George Harasz (l) and Douglas Wirth (r) are accused of raping two of the nine boys they adopted. The Glastonbury, CT men are “married.” Now three more of the children have come forward charging sexual abuse. Photo courtesy Glastonbury Police Department.

Although these two homosexual men (“married” in Connecticut) are innocent until proven guilty, this case has not received the media coverage that it deserves. It recalls another horrific homosexual adoption/molestation case: Frank Lombard, the North Carolina man and Duke University official who molested his own infant adopted boy and then offered up the five-year-old online for others to rape. Here’s a 2011 YouTube of a local TV news report on the shockingly evil Lombard case.

The following is from the New York Daily News (April 7, 2103) on the Connecticut story:

Gay Connecticut couple accused of raping adopted children will face trial

By Eric Ortiz, New York Daily News

The case of a same-sex Connecticut couple accused of repeatedly raping and abusing two of their nine adopted boys is headed for trial.

Married couple George Harasz and Douglas Wirth of Glastonbury were supposed to be sentenced Friday in Hartford Superior Court under a plea deal, but instead withdrew from their agreement with prosecutors. The men had already pleaded no contest in January to one felony count each of risk of injury to a minor — a reduction from even more serious charges related to sexual assault.

But in a surprise turn, the couple’s attorneys pulled them out of the plea in a bid to fully clear their names, according to CBS affiliate WFSB-TV.

If Harasz, 49, and Wirth, 45, had continued with the deal, they would have been given suspended prison sentences and probation, WFSB-TV said.

But more allegations came to light Friday in the explosive case, and prosecutors said they also want to go to trial.

Are Republican Party elites on a suicide mission?

Michigan RNC Committeeman Dave Agema was charged by fellow Republicans with “hate” for raising the public health risks of the homosexual lifestyle.

This is an important piece by Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins, reprinted from his April 2 “Washington Watch” newsletter. Republican Party politicians (they’re not behaving like statesmen) are on a suicide mission if they think they can stab their most faithful constituents in the back on the homosexual agenda and still come away strong enough to beat the radically pro-“gay” Democrats. (A Democrat will usually beat a “Democrat-lite.”)

You are like me if you’re ready to yell at the TV or radio every time you hear a Republican or some libertarian-leaning pundit assert, with robot-like efficiency, that we need to be “focusing on the issues that really matter.” That’s code for the fiscal issues — rather than social issues like homosexual “marriage,” which I suppose, by extension, “don’t really matter” much to these Republicans.

Seems to me the moral disintegration of America and the preservation of marriage should be at the top of the list of issues that matter. Too bad we don’t have a STRONG pro-family, pro-life, God-fearing conservative party that could give both of our corrupt major parties a run for their money. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

P.S. While I (like Perkins) will not vouch for the accuracy of each of Agema’s citations (e.g., it was not NAMBLA but another pedophile group that invented the sick motto, “Sex before eight or it’s too late”), it is preposterous to assert that homosexuality is somehow above criticism. Even more absurd is the idea — repeated in this Daily Kos hit piece against FRC — of blaming the well-documented, highly disproportionate disease rates linked to homosexual sex (HIV, syphilis, hepatitis, etc.) on “the stress which comes from having to deal with homophobia and discrimination.” Right, it’s our fault….

______________________________________

From Tony Perkins’ April 2 “Washington Watch”:

RNC Makes Values a Mute Point

“Wishful thinking.” That’s how MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough described the GOP’s supposed shift on same-sex “marriage.” During a segment on yesterday’s show, Scarborough tried to put the media’s spin into perspective. “This rush to marriage equality is–at least among the Republican base–a mirage.” Anyone who believes otherwise, he said, has a fundamental misunderstanding of the political realities in America:

“I wonder how many of these people [who] support it from Washington or New York, or from state capitals across the country, have ever campaigned in western Iowa, have ever campaigned in South Carolina in the Greenville-Spartanburg area, have ever campaigned across north Florida. … What [Republican presidential] candidate can win in western Iowa, can win in the Greenville-Spartanburg area, can win in north Florida if they come out and support gay marriage nationally?”

“Gay” activists have been promoting the acceptance of homosexual relationships — even to young children — for decades. (This is a page from the 1991 “children’s” book, “Daddy’s Roommate.”) For conservatives to now claim that the debate over “same-sex marriage” is NOT about homosexuality is disingenuous and actually helps normalize the sin of homosexual behavior. Sentence at bottom of page reads, “Being gay is just one more kind of love.” (Click to enlarge.)

“Moral judgment undergirds the entire structure of laws and is necessary for the rational structure of any significant statute. The idea that our laws can stand independent of moral foundation is senseless. We do not think that driving under the influence of alcohol is simply risky, in terms of statistics. We believe that it is wrong, in terms of explicit moral judgment.” –Al Mohler

This is an important piece by Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and we applaud him for writing it. To say that the struggle to preserve marriage from being homosexualized requires “no judgment about the morality of homosexuality” is pure folly and a recipe for defeat. It is a negation of common sense, like telling pro-lifers not to make the case for the humanity of the unborn in arguing against pro-abortion laws.

By pretending that the homosexual “marriage” debate is not really about homosexuality, well-intended people are actually advancing the godless crusade to normalize immoral same-sex behavior and relationships in society. (A neutral response to sin — or a reluctance to confront it — by religious people who know better actually propels sin forward.) We need to rebuild the moral consensus against homosexual behavior, but you cannot do that by running away from the issue.

Substitute another (less politically correct) sexual misbehavior and this formula make no sense: Imagine if conservatives were to carefully avoid discussing, say, the morality of adultery (or worse, talk about respecting the “needs” of adulterous “couples”); would that not be cheered by sexual anarchists and the “open marriage” crowd?

In other words, to fight one evil (homosexual “marriage”), some of our Best and Brightest are effectively lending aid to another, by undermining the moral/spiritual/practical case against homosexuality — a perversion that just a few decades ago was so widely deplored that it was barely mentioned in polite society. We conservatives and people of faith need to talk more about the immorality and tragic realities of homosexuality, not less. — Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH

Reprinted with permission from http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/04/01/bracketing-morality-the-marginalization-of-moral-argument-in-the-same-sex-marriage-debate/:

_____________________________________

Bracketing Morality — The Marginalization of Moral Argument in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate

By Albert Mohler

Monday, April 1, 2013

“Somewhere along the way, standing up for gay marriage went from nervy to trendy.” This was the assessment offered by Frank Bruni, an influential openly-gay columnist for The New York Times. Bruni’s column, published just as the Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments in the two same-sex marriage cases now before it, is a celebration of the fact that, as he sees it, same-sex marriage is soon to be the law of the land, whatever the Court may decide. “The trajectory is undeniable. The trend line is clear. And the choice before the justices is whether to be handmaidens of history, or whether to sit it out.”

Bruni may well be right, given the trajectory and the trend-line he has described. Of course, Bruni, along with his fellow columnists, editors, and reporters for The New York Times will, along with their friends in the larger world of elite media, bear much of the responsibility for this. They are certain that their work is the mission of human liberation from irrational prejudice.

In the most important section of Bruni’s column, he writes: “In an astonishingly brief period of time, this country has experienced a seismic shift in opinion — a profound social and political revolution — when it comes to gay and lesbian people.”

That is a powerful summary of what has happened. Bruni is undoubtedly right, and he has helped to make it so. But there is something missing from Bruni’s analysis, and this is something that he has helped to cause as well. The “seismic shift” on the issue of homosexuality is a profound moral revolution as well.

And yet, what makes this moral revolution so vast in consequences and importance is this: the moral dimension has virtually disappeared from the cultural conversation. This is true, we must note, even among the defenders of heterosexual marriage.

AFTAH in the news….

TIME magazine covers, blocked for decency’s sake by AFTAH. TIME managing editor Richard Stengel says the homosexual kisses are “beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage.” Click on graphic to enlarge.

From OneNewsNow, the online publication of the American Family Assoction [click HERE to view article on their website]:

Media, Republicans Fueling the Left

Posted by Charlie Butts and Chad Groening (American Family News) – April 04, 2013

A pro-family leader asserts that while “nothing’s inevitable,” the media and now members of the Republican Party are helping promote the homosexual agenda.

The April 8 issue of TIME has two different covers with the same theme. One features two women kissing, and the other shows two men doing the same. “Gay Marriage Already Won. The Supreme Court Hasn’t Made Up Its Mind – but America Has” is printed in yellow across the two black and white covers.

But Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is “upset” by how the magazine is jumping the gun.

“This is shocking that TIME magazine would do this — basically publishing indecent photos, promoting perversion on the cover of their magazine, where on racks across the country children can see this,” he laments. “This is an in-your-face promotion of homosexual immorality, and I’m very upset that they would go to this length.”

And LaBarbera is especially dismayed that the order to print the photos came from the top.

“The managing editor of TIME, Richard Stengel, said the images published by TIME were — quote — ‘beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage’ — unquote,” the AFTAH president reports. “How can you be more confused? Two people of the same sex kissing symbolizes the love of marriage?”

Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, and he asserts that media moguls cannot change that.

LaBarbera adds that the media and the far left are confused, and he submits that the article and cover photos are a sellout to the homosexual lobby, as corporate America supports TIME through its advertising dollars.

Sen. Kirk and “gay marriage”

Meanwhile, the pro-family activist who works to expose the truth about homosexuality is not surprised that Illinois Republican Senator Mark Kirk has come out in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

Massive Reuters poll finds only 41 percent support ‘gay marriage’

Pro-family citizens march in Washington, D.C., to uphold marriage as one-man, one-woman. If the Republican Party wants to gain minority voters, perhaps it should strengthen, not weaken, it’s pro-natural-marriage advocacy and speak out against the “gay” activist proposition that compares rights based on homosexuality to real civil rights.

The following is excepted from Accuracy in Media; click HERE for the full story:

More Dishonest Coverage from the Pro-Homosexual Media

By Cliff Kincaid, March 29, 2013

A big news story came out of Tuesday’s March for Marriage demonstration in Washington, D.C. But it didn’t make “news” in the major media. As one who covered the event, it was significant that there were so many members of minority groups. This was not a mostly white crowd. In addition to the presence of black, Hispanic and Asian supporters of traditional marriage, there were some notable Democrats, such as New York State Senator Ruben Díaz, and he let people know he was several minorities in one.

“I’m Puerto Rican,” he said. “I’m black, with kinky hair. I am a Democrat and I am a senator. I’m against abortion. I’m against same-sex marriage, and I won the last election with 89 percent of the vote.”

J.C. Derrick of World magazine has a good analysis of how the major media, led by The Washington Post, virtually ignored the March for Marriage. But unless you actually see what happened on the ground, as the thousands of traditional marriage supporters held their demonstration, you would miss the true significance of how dishonest the media’s coverage of this issue has become.

The March for Marriage went by the Supreme Court before returning to the National Mall location where the rally was held. The group has posted a video of excerpts of the major speeches.

Ken McIntyre of the Heritage Foundation wrote a dispatch, with pictures: “Marching for Marriage—and Children.” John Burger of the Catholic World Report estimated the crowd at 10,000. Based on attendance at several rallies in the nation’s capital, I put the crowd size at about 5,000.

Díaz, the New York state senator, led an all-night vigil for the rally of 32 buses filled with Pentecostal ministers and members of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization.

He was the only Democratic state senator in 2011 to cast a “No” vote on the homosexual marriage bill in New York State and he was the only lawmaker to rise to speak against it. “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago,” Díaz said.

Reporters sound like “gay” activists at homosexual journalists fundraiser in New York City

Contessa Brewer of MSNBC says giving fair coverage to opponents of homosexuality would be like giving “fair coverage for racists.”

By Peter LaBarbera

NEW YORK CITY — MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer said at a “gay journalists” fundraiser Thursday that for the media to give fair coverage to “the other side” of the homosexual rights debate — pro-family advocates who oppose homosexuality — would be like giving “fair coverage for racists.”

“You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’” Brewer said.

Asserting that opposition to homosexuality is objectively “wrong,” Brewer said, “I think that there’s a difference between being objective and being fair.  And sometimes wrong is wrong, and the right thing to do is say when it’s wrong.”

Brewer made the comments in a short interview with this writer at the annual fundraising event for the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA). I attended the “Headlines and Headliners benefit” as a critical observer along with Cliff Kincaid of the conservative group America’s Survival.

Brewer, NBC “Today Show” host Matt Lauer, Today Show co-host Natalie Morales, “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King and other major media TV media personalities attended the NLGJA fundraiser and lauded the homosexual group’s work. Morales, who hosted the event. told this writer in an interview that homosexual rights is “a new civil rights movement.” In her speech to about 300 attendees, she celebrated the advances of the LGBT movement (including same-sex “marriage”) and applauded the NLGJA, now in its 18th year. Noting the media’s key role in the propelling “gay” rights forward, Morales said, “”We’re all united in this cause.”

Among the sponsoring news corporations at the NLGJA fundraiser were: NBC Universal (lead sponsor); CBS News, CNN, Fox News, The New York Times; Bloomberg News, Buzzfeed; and Newsday. The NLGJA raised $75,000 from the event, according to its website.

Following is a verbatim transcript of this writer’s interview with Brewer, taken from a video of it shot by Kincaid:

Q: I’m Peter LaBarbera with Americans For Truth…. We’re sort of on the other side of the issue. We’re for traditional marriage and so forth….My question is: for some in the media, are you afraid that there’s not fair coverage for the other side – [that] now it’s veering so far the other way… that sometimes there’s a tendency to—

Contessa Brewer:— You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter. I think that there’s a difference between being objective and being fair.  And sometimes wrong is wrong, and the right thing to do is say when it’s wrong.

LaBarbera: A lot of Christians, for example, think that racism is a sin, but they also think tht homosexuality [is a sin]–

Brewer: –You know what I say? I grew up as the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and you know what my answer always is? If you think it’s wrong, then don’t do it. Thank you. [she walks away]

Republicans will never “out-gay” the Democrats in pandering to a Sin Movement…

Sen. Rob Portman’s emotional conversion to the homosexual “marriage” cause — which he justified as supporting his homosexual son — plays into the liberal media and “gay” activist narrative that same-sex “marriage” is inevitable.

By Peter LaBarbera for Americans For Truth

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush – it seems everyone is embracing oxymoronic homosexual “marriage” these days, or so the liberal media would have us believe. Promoting sexual perversion in the name of “civil rights” is the trendy and “cool” thing to do. If you’ve heard it once you’ve heard it a hundred times: today’s youth (and we all know how wise and experienced they are) are overwhelming pro-“gay marriage” — so it is “inevitable.”

Even CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, is getting in the game: last week it allowed the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to sponsor an entire panel (“Rainbow on the Right”) devoted to homosexuals’ “inclusion” in the conservative movement. Sounding more like a Washington Post “conservative” than a real one, panelist and Post columnist Jennifer Rubin reportedly exclaimed at the panel how anti-homosexual-“marriage” Republicans “cannot be at war with America on the issues of fairness and equality.“ (Prominent opponents of the Homosexual Lobby were excluded from the CPAC-CEI panel.)

In the midst of the CPAC gathering, news broke that Sen. Portman had flip-flopped on homosexual “marriage” because his 21-year-old son Will is a homosexual. Thus Portman succumbed to the emotionalism and illogic that dominate post-Christian America. Employing some awful theology, he kicked God to the curb — as is becoming habit in a land that increasingly mocks its own national motto, “In God We Trust.”

Here is a dose of Politically Incorrect truth: homosexual behavior is sinful (read: always wrong in the eyes of God), unnatural, destructive and yet – thankfully – changeable. To become homosexual-affirming because someone you love announces he or she is homosexual is the antithesis of “tough love.” It’s like telling a loved one who is has a drug problem: “I love you so much that I’m going to send you a five ounces of cocaine every month, because that’s how much I care.”

An imperfect analogy, perhaps, but Portman’s tragic defection and moral weakness play right into the Left’s ubiquitous narrative that same-sex “marriage” is unstoppable. Don’t buy it. In politics and life, only death and taxes are inevitable. Remember that radical feminists used to say that the abortion debate was “settled”; now they’re losing that cultural battle for hearts and minds.

“Conservative” business group brings pro-homosexual “Rainbow on the Right” panel to CPAC

Self-styled “conservative” and lesbian Tammy Bruce isn’t very “conservative” when it comes to homosexuality. If the Republican Party starts supporting “out and proud” homosexuality and “gay marriage,” it will divide the Party and alienate its socially conservative base.

Folks, my friend and America’s Survival president Cliff Kincaid is getting a lot of flack from the Left and LGBT activists over this piece (below) highlighting Marxist connections to homosexual activism. CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., begins today and runs through Saturday.

In protest of CPAC denying the homosexual-activist Republican group “GOProud” a sponsoring role at its annual conference, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) used its privilege as a major CPAC sponsor to hold a special panel (tonight) titled, “A Rainbow on the Right: Growing the Coalition, Bringing Tolerance Out of the Closet,” which will promote “inclusion” of homosexuals (and Republican “gay” activist groups like GOProud) in the conservative movement. Among the CEI panelists is libertarian, pro-“gay marriage” pundit Margaret Hoover and GOProud co-founder Jimmy LaSalvia — but not a single stalwart social conservative like Kincaid who opposes the homosexual activist agenda on principle.

Homosexual activism — fighting for “rights” based on sexual deviancy — and oxymoronic “same-sex marriage” are the antithesis of conservatism. Certainly, practicing homosexuals can vote Republican and be conservative on various issues — taxes, foreign policy, etc. And they can even oppose what I call the “Big Gay Government” agenda, which is in the vanguard of repressing religious freedom — ironically, in the name of “nondiscrimination.” But I have found that usually the personal “gay” aspect of “gay conservatives” dominates and drives them to be very anti-conservative on that particular issue. An example is supposed “conservative” and open lesbian Tammy Bruce. She is terrific on many issues and an articulate critic of leftist excesses. But when it comes to her pet issue, homosexuality, Bruce at times has behaved like a typical irrational, left-wing extremist.

Years ago, in a response to a release AFTAH put out critical of “Gay Day” at Disney World, Bruce interviewed me on her radio show, posing as a bullying “homophobe.” (I foolishly had failed to research her before appearing on the show.) In the radio business this is known as an ambush interview. Executing her on-air ruse, Bruce tried to goad me into saying that it was OK to get violent with homosexuals — because, of course, from Bruce’s fanatical and warped perspective, my opposition to homosexual activism meant that I “hated gays” enough to want to beat them up! (AFTAH and its predecessor, The Lambda Report, have from their inception (LR in 1993) condemned violence against and hatred of homosexuals.)

Libertarian Margaret Hoover is pushing the GOP to embrace homosexual “marriage.”

Thankfully, I didn’t play into Bruce’s jaundiced “gay” stereotype, because I don’t hate homosexuals. Frustrated that I didn’t fall for her “Religious-Right-as-Antigay-Bully” trap, she closed the show by defiantly announcing that she was an “out lesbian” and that I had one minute to respond. It was a harrowing experience that violated all rules of civil discourse. I ended up haltingly affirming that it’s OK to oppose homosexuality and that doesn’t translate into “hating gays.”

It was telling that Bruce never had the courage or decency to provide me a tape of the program when I requested it. She also never apologized to me, because I suppose the ends justify the means and “hateful homophobic bigots” like me deserve to be mistreated, right? (Even now, Bruce — like GOProud co-founder Chris Barron — blocks me on her Twitter account; sign up to follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/PeterLaBarbera.)

I tell this story to illustrate the folly of the Republican Party folding “out and proud” homosexuality — and “gay” activism of GOProud’s variety — into its Big Tent. First and foremost, homosexual behavior is immoral and hence defending it – much less ascribing it legal rights — is anti-conservative, assuming that conservatives defend Judeo-Christian mores.