),” wrote homosexual therapist Michael Shernoff in 2006.

But even if two homosexual men keep their disordered relationship “faithful,” homosexual parenting would not be worthy of celebration, LaBarbera said: “It is wrong to force children into a situation where they have two men modeling immoral behavior — condemned by God and all major religions — as the most important role models in their lives.”

“Gay parenting is a selfish social experiment whose long-term effect on children has not yet been determined — biased homosexual-authored studies notwithstanding,” he said. “We know that dad-and-mom-led homes are the best for children. That is the timeless brand of fatherhood that Obama should be promoting,”

________________________________________________________________________

The following is President Obama’s official 2010 White House Father’s Day proclamation (emphasis added in red):

FATHER’S DAY, 2010

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

From the first moments of life, the bond forged between a father and a child is sacred.  Whether patching scraped knees or helping with homework, dads bring joy, instill values, and introduce wonders into the lives of their children.  Father’s Day is a special time to honor the men who raised us, and to thank them for their selfless dedication and love.

Fathers are our first teachers and coaches, mentors and role models.  They push us to succeed, encourage us when we are struggling, and offer unconditional care and support.  Children and adults alike look up to them and learn from their example and perspective.  The journey of fatherhood is both exhilarating and humbling    it is an opportunity to model who we want our sons and daughters to become, and to build the foundation upon which they can achieve their dreams.

Fatherhood also carries enormous responsibilities.  An active, committed father makes a lasting difference in the life of a child.  When fathers are not present, their children and families cope with an absence government cannot fill.  Across America, foster and adoptive fathers respond to this need, providing safe and loving homes for children facing hardships.  Men are also making compassionate commitments outside the home by serving as mentors, tutors, or big brothers to young people in their community.  Together, we can support the guiding presence of male role models in the lives of countless young people who stand to gain from it.

Nurturing families come in many forms, and children may be raised by a father and mother, a single father, two fathers, a step father, a grandfather, or caring guardian.  We owe a special debt of gratitude for those parents serving in the United States Armed Forces and their families, whose sacrifices protect the lives and liberties of all American children.  For the character they build, the doors they open, and the love they provide over our lifetimes, all our fathers deserve our unending appreciation and admiration.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, in accordance with a joint resolution of the Congress approved April 24, 1972, as amended (36 U.S.C. 109), do hereby proclaim June 20, 2010, as Father’s Day.  I direct the appropriate officials of the Government to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on this day, and I call upon all citizens to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.  Let us honor our fathers, living and deceased, with all the love and gratitude they deserve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-fathers-day

President Barack Obama's promotion of a government-enforced homosexual and "transgender" agenda will lead to the loss of liberties for those who espouse and defend the natural, historic Judeo-Christian conception of marriage and family.

CORRECTION: Well folks, looks like we’re a year behind in covering President Obama’s declaration of “Pride” in that which is shameful. I accidentally published President Obama’s 2009 “Gay Pride Month” Proclamation instead of the current 2010 version. So below we have included both years’ proclamations so you can compare them. Note that in the 2010 version, Obama calls for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which he is now circumventing piecemeal through “domestic partner” executive orders for federal workers. I apologize for the mistake. – Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

_______________________________

Original AFTAH commentary:

America’s pro-homosexual Panderer-in-Chief is at it again….When President Obama proclaims [2009 "Gay Pride Month" statement], “As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit,” I wonder if he’s ever heard of Matt Barber — who was fired by Allstate Insurance Co., after Obama’s “gay” allies over at the Human Wrongs Rights Campaign complained that Matt had written an online article critical of homosexuality (on his own time).

(I don’t recall Matt being comforted at the idea that it was for the cause of “gay equality” that he was cruelly and suddenly thrown into unemployment by Allstate….)

Or how about Elaine Huguenin, a Christian photographer who was fined by the courts under New Mexico’s “sexual orientation” law because she would not take pictures at a lesbian commitment ceremony? (Pro-gay-agenda Libertarians: take note; Huguenin is appealing the decision.)

Wasn’t religious liberty and freedom of conscience one of those “principles upon which our Nation was founded”?

Clearly, a few Americans many win but only at the expense of many more who will lose their freedom if proud homosexuality is elevated to official “civil rights” status. As Obama’s own recess appointee at the EEOC, lesbian law professor and ENDA architect Chai Feldblum, has put it, it’s a “zero-sum game” between religious freedom and homosexuality-based “rights.” So let’s do away with the pretense that celebrating legally-enshrined homosexuality (read: changeable homosexual behavior) is some universally-held value that will unite Americans. It won’t. And the Bible-dismissing Obama’s unprecedented promotion of not just the homosexualist agenda but federally-guaranteed “rights” based on gender confusion (the transgender “T” in “GLBT”) will only help solidify his standing as the most divisive president in modern memory and probably the most left-wing leader in our nation’s history. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

______________________________________________________________

Below is Obama’s (current) 2010 “Gay Pride Month” proclamation:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
May 28, 2010

Presidential Proclamation–Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

As Americans, it is our birthright that all people are created equal and deserve the same rights, privileges, and opportunities.  Since our earliest days of independence, our Nation has striven to fulfill that promise.  An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.  This month, as we recognize the immeasurable contributions of LGBT Americans, we renew our commitment to the struggle for equal rights for LGBT Americans and to ending prejudice and injustice wherever it exists.

LGBT Americans have enriched and strengthened the fabric of our national life.  From business leaders and professors to athletes and first responders, LGBT individuals have achieved success and prominence in every discipline.  They are our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters, and our friends and neighbors.  Across my Administration, openly LGBT employees are serving at every level.  Thanks to those who came before us    the brave men and women who marched, stood up to injustice, and brought change through acts of compassion or defiance    we have made enormous progress and continue to strive for a more perfect union.

My Administration has advanced our journey by signing into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which strengthens Federal protections against crimes based on gender identity or sexual orientation.  We renewed the Ryan White CARE Act, which provides life saving medical services and support to Americans living with HIV/AIDS, and finally eliminated the HIV entry ban.  I also signed a Presidential Memorandum directing hospitals receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds to give LGBT patients the compassion and security they deserve in their time of need, including the ability to choose someone other than an immediate family member to visit them and make medical decisions.

In other areas, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a series of proposals to ensure core housing programs are open to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.  HUD also announced the first ever national study of discrimination against members of the LGBT community in the rental and sale of housing.  Additionally, the Department of Health and Human Services has created a National Resource Center for LGBT Elders.

Much work remains to fulfill our Nation’s promise of equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.  That is why we must give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  We must protect the rights of LGBT families by securing their adoption rights, ending employment discrimination against LGBT Americans, and ensuring Federal employees receive equal benefits.  We must create safer schools so all our children may learn in a supportive environment.  I am also committed to ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so patriotic LGBT Americans can serve openly in our military, and I am working with the Congress and our military leadership to accomplish that goal.

As we honor the LGBT Americans who have given so much to our Nation, let us remember that if one of us is unable to realize full equality, we all fall short of our founding principles.  Our Nation draws its strength from our diversity, with each of us contributing to the greater whole.  By affirming these rights and values, each American benefits from the further advancement of liberty and justice for all.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2010 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.  I call upon all Americans to observe this month by fighting prejudice and discrimination in their own lives and everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth.

BARACK OBAMA

___________________________________________________________________________

And here is (last year’s) Obama’s 2009 homosexual “Pride Month” proclamation:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release, June 1, 2009

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER PRIDE MONTH, 2009
- – - – - – -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

Forty years ago, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City resisted police harassment that had become all too common for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. Out of this resistance, the LGBT rights movement in America was born. During LGBT Pride Month, we commemorate the events of June 1969 and commit to achieving equal justice under law for LGBT Americans.

LGBT Americans have made, and continue to make, great and lasting contributions that continue to strengthen the fabric of American society. There are many well-respected LGBT leaders in all professional fields, including the arts and business communities. LGBT Americans also mobilized the Nation to respond to the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic and have played a vital role in broadening this country’s response to the HIV pandemic.

Due in no small part to the determination and dedication of the LGBT rights movement, more LGBT Americans are living their lives openly today than ever before. I am proud to be the first President to appoint openly LGBT candidates to Senate-confirmed positions in the first 100 days of an Administration. These individuals embody the best qualities we seek in public servants, and across my Administration — in both the White House and the Federal agencies — openly LGBT employees are doing their jobs with distinction and professionalism.

The LGBT rights movement has achieved great progress, but there is more work to be done. LGBT youth should feel safe to learn without the fear of harassment, and LGBT families and seniors should be allowed to live their lives with dignity and respect.

My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives. At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States.

These issues affect not only the LGBT community, but also our entire Nation. As long as the promise of equality for all remains unfulfilled, all Americans are affected. If we can work together to advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded, every American will benefit. During LGBT Pride Month, I call upon the LGBT community, the Congress, and the American people to work together to promote equal rights for all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to turn back discrimination and prejudice everywhere it exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this first day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Click here to download PDF

“The liberal media might be expected to reject what God and common sense tell us about sexuality. But there is no excuse for the conservative brain trust to ignore this threat.” – Robert Knight

Talk show host Mike Gallagher has capitulated on most aspects of the homosexualist agenda, but still calls himself a "happy conservative." Gallagher supports repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military, and supports government benefits for same-sex "civil unions," but opposes homosexual "marriage."

Folks, our good friend Bob Knight of Coral Ridge Ministries is right. When “conservatives” like talker Mike Gallagher (right) stop being conservative on whatever issue is being debated, public policy disasters often result. In addition to contacting Congress on homosexuals-in-the-military, we need to be urging conservative media to get engaged in the fight to stop our Armed Forces from becoming the next “battlefield” for Sexual Correctness. More on AWOL “conservatives” later. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

____________________________________________

Conservative Media Fiddle While the Military Burns

By Robert Knight

Barney Frank and his friends are rolling their tanks through Congress while everyone is talking about something else.  As we reel from one crisis to the next, homosexual activists and their allies are muscling through their agenda, with nary a peep from the nation’s conservative talking heads.

This week, their target is the military. Soon, it will be passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would criminalize traditional morality in every workplace with 15 or more employees. After that, they will try to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Finally, they aim to pass an “anti-bullying” law that will threaten schools with losing federal funds if they refuse to force kids to read Heather Has Two Mommies and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.  The agenda is breathtakingly ambitious, and would be unimaginable to previous generations.

These radical laws would be a watershed moment for socialists, who are at war with family and religion as impediments to a growing state. The pansexual Left senses triumph now for two reasons:

• First, the Obama-manufactured crisis-a-day has people terrified about where the economy is headed. The sheer magnitude of government takeovers and spending is dominating the Tea Party movement, and in fact, everybody.
• Second, homosexual activists and their media enablers have “jammed” the public debate. Hollywood, educators and the media continually deny the truth about homosexuality – that while all people are made in God’s image and are entitled to basic human rights – homosexuality is not in-born, is changeable, and is dangerous to the health and well being of individuals, families and communities. The militant advancement of gay activism poses the greatest threat to the freedoms of religion, assembly and speech within our borders.

Why aren’t more Americans properly concerned? You can have gay relatives, friends and colleagues and still understand that promoting sodomy as an affirmative action “right” is not a good thing. Americans used to get that. Perhaps the lack of resolve is because many conservative opinion leaders have run for the tall grass on this issue. By omitting it, they’re saying it really isn’t important.

When was the last time you heard a frank discussion about this on any of the top conservative talk shows, either on radio or television? Michael Savage is the only prominent talk show host to take it on, and he does it from Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco. How about Erick Erickson’s estimable Red State Morning Briefing? It’s vital, on-line reading, and I urge everyone to subscribe. And yet, while we’re on the verge of Congress’ raping the military to please a tiny, leftist lobby, the topic is nowhere to be found on Red State this week. Similarly, with a few exceptions, GOP leaders have been silent.

The gravity of allowing open homosexuality in the military cannot be overstated. It has the potential of destroying the all-volunteer force by discouraging recruitment, retention and shattering unit morale. Chaplains would find themselves muzzled on basic questions of morality and many would leave the services.  Recruits would undergo pro-homosexual “sensitivity” training. The already troubling problem of sexual misconduct would increase.

A 1993 report by the chief criminal investigator of the Army summarized 102 cases of homosexual misconduct in the army between 1989 and 1992. Twenty-nine of the incidents occurred in the barracks. Forty-nine incidents involved children. Five involved HIV-positive offenders. Nine occurred in either latrines or showers. Thirty-one cases involved soldiers with “a significant variance in pay grade,” such as sergeants preying on enlisted men. And this was during a time when the ban was in effect, including the question at induction, and before Clinton watered down the 1993 law with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” That law, by the way, which Congress passed overwhelmingly, explicitly bars people with the “propensity” to engage in homosexuality.

Reports like the above, and the astronomically higher incidences of sexually transmitted diseases like HIV among homosexual men, are ignored in any discussions of whether to lift the ban. Instead, the rhetoric of the civil rights movement is employed, as if being black or Hispanic or white is on a par with acting out homosexual desires. Unlike skin color or ethnicity, sex is inextricably tied to behavior, character and morality. Thus, the “civil rights” arguments are absurdly inapplicable. How about the civil rights of service people who will be forced to co-habit with those who might view them as sex objects? They can’t just “go home” at night. And no one has made the case that adding homosexuality to the mix will improve military readiness. The best they can do is say that they’ll try to minimize the damage.

From misreporting junk science about non-existent “gay genes,” to bashing people who believe that some behavior is simply wrong and unhealthy, the media are a fully owned subsidiary of the gay activist movement. They march in lockstep according to the dictates of the 1989 gay strategy manual After the Ball, which describes in detail how to vilify anyone who disagrees.

The liberal media might be expected to reject what God and common sense tell us about sexuality. But there is no excuse for the conservative brain trust to ignore this threat. If the gay rights activists get everything they want, thus transforming morality itself into a form of bigotry actionable under the law, we will see the criminalization of Christianity.

It’s already happening in Great Britain, Scandinavia and in Canada, where the perversion of civil rights has led to Christians being hauled before human rights commissions for merely expressing a traditionalist view of sexual morality in public. And it’s begun in the U.S. as well, with the Boy Scouts being thrown out of schools, parks and United Way chapters, and a Christian couple fined by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for declining to photograph a lesbian civil union ceremony. In New Jersey, the state removed the tax exemption for a Methodist seaside gazebo because the church did not want it used for  same-sex ceremonies contrary to Biblical morality. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Chai Feldblum has said in reference to gay rights, “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.”

The military is a linchpin for all of society. It is a bastion of traditional values. Former communist David Horowitz recalls that during the ‘60s, radical leftists determined that if they could destroy the U.S. military, they could destabilize the rest of capitalist America. Two things could accomplish this, they said: Putting women into combat, and opening the armed forces to homosexuality.

Even for non-religious Americans, the strategy – and threat – ought to be clear. It’s time to get over fears of being called a “bigot,” and to stand up for what’s right for our military servicemen and women – and our country.

If conservative opinion leaders won’t talk about this, how will the rest of the country rally to defeat this leftist goal? We still can, but the hour is late.

____________________________

Robert Knight is Senior Writer and Correspondent for Coral Ridge Ministries and the co-author of Ten Truths About Socialism (dangersofsocialism.com). His is also the author of Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is reportedly planning to attach a repeal of the law banning homosexuals in the U.S. military to a Defense Authorization vote Thursday.

TAKE ACTION: contact your members of Congress and urge them NOT to repeal the ban on open homosexuals in the military. (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121).

Folks, Barack Obama and his media sycophants sure sold the American public a bill of goods in the last election about the Anointed One being a “moderate” Democrat. (Which is another way of saying: they lied.) Do you remember Obama and McCain even debating the end of “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”? Of course you don’t because there was no serious general election debate on this issue. (Some might recall CNN’s and Anderson Cooper’s sneaky GOP primary debate trick promoting homosexuals in the military.)

The proudly “Queer” Lobby and its left-wing enablers like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — who truly seeks to impose her San Francisco district’s beyond-decadent values on the nation — know that now is their best chance to overturn America’s Judeo-Christian values system in the law. So they are in a frenzy to enact as much of the “GLBT” (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) agenda as possible. Only the American people can stop them. Demand that your Congressman and Senators tell you how they plan to vote on this issue. You can use American Family Association’s online e-mail form to contact your members of Congress. (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121.) — Peter LaBarbera, www.AmericansForTruth.org

Here is AFA’s E=Alert:

_______________________________________

More Chicago-style politics to ram unpopular vote through Congress Thursday

Repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” resorts to using Obamacare tactics…again

May 25, 2010

Dear Concerned American,

Once again, an unpopular piece of legislation is on the verge of being forced down the throats of the American people.

The Center for Military Readiness reports the House of Representatives plan to undermine the political process (again) and repeal the current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military.

President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are again using arm-twisting and backdoor deals in order to force open their laboratory for trendy experiments in the social engineering of our military.

And again, they want to pass a law, and then decide what’s in it…and how to implement it.

Forget about good government protocol of going through the proper committees. Forget about bi-partisan cooperation between political parties. And, especially, forget about Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, urging Congress not to work on repeal until the Pentagon’s year-long study of the issue is complete.

This Thursday, Speaker Pelosi will attempt to circumvent the will of the people by ramming through an amendment to the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” straight from the floor of the House of Representatives!

Allowing open homosexuals to serve in the military will decimate military morale and unit cohesion, introduce sexual tensions into same-gender accommodations and damage rather than enhance military readiness. Read our detailed report here.

Also on Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to mark-up the Defense Appropriations bill, and Chairman Carl Levin appears determined to ram through a repeal of the law. The vote will be very close, so your action is critical!

TAKE ACTION
Homosexual activists are ratcheting up pressure as they see their window of opportunity closing. The stakes are high, and it’s never been more important than right now for your voice to be heard on Capitol Hill.

We have prepared letters for you to send to your Representative and Senators. The time is critical, as Thursday is D-Day in Congress for homosexuals in the military. Please, stand with our military and against liberal social engineers in Congress!

Email your members of Congress now!

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.”

Robert Knight

In Part Two of our interview with pro-family veteran Robert Knight, he discusses the reality of “sexual orientation” and the law — specifically, the potential of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) to destroy freedom. Knight is a senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of, among other works, “Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Towards Socialism.”

Also in this interview (go HERE to listen to Part One), Knight discusses now-discredited sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, Obama’s effort to allow open homosexuals in the U.S. military, and Obama’s radical new appointee to the EEOC, lesbian Chai Feldblum.

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.

5-1-10, Robert Knight, All

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.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is using this sticker and a national "Queer the Census" campaign to turn the U.S. Census into a homosexual visibility project.

TAKE ACTION: Ask your Congressman and Senators to stand against Barack Obama’s executive imposition of the homosexual activist agenda — in spite of U.S. laws. The Obama administration is flouting DOMA and the homosexual exclusion law for the U.S. military. Call 202-224-3121; www.congress.org

Dear Readers,

Our imperious Panderer-in-Chief, Barack Obama, continues to undermine DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act — which, like the military’s homosexual exclusion policy, is still the law of the land. Homosexual activists led by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force demanded the “Queering” of the U.S. Census — and Obama complied. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

American Family Association’s One News Now reports:
________________________________

Census used as ‘gay gimmick’

Jim Brown and Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow -

Traditional marriage proponents are warning that homosexual activists and the Obama administration are once again working in concert to “manipulate” federal law.

The Associated Press reports that the Census Bureau plans to count same-sex couples who say they are married, regardless of whether they have a marriage license (see AP article). Even though only five states and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex “marriages,” the Census Bureau says same-sex couples should feel free to check the “husband” or “wife” boxes on the census form, rather than “unmarried partner.”

Peter LaBarbera, executive director of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, argues that the Bureau is clearly violating the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which does not recognize same-sex “marriages.”

“What they’re obviously trying to do is magnify the numbers of homosexuals in the society,” he suspects.  “This dates way back in the gay movement.  There was a time when homosexual activists just lied and said that ten percent of the public was gay — that was a bald-faced lie.  It took decades to finally disprove that lie, but here again we see them calling themselves married because they want to be called married.  Well, that’s not what the law says.”

LaBarbera believes homosexual activists are using the census as their latest “gimmick” to seek affirmation of their lifestyle, and he challenges Congress to “step up” and prevent the Obama administration from promoting the “gay” agenda by dictate.

Marriage by opinion is not marriage by law

Similarly, Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, believes the source for the Bureau’s instructions can perhaps be traced as far as the White House. (Listen to audio report)

Matt Barber”It’s a shame that the Census Bureau, in tangent with radical homosexual activists, are choosing to use the census, which is supposed to provide objective, quantifiable information relative to varying demographics around the country, that they’re using this as a tool for political activism,” Barber laments.

He notes that just because a homosexual couple might call their relationship a marriage, that does not make it so. “It is directly contrary to probably the letter, at least the spirit, of the Defense of Marriage Act,” he adds.

The federal law recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and the cultural affairs director believes the purpose in the census campaign is to “create an impression in the minds of the American people” that the movement for legalizing homosexual marriage has more steam behind it than it actually does.

Defense Sec. Robert Gates seems more concerned with satisfying President Obama's pro-homosexual views than following the existing 1993 law banning homosexuals in the military, says leading expert Elaine Donnelly. Congress has the final say, she says.

The following news release was put our Thursday by the Center For Military Readiness, based in Livonia, Michigan [to support the Center's unique mission and CMR President Elaine Donnelly's excellent work, go HERE]:

___________________________________

CMR Press Release: Continued Confusion About 1993 Gays-in-Military Law
Thursday, March 25, 2010

In response to an announcement by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the results of a 45-day review of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, issued the following statement:

“Secretary Gates has sent a confusing message to the troops. By applying new regulations applying only to the small number of discharges that occur for homosexuality, he has invited noncompliance with the extant 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, in future cases and those that are still pending.”

“Instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the meaning and intent of the law, Secretary Gates seems to be condoning unwarranted delays. Local commanders who are trying to do their duty by enforcing the law deserve support, not second-guessing by higher-level officials who seem more concerned about President Obama’s views than they are about the terms and intent of the law.”

Donnelly continued, “Whether intended or not, regulation changes announced today could create an incentive for ‘third parties’ to ‘out’ someone who is not eligible for military service. This will undermine respect for the law and perpetuate the institutional dishonesty that Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen complained of in February.”

She added, “It is unfortunate that Adm. Mullen has mischaracterized the views of active-duty subordinates who are not truly free to express their own opinions, due to the Chairman’s inappropriate personal statement prematurely calling for repeal of the law. Admiral Mullen has disingenuously claimed little disagreement with his personal view among active-duty troops. But junior personnel will not disagree with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during focus group meetings, and those who do agree with Mullen should not be used as props in the presence of the media.”

She added, “It is also ironic that Adm. Mullen has criticized a three-star general for expressing a personal view in support of the 1993 law, even after Mullen himself expressed a personal opinion favoring repeal of the same law before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 2. This appears to be a double standard that is not helpful.

“Furthermore, Secretary Gates has once again insisted that the Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) that he has established should limit its report only to ‘how’ and ‘when’ to repeal the law—not ‘if’ the law should be repealed. This posture effectively cuts out Congress and the American people, who will oppose any attempt to impose a European-style LGBT Law and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered policies on our military by what Sen. John McCain described as a ‘fiat’.”

She continued, “If Secretary Gates really wants to make enforcement of the law ‘more humane,’ he should follow the legal mandate to explain the purpose and meaning of the law more accurately, and exercise his legally-authorized option to reinstate ‘the question’ about homosexuality that used to appear on induction forms. All of the personal stories about servicemembers discharged for homosexuality could have been avoided if the Bush and Obama Administrations had taken steps to more fully explain and enforce the actual law.

“Despite the unnecessary and unfortunate confusion caused by Secretary Gates today, I remain confident that members of Congress ultimately will retain current law, which is important to protect recruiting, retention, and readiness in the All-Volunteer Force.”

Background: Why Exceptions in Enforcement Are Not Justified

With regard to the matter of “third party outings” generally, Finding #15 in the statute clearly states that “the presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” Because there is no constitutional right to serve, the creation of an unjustified exemption for persons revealed to be gay by others would contradict the plain meaning and intent of the law.

In a prominent case that sparked the discussion of “third parties” last year, Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a former weapons systems officer, continues to claim that he should be spared discharge. An investigation by Fehrenbach’s local newspaper, the Boise Statesman, found that he was accused of sexual assault by a “third party” he solicited for consensual sex on a gay website. A police report ensued, but Fehrenbach was cleared when he proved the incident was consensual.

Defining Discipline Down

It is unclear whether new regulations will allow Fehrenbach to remain in the Air Force. Nothing in cases involving “third parties” justifies a suspension of enforcement, since the law clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible to serve.

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL): only pro-life Democrat who didn't cave in.

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

We should have seen Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak’s sellout on abortion and ObamaCare coming. Here is a video of Rep. Stupak, a Democrat, at a townhall meeting with constituents in Cheboygan, Mich., on Oct. 29, 2009. Other “Profiles in Cowardice” abound, as pro-life advocate Jill Stanek reports:

The only pro-life Democrat to change his vote from a yes to a no due to the failure to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment was Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL), pictured [right]. (Lipinski is the congressman for the district in which Christ Hospital, my former employer, is located. His father, Congressman Bill Lipinski, was a co-sponsor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.)

Remember: the same dynamic (bogus “rights”) that will expand taxpayer funding/subsidies of abortion will also be at work expanding taxpayer funding of gruesome transsexual “sex-change” operations — unless we as Americans act to stop it. To read more of Stanek’s ObamaCare analysis, go HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___________________________________________

February 8,  010

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

Dear Admiral Mullen:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With due respect,

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

2016 Diamond Peak Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117

jefferis@embarqmail.com

CC:

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

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

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

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

_____________________________________

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

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality
www.aftah.org

February 3, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

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

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

__________________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

__________________________________________________ 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military Investigating 82nd Airborne Over Gay Porn Allegations

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

The Army has recommended that all seven be discharged.

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

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

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

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

Walking the Plank for Military “LGBT Law”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

Reprinted from Newsmax.com:

Commentator Jack Cafferty — who has been outspoken in his praise of Obama in the past — launched a blistering attack on Obama and the Democrats over the closed-door negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

“How dare they!” he began on a recent edition of CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

“President Obama and Democratic leaders have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate conference committee in order to reconcile those two healthcare bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold informal — that’s another word for secret — negotiations meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.

“What a far cry from the election, when candidate Obama pledged to ‘broadcast healthcare negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people can see what the choices are.’

“President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.”

C-SPAN Chief Executive Brian Lamb sent a letter to House and Senate leaders on Jan. 5 asking that the negotiations be televised, saying healthcare reform “will affect the lives of every single American.” The request was rebuffed.

“The Democrats insist this is all on the up and up,” Cafferty continued, “with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying ‘there’s never been a more open process for any legislation.’ Really?

“This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, you may recall after becoming speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have the ‘most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.’

“Here’s hoping the voters remember some of this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.”

The blast was a sharp turnaround for Cafferty, who in March rhapsodized about the “bright” and “terrific” Barack Obama in an interview with Media Bistro.

Asked whether he thought the president could turn things around, Cafferty described himself as “hopeful” and gushed, “I like him a lot. I think he’s a bright guy.”

Then in a statement that now appears strikingly ironic, he added: “I like the fact that he’s visible and that, you know, he’s attempting to bring some transparency and some legitimacy and honesty to the office, which has been missing for a while.”