Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho)

Since this story broke, the Idaho affiliate of the American Family Association has called for Sen. Craig’s resignation if the sordid allegations are true. Below are excerpts from a WorldNetDaily report:

GOP senator arrested for lewd conduct
Larry Craig pleaded guilty to incident at airport bathroom

——————————————————————————–
WorldNetDaily.com
Posted: August 27, 2007 

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, was arrested at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call.

The Capitol Hill publication said Craig was arrested just after noon June 11 and pleaded guilty Aug. 8 in the Hennepin County District Court to misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Later today, Craig responded to the Roll Call story with a statement, declaring, “At the time of this incident, I complained to the police that they were misconstruing my actions. I was not involved in any inappropriate conduct.”

“I should have had the advice of counsel in resolving this matter,” the senator said. “In hindsight, I should not have pled guilty. I was trying to handle this matter myself quickly and expeditiously.”

Craig, who is married, paid more than $500 in fines and fees and was given one year of probation with the court that began Aug. 8, Roll Call reported. A 10-day jail sentence was stayed. …

The incident report, according to Roll Call, said the plainclothes officer, Sgt. Dave Karsnia, was investigating civilian complaints regarding sexual activity in the men’s restroom of the Northstar Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal. A number of arrests already had been made there.

Karsnia took a seat in a stall, and about 13 minutes later, a man later identified as Craig lingered in front of the stall for about two minutes.

The report states: “I could see Craig look through the crack in the door from his position. Craig would look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again. Craig would repeat this cycle for about two minutes.”

Karsnia reported Craig then entered the stall next to him and placed his roller bag in front of the stall door.

“My experience,” the officer stated, “has shown that individuals engaging in lewd conduct use their bags to block the view from the front of their stall. From my seated position, I could observe the shoes and ankles of Craig seated to the left of me.”

Karsnia wrote:

“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly. While this was occurring, the male in the stall to my right was still present. I could hear several unknown persons in the restroom that appeared to use the restroom for its intended use. The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area.”

Click HERE to read the full WorldNetDaily report

Click HERE to read the statement by the Idaho affiliate of AFA calling for Craig’s resignation

Steamworks, a 24/7 homosexual bathhouse — where men go for anonymous sex with other men — in the heart of Chicago’s homosexual Boystown neighborhood, had a booth at the city’s 2005 “Market Days” street fair. The fair was promoted by Illinois’ tourism agency. Other booths at the event hawked “gay” porn and an anti-traditional-Catholic homosexual organization. More photos at: Illinois Family Institute’s website.
  

By Peter LaBarbera 

We missed Chicago’s “Market Days” earlier this month in the city’s homosexual neighborhood of Boystown. So will have to rely on an account I wrote in 2005 for the Illinois Family Institute to illustrate the perils of using taxpayer dollars to promote homosexual tourism.

When states like Florida and cities like Chicago promote “gay” tourism, invariably they promote (mostly male) homosexual sexual promiscuity and anti-Christian homosexual activism — such as the counterfeit Catholic homosexual group ‘Dignity Chicago,’ which had a booth at Market Days, as shown in the IFI story. 

Where else but a homosexually-oriented street fair would you see a bathhouse sponsor a booth in which people (presumably including children) lined up to play “Skeeball”; a booth right on the street hawking hundreds of “gay” porn videos; a sadistic sex store table featuring to its own life-sized wax dummy — a fat, hooded “leatherman” standing in a cage; a heretical “gay Catholic” booth — and a “health” group passing out booklets informing teenaged “boyz” that “BEING QUEER is something SPECIAL. Something to CELEBRATE”?

All that and more was found at the 2005 Chicago “Market days.” Yep, sounds like a great use of tax dollars to me.

The truth is, “gay” tourism — and homosexual events sponsored by major corporations — are unlike most other special interest promotions because they celebrate sexual immorality. Pushing the sexual (and now gender) envelope is part and parcel of the modern “GLBT” movement.

Mayor Naugle is right

Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle is urging his state’s tourism officials to stop promoting homosexual bathhouses — 24/7 walk-in sex clubs where men go for anonymous sodomitic encounters with other men — as a way to reduce HIV infections (apparently, at his urging, Florida is now going to remove the bathhouses from their “gay”-oriented travel guides). He is right. But the larger problem with governments promoting “gay” tourism is that it puts the average citizen in the position of financing — and, thus, in a way, condoning — homosexual lifestyles. Governments act on behalf of citizens.

For Americans and politicians who worship at the shrine of the Almighty Dollar, sponsoring homosexuality-oriented events is not a  problem. “Gay” dollars are green, not lavender, and broke cities need cash, while local businesses benefit, they say. But I suspect that most taxpayers would not want to subsidize and celebrate pro-homosexuality events with their hard-earned dollars.

So let the private sector finance these dubious festivals — and the sex-filled “gay” tourism industry — on their own dime. Moral-minded and fiscally prudent taxpayers want out of the homosexuality promotion business.

The perverse, homosexuality-themed play ‘Angels in America’ contains lines like “Holy Orifice!” and “You [f—–d] this angel?” The blasphemous and vulgar play was taught in a Chicago area high school.

Americans For Truth has learned that the vulgar, homosexuality-themed play Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes, was chosen for study last year at a Chicago area high school.

I must ask after reading a few profane, pornographic excerpts from Angels in America — with highly artistic lines like, “Holy Orifice!” and “You [f—-d] this angel?”: what is wrong with liberals? What good comes from foisting this blasphemous garbage on students? The use of this play in the classroom borders on mental abuse — it constitutes the corruption of minors — and I suspect that educationists could only continue with this sort of malpractice if parents remain ignorant. — Peter LaBarbera 

(emphasis added below):

WARNING: Offensive sexual language, of the sort that should not be forced on impressionable students in our schools. 

By Laurie Higgins

I have just read Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes by Tony Kushner which is currently being taught in some high schools.  I am dismayed that any high school teacher would choose this highly polemical, vulgar, pro-homosexual play. It is egregiously profane and obscene with references to “fellatio” and “blowjobs,” and casual and frequent use of profane and obscene language.

I reject the anticipated caterwauling from teachers about censorship. Parents who object to this and other offensive texts are not recommending prior restraint or removal of a text from a library. Rather, they are arguing for reasonable respect for parental values and community standards of decency when selecting texts to be taught to minors in public schools. Apparently, what teachers actually mean when they squawk about censorship is that they will never take into account vulgarity, profanity, obscenity, or the deeply held beliefs of conservatives on arguably the single most divisive, contentious issue facing American society. Evidently liberal teachers will continue to promote the normalization of what many, including virtually all Muslim traditions, Orthodox Judaism, the Roman Catholic Church, and many Protestant denominations, as well as many secularists consider sexual perversion. Do faculty members, school boards, and administrations think that Muslim families want their sons and daughters discussing oral sex and homosexuality at school at all, let alone in mixed groups? Certainly, I, as a Protestant, would not want any of my children to discuss these topics in their classes.

I find it nigh unto impossible to believe that this play was chosen simply because of how critically well received it has been within the amoral, arrogant, elitist intelligentsia of American culture who purvey cultural collapse. I believe this text was chosen in order to take on the philistines who contend that traditional values deserve respect and that there should be an end to the advocacy of liberal views on sexual orientation and identity. Choosing an odiously vulgar “gay fantasia” constitutes an insult and an aggressive, arrogant challenge to conservative parents.

What a repugnant and diabolical irony it is that teachers are often prohibited from discussing, even in an intellectual (as opposed to proselytical) way, religion, but they may ask students to read and discuss “blowjobs” and homosexuality. If nothing changes, and teachers continue to ask adolescents to read and discuss texts like this, there is no reason for public school administrations to prohibit students, staff, faculty, or administrators from using obscene and profane language or discussing fellatio in the halls of higher learning.

The curious thing is that those liberal educators who with obsessive vigilance monitor public school classrooms for violations of the separation of church and state don’t seem to object to the presence of religion in Kushner’s gay fantasia. His theology touches on the nature of God, Heaven, angelology, and theodicy. I guess it’s okay to commingle the church and state as long as religion is treated in a perverse, blasphemous kind of way.
 
Laurie Higgins who works full-time in a suburban public high school writing center in the Chicago area.

Randy Thomasson of the VoteYesMarriage.com in California coalition writes:

Please forward today to your pro-family friends:

Dear friends, the following news is appalling. Please help place rock-solid marriage protection into the California Constitution by donating right now to VoteYesMarriage.com or by calling 916-265-5643 to discuss making a major gift. We need to raise $1 million in the next two weeks in order to qualify for California’s June 2008 ballot. Any U.S. citizen or legal resident may donate. Thank you.

Here is the media release issued Monday by the VoteYesMarriage.com coalition:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 27, 2007
 
California Governor and Attorney General
Say Marriage can be Eliminated in Future

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown file legal briefs saying the California Legislature can eliminate marriage rights and get rid of marriage

Sacramento, California — In legal briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether to license “same-sex marriages” next year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown both stated that a future Legislature could abolish marriage and yank marriage rights from a married husband and wife.

It was revealed today that Attorney General Jerry Brown [see PDF of AG Jerry Brown’s 8/17 brief] and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger [See PDF of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 8/17 brief ] said the following in their August 17 supplemental briefs responding to questions from the California Supreme Court:

Marriage can be abolished in the future by the California Legislature

BROWN: …the words “marry” and “marriage” have no essential constitutional significance under the California Constitution. Thus, the Legislature could change the name of the legal relationship now known as “marriage” to some other name without any constitutional impediment.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …The Administration submits that use of the words “marry” and “marriage” is not required by the California Constitution. Thus, the name of the legal relationship now known as “marriage” could be changed.

Marriage rights and marriage benefits for a husband and wife can be eliminated by the California Legislature

BROWN: …except for this essential ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal and binding contractual commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded exclusively to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

SCHWARZENEGGER: …except for the ability to choose and declare one’s life partner in a reciprocal commitment of mutual support, any of the statutory rights and obligations that are afforded to married couples in California could be abrogated or eliminated by the Legislature or the electorate for any rational legislative purpose.

“This is proof positive that the VoteYesMarriage.com initiative, which will prevent marriage from being abolished and prevent marriage rights from being eliminated, is absolutely needed to protect the sacred institution of marriage from activist judges and liberal politicians,” said Randy Thomasson, an organizer of the VoteYesMarriage.com California Marriage Amendment, which is aiming for the 2008 ballot.

“Protecting the word ‘marriage’ in the state constitution is useless if the politicians can still get rid of marriage and marriage rights for a man and a woman,” concluded Thomasson. “Clearly, the VoteYesMarriage.com amendment, which will override the judges and politicians and preserve everything about marriage for one man and one woman, is the only way to protect this special institution for future generations to respect and enjoy.”

— end —

VoteYesMarriage.com (ID #1276880) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan organization sponsoring The Voters’ Right to Protect Marriage Initiative. Please help us protect marriage once and for all in the California State Constitution by making an instant online donation or sending a generous gift to:

VoteYesMarriage.com
P.O. Box 1978
Sacramento, CA 95812
(916) 265-5643
(916) 290-0114 fax

Donate Online:

* Donations to VoteYesMarriage.com are not tax deductible.
* Please write your occupation and employer on your check, as required by state law

Tony Kushner’s anti-Reagan, pro-homosexuality propaganda play, “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes,” is simply not appropriate for schools.

Even people without children or grandchildren in schools will find Laurie Higgins’ excellent arguments below compelling. Also, click HERE to read her take on “Angels in America,” which was studied in Deerfield High School, north of Chicago.– Peter LaBarbera

By Laurie Higgins

As a new school year begins, here are some of the arguments that parents may encounter when they challenge books (e.g. The Chocolate War, Fat Kid Rules the World, The Laramie Project, or Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes) for their problematic ideological messages, the nature and extent of profanity and obscenity, or the nature and extent of depictions of sexuality, followed by brief responses.

Parents who challenge a book because of language need to bear in mind that many of the parents and teachers who approve of these objectionable texts use the same obscene and profane language commonly and casually in their personal lives, even with their children, though they will not likely admit it. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that they will concede that profanity and obscenity are objectionable, for conceding that would constitute a personal indictment:

1. Parents are taking words out of context, and it is the context that justifies the language.

Response: There is no context that renders frequent and excessively obscene language acceptable in texts selected by public school teachers for minor children. In other words, the extreme nature and pervasiveness of obscenity renders the entire text unsuitable for public schools whose mission is to cultivate the best behavior in students.

2. Profane and obscene language is justified because it represents authentic adolescent language.

Response: If the author is justified in using this language to portray authentically adolescent culture and the emotional experiences of adolescents, then surely students are justified in using this language in school in order to be authentic and to express adequately and accurately their emotional truths. Teachers too should be allowed to use this language because it also represents authentic adult language and experience. In fact, society often erroneously and euphemistically refers to profanity and obscenity as “adult language.”

3. Counting numbers of swear words constitutes an immature or silly evaluative mechanism.

Response: Taking into account the extent of foul language is neither silly nor juvenile. There is a substantive difference between one incident of “f**k” and one hundred. The incessant drumbeat of obscenities desensitizes readers to their offensiveness and normalizes their use. Moreover, although adults may distinguish between literary use and endorsement, many adolescents do not.

First, the prevalence of foul language should be taken into account. Second, the nature of the obscenity or profanity should be taken into account. Third, who is using the offensive language should be taken into account. Is it the hero or the antagonist? Fourth, parents and educators should realize that books with profuse obscenity and the willingness of educators’ to teach them convey the message that there are justifiable reasons and contexts for using extremely foul language.

4. Since students mature at different rates, some students are mature enough for these texts. Parents, therefore, should decide what is appropriate for their child.

Response: Whoever makes this argument should be asked to define maturity. If they are referring to intellectual development, then it is irrelevant to the discussion in that parents who challenge texts because of language, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages, are not doing so because they find the material intellectually inaccessible.
If educators are referring to emotional maturity, meaning that students are emotionally stable enough to read and discuss emotionally difficult material without being traumatized, that too is likely irrelevant, for few parents who object to language, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages are concerned that their children will be emotionally traumatized.

The concern conservative parents have is with moral development. They recognize that all adolescents, including even mature high school seniors, are not yet adults. They are still constructing a moral compass. They are impressionable, malleable, and much more vulnerable to external influences than are adults whose moral compass is likely fixed and stable. For a teacher to contend that there is any 12-18 year-old whose moral compass is fully developed, mature, and fixed represents an ignorant and hubristic assertion.

Every parent should be able to send their child to school confident that their beliefs regarding decency and morality will not be challenged by educators or curricula, especially since this confidence can be secured without compromising the academic enterprise. It is even more important today in a culture in which profanity, obscenity, and sexual imagery relentlessly bombard our youth that schools stand as one of the last bastions of integrity, civility, and temperance.

5. A small minority group is trying to impose their morality or religious beliefs on the whole community.

Response: Since schools are ostensibly committed to honoring the voices of all in the community, there is no justifiable reason to ignore the concerns of even minority voices. Schools should respect the values of people of faith, especially when doing so does not compromise student learning. In addition, objections to obscenity, sexuality, or pro-homosexual messages can be either religious or secular in nature. If objections to, for example, the use of obscenity represented the imposition of religious belief, then why do virtually all school districts have policies against its use by students in school?  It is the mark of a civilized society to honor the concerns and values of people of diverse faiths and to aspire to decency.

6. There are other options for those who object to particular texts.

Response: First, opting out of reading an assigned class text results in a diminished, isolated academic experience for students. But equally important is the issue of whether taxpayers, even those who have no children in school, should be required to fund the teaching of offensive material. A text like Angels in America contributes to the debasement of an already vulgar culture, and schools should never in any way contribute to the baser aspects of culture. This does not mean that texts must avoid looking at the flaws and evil that afflict man. Rather, it means that we should choose texts that look at the presence of ignobility and evil but do so in ways that inspire, edify, chasten, and point us in the direction of truth, beauty and righteousness. Texts like Angels in America do none of this.

 7. Refusing to offer this book will lead ineluctably to the world of book-burning à la Fahrenheit 451.

Response: This is an irrational, alarmist, specious canard. There is simply no evidence that including in selection criteria the nature and extent of obscene language or sexuality, or a consideration of highly controversial political messages will result in wholesale book banning. There is, however, ample evidence, that a steadfast refusal to ever take into account these elements will result in a slippery slide down the other slope to the use of corrosively vulgar and polemical texts.

8. This book has won prestigious literary awards or has been approved by the American Library Association (ALA).

Response:  This justification begs the question: Who serves on committees that award prizes or review texts? And this argument calls for a serious, open, and honest examination of the ideological monopoly that controls academia and the elite world of the arts that for decades has engaged in censorship of conservative scholarship. To offer as justification for teaching a text the garnering of literary prizes or ALA approval without acknowledging that those who award the prizes and belong to the ALA are generally of the same ideological bent is an exercise in sophistry.

What school committees, departments, administrations, school boards, the ALA, the National Education Association (NEA), and organizations that award literary prizes desperately need is the one form of diversity about which they are least concerned and to which they are least committed: ideological diversity.

9. Kids relate to this book and, therefore, it captures and holds their interest.

Response: If this criterion has assumed a dominant place in the selection process, then teachers have abandoned their proper role as educators. Appealing to the sensibilities and appetites of adolescents should not be the goal of educators. There’s another word for capitulating to the tastes of adolescents: it is called pandering. Schools should teach those texts that students will likely not read on their own. We should teach those texts that are intellectually challenging and offer insight, wisdom, beauty, and truth. We should avoid those that are highly polemical, blasphemous, and vulgar.

10. To remove this text constitutes censorship.

Response: Parents who object to the inclusion of texts on recommended or required reading lists due to obscene language, sexuality, or highly controversial messages are not engaging in some kind of inappropriate censorship. All educators evaluate curricular materials for objectionable content, including language, sexuality, and controversial themes. The irony is that when teachers decide not to select a text due to these elements, the choice constitutes an exercise in legitimate decision-making, but when parents engage in it, they are tarred with the label of “censor.”

Furthermore, virtually no parents advocate prior restraint and only rarely are they asking for the removal of a text from a school library. Rather, parents are suggesting that it is reasonable to include the nature and extent of profanity, obscenity, and sexuality when selecting texts to be recommended and/or taught to minors in public schools.

Are those teachers, administrators, and school board members who disagree with that suggestion saying that they will never take into account the nature and extent of profanity, obscenity, and sexuality? If they are claiming that they will never take into account these elements, then parents should reconsider their fitness for teaching.

In all four years of high school English, students read approximately 28-32 books. From the dozens and dozens of texts available, it seems unlikely that any student’s education would be compromised by teachers, in the service of respect for parental values, comity, and modesty, avoiding the most controversial texts.

Laurie Higgins is a writer and public school teacher in the Chicago area.

Richard John Neuhaus, writing in the journal First Things (Feb. 2004), on Tony Kushner’s play, Angels in America:
 
“The theater world is abuzz with the effort to mainstream Tony Kushner’s Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes. The show was wildly acclaimed on the Great Gay Way that Broadway has become. It is titteringly asked whether dumb, plodding, pious, bourgeois, so very ordinary America is ready for this scintillating inversion of its old certitudes and fixed creeds, in the half-hope that the answer is in the negative, thus providing further proof of the genius and, yes, the courage of Mr. Kushner and, by extension, of the herd of independent minds who join in his contempt for our repressive society that would, don’t you know, jail him if it could. Mr. Kushner has also written a little book, Save Your Democratic Soul!: Rants, Screeds, and Other Public Utterances. Civil discourse is not his shtick. His agent says that in his many campus appearances Mr. Kushner “prefers to speak to progressive audiences open to change.” But of course. Because old certitudes are no longer certain and fixed creeds no longer so fixed, people who cannot help but know better nervously applaud the assault on what they used to call their convictions, thus appeasing the great god Progress who might otherwise be displeased. Their nervous approval is offered in the hope of avoiding the terrible judgment of the priesthood of comic inversion that they are too witless to join in the fun of trashing what, to their embarrassment, they know they believe. They are keenly aware that their every response is ruthlessly scrutinized by the queer eye for the straight guy. Their laughter is forced, however, for, try as they might, they cannot quite rid themselves of the suspicion that they are being watched also by those large and awful and unsmiling faces from beyond.”

 Ft. Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle held yet another extraordinary press conference Tuesday, in which he called on the Florida tourism officials to stop promoting homosexual bathhouses — places where men go for anonymous sex with other men — as part of their marketing to homosexuals. 

You can watch portions of Mayor Naugle’s statement on the Sun-Sentinel website (click on the main video). On the same website — go to the third video on the right: “Mayor Naugle’s latest press conference turns heated” — you can watch another video in which homosexual activist Michael Rajner of the Campaign to End AIDS begins yelling to drown out the comments of pro-family activist Janet Folger. For more on Rajner’s ugly, intolerant antics, see our story HERE.

Of course, Rajner’s was rewarded for his anti-First Amendment bullying by being given his own one-on-one web interview by the Sun-Sentinel! (Click the second video, innocuously titled, “Reaction to Mayor Naugle’s press conference.”)

Not surprisingly, the Sun-Sentinel appears to be trying to belittle Naugle’s claim that public sex and reckless, homosexual sex-club activity is a serious public health problem. However, our story, “Homosexual Male ‘Cruising’ Site Lists 13 Pages of Anonymous Sex ‘Hook-up’ Locations in Ft. Lauderdale Area Alone” — which lists two 24/7 “gay” bathhouses operating in the city — makes clear that there is a real network of organized promiscuity (WARNING: HIGHLY OFFENSIVE MATERIAL). 

The following are excerpts of the Sun-Sentinel story — which does not mention bathhouses at all:

Mayor Naugle, other speakers attack gay sex

By Brittany Wallman | Sun-Sentinel.com
7:46 PM EDT, August 21, 2007

FORT LAUDERDALE – Mayor Jim Naugle and several religious leaders held a news conference Tuesday to draw attention to what they described as the moral and health risks of gay sex.

Naugle is at the center of a political war between gays and religious conservatives that started earlier this summer when he said public bathrooms in Fort Lauderdale are plagued by gay men cruising for sex and said he uses the term “homosexual” because “most of them aren’t gay. They’re unhappy.”

At a news conference in front of City Hall on Tuesday, Naugle and other speakers called on gays to end promiscuous sex in order to stem Broward County’s HIV/AIDS crisis. Though the health department has no statistics concerning how many cases of HIV are contracted via sex in public bathrooms or parks, Naugle has tied the two issues together.

By Dr. Peter Jones

Published by CWIPP, Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet

In 1974, when I left the States to teach in “godless” France, the cultural revolution was a Left coast/San Fran’ phenom’, and America was still “Christian.” When I returned in 1991, I was in for culture shock, but still never imagined what lay ahead.

One man warned us. In 1978, Pastor Charles Mcllhenny recorded his experiences after his church fired a homosexual organist (When the Wicked Seize a City). Church property was repeatedly vandalized and his family almost killed by a firebomb. “Law enforcement” never found the culprits. Mcllhenny used San Francisco as a striking example of what America might become. Are we “goin’ to San Francisco?” as the 60s hit song asked?