‘Gay’ Ret. Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr allowed to critique Republican candidates’ answers

CNN flew in Retired Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr — a homosexual activist and Log Cabin Republicans member who now crusades for allowing admitted homosexuals in the U.S. military — to its GOP presidential debate Wednesday, so he could CRITIQUE the candidates’ responses to his question about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” At left is how Kerr — who calls the GOP candidates “partisanly homophobic” — appeared on video during the CNN/YouTube Republican debate. CNN also had another Log Cabin activist ask a pro-homosexual question at the debate. Photo: CNN/YouTube.

CNN’s pro-homosexual presidential debate was moderated by Anderson Cooper. A major homosexual magazine, OUT, has “outed” Cooper as one of the nation’s most influential homosexuals. Though Cooper is mum on his “sexual orientation,” his pro-“gay” bias is abundantly clear at CNN, as it was again at Wednesday’s debate. Homosexual activists would come harder after Cooper if his reportage was not so “gay”-friendly. See AFTAH’s adjoining story, “Does CNN’s Anderson Cooper Have a Conflict of Interest on ‘Gay’ Issues?”

TAKE ACTION: Write CNN News at www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?92 and/or Anderson Cooper at http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?10 to comment on their egregious pro-homosexual and anti-Republican bias and lack of professionalism in the CNN/Youtube presidential debate Wednesday.

____________________________

By Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.org

Dear Americans For Truth Reader,

The liberals over at CNN are so committed to open homosexuality in the U.S. armed forces that they flew in a retired homosexual Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr to participate in their Republican presidential debate Wednesday — so he could critique the GOP candidates’ responses to HIS OWN loaded YouTube question opposing “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Is it just me, but could you in your wildest imagination picture CNN recruiting Stephen Bennett, a pro-family, EX-“gay” Christian, to ask Democrat presidential candidates a question opposing homosexuality, and then flying him in to critique their responses?

If Kerr’s sneak attack wasn’t bad enough, CNN followed it up a second YouTube question from a homosexual activist — this time it was David Cercone, a Florida Log Cabin Republicans member who, it turns out, is backing [another democratic presidential contender].

Needless to say, no conservative questions on the homosexual issue were heard from the floor or YouTube at the debate.

Friends, heads up: ABC’s “Boston Legal” tonight (10:00 P.M. EST) will help further the radical “gay” agenda of opening up the America’s Armed Forces to open homosexuals — during wartime, no less.
 
The homosexual-bisexual-transsexual movement hypes its victimhood but it has incredible power and money as a small special interest group in society. At bottom, a well-heeled homosexual activist group, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), touts the “Boston Legal” episode, which probably could have been written by the SLDN itself, such is the propagandistic nature of pop culture today. If I were a gambler, I’d wager that the script advances the bogus “gay” activist analogy to ending racial discrimination and makes conservative opponents of homosexuals in the military out to be a “bigots” and irrational “homophobes.”

Note how historically, until recently, homosexuality has been about shameful and deviant acts, and the morality of those acts, as opposed to personhood. — Peter LaBarbera

Excerpted from Homosexuals in the Military, by David Barton, published 2003, by Wallbuilders:

In recent years, widespread discussions and hearings have been held concerning the issue of homosexuals serving in the United States military forces. This monograph will explore the issue via three questions:

1. Has homosexuality always been incompatible with military service?
2. Why should the military be concerned with a person’s morality?
3. Why should homosexuality concern us as a society?

Has Homosexuality Always Been Incompatible With Military Service?
While the issue of homosexuals in the military has only recently become a point of great public controversy, it is not a new issue; it derives its roots from the time of the military’s inception. George Washington, the nation’s first Commander-in-Chief, held a strong opinion on this subject and gave a clear statement of his views on it in his general orders for March 14, 1778:

At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.

General Washington held a clear understanding of the rules for order and discipline, and as the original Commander-in-Chief, he was the first not only to forbid, but even to punish, homosexuals in the military.

An edict issued by the Continental Congress communicates the moral tone which lay at the base of Washington’s actions:

The Commanders of . . . the thirteen United Colonies are strictly required to show in themselves a good example of honor and virtue to their officers and men and to be very vigilant in inspecting the behavior of all such as are under them, and to discountenance and suppress all dissolute, immoral, and disorderly practices, and also such as are contrary to the rules of discipline and obedience, and to correct those who are guilty of the same.

From Keeping Pace with the Right Stuff, by Jan LaRue, Esq, published Mar 16, 2007, by Culture and Media Institute:

Apparently some sensitivity sops in the White House have decided that we can’t have the military man charged with saving us from the Jihadists sounding soooo insensitive and judgmental.

There’s no other plausible explanation for the Marine chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff doing a mea culpa lite after stating a self-evident truth about homosexual conduct: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts. I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

That’s what Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs, told a reporter for the Chicago Tribune on Monday. Pace equated homosexual acts with adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces. Pace also said he supports the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) policy, which prohibits commanders from asking about a person’s sexual orientation.

The usual moral savants in Congress, who like to say “it’s wrong to say what’s right and wrong,” quickly passed judgment on Pace.

Leading the congressional critics’ chorus was the perpetually perplexed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco): “We don’t need moral judgment from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.” Couldn’t somebody think to ask Pelosi whether Pace’s moral judgment about adultery is morally acceptable?

Our nation needs to decide whose morality best represents us: that of General Peter Pace or that of disgraced former governor Jim McGreevey…

Excerpted from Former N.J. Governor Discusses Sexuality, published Mar 17, 2007, by Associated Press:

Former New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey, who resigned after revealing that he was gay, says culture is outpacing politics in the acceptance of homosexuality…

McGreevey also addressed comments made earlier this week by the Pentagon’s top general…

“Gen. Pace’s remarks were so terribly unfortunate, not only because that’s what he believes but the notion that don’t ask, don’t tell actually encourages people to be less than honest, less than open, less than transparent,” McGreevey said.

Continue reading at TBO.com…

At Americans For Truth, we are in an ongoing and very politically incorrect battle to restore the definition of homosexuality: homosexuality is behavior — changeable behavior, not an innate, unchangeable trait or identity.

Homosexuality is what you do,
not “who you are,”
as proved by the many ex-“gays” and ex-“lesbians”
now living joyful lives, whether celibate or in heterosexual marriage.

That battle is made tougher by the liberal media’s push-back from the opposite direction. Note how talk show host Larry King, in his CNN interview last week with a GOP presidential candidate, distorted Gen. Peter Pace’s statement against “homosexual acts”:

LARRY KING: “The chief of staff of the American military said, the joint chiefs, said that he believes that being gay is — I’m going to quote him exactly — ‘is a sin’ and that he’s opposed to gays in the service. Where are you?”

Quote him exactly? Here is what Gen. Pace actually told the Chicago Tribune: “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts…” — you can listen to the Tribune interview with Gen. Pace HERE.

——————————

The following is taken from a transcript of yesterday’s CNN “Larry King Live” interview with a GOP presidential candidate dealing with homosexuality and “gay marriage”:

LARRY KING: The chief of staff of the American military said, the joint chiefs, said that he believes that being gay is — I’m going to quote him exactly — “is a sin” and that he’s opposed to gays in the service. Where are you? ….

By Peter LaBarbera

Flee from sexual immorality.
Every other sin a person commits is outside the body,
but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
— I Corinthians 6:18

Warning: Honest yet offensive descriptions of supposedly “moral” homosexual sex acts follow.

I am fascinated by the media debate launched by Gen. Pace’s simple and true statement that homosexual acts are immoral. Post-modern (read: post-Christian) liberals — who think they’re smarter than the rest of us — are apoplectic, but my heart is lifted. Isn’t moral clarity wonderful? The alternative to Pace’s honest agreement with God’s morality (no polls here) is Sen. John Warner’s and other pandering politicians’ — and the media’s — moral confusion.

If homosexual acts are not immoral, then are they moral? I know it’s disgusting, but think for a moment about what homosexual sodomy is: Dr. John Diggs says it’s almost as if anal sex “was created to spread disease.” “Gay” writer Jack Hart states that “some practices common among gays — especially rimming [“orally stimulating the anus,” according to another “gay” enthusiast] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.”

Highly efficient at transmitting disease… makes sense. What is immoral and unnatural is also often very dangerous. Turns out that deviant sex and normal sex are not “equal.”

Yet our schools are telling kids that “being gay” is fine — come join our “Gay/Straight Alliance” school club! Now that’s immoral.

We should demand answers from the equivocating politicians and agnostic media: is it moral for men to engage in anal sodomy with one another? Is it moral for a man to stick his sex organ in the anus or mouth of another man? What about licking another man’s anus, as an act of pleasure? (Again, “rimming” … yuck…. no wonder “gay” advocates call this the “ick factor” and avoid publicly discussing actual homosexual behaviors like the plague.)

Is “sex” between women — sadly, a popular feature in straight male pornography — moral? Is it moral when lesbians use “sex toys” to mimic normal sex or anal sex?

Are you starting to see why the other side would rather be talking in euphemisms — equality, discrimination, “sexual orientation,” “same-sex love” and “gay” — rather than the morality of homosexual acts?

And do you see why they are desperate to block messages about healthy and happy ex-“gays,” like my friend Stephen Bennett or ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran, from reaching the public?

Of course, typical of situational ethics, the same “gay” activists who scold us for “inequality” and “discrimination” have no problem — at least for now — discriminating against the “polyamory” activists who yearn for multiple-partner marriages.

Upon what authority?

Another question for the “gays” and their allies: on what basis do you declare sex acts between persons of the same sex moral (not immoral)? Please tell us so we can instruct our children and appropriately re-configure our Bibles — like “gay” actor Ian McKellen, who rips out the parts of the Bible condemning homosexuality from the Gideon Bible when he stays at hotels.

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality,
but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”
— I Corinthians 6:13

The liberals’ and libertarians’ folly is that they pretend to have greater authority than God to decide these issues. (Sadly, a large chunk of America has also lost its fear of God: a new Culture & Media Institute survey found that only 52 percent of U.S. respondents “say they believe the Bible is God’s authoritative word” on how to live.) But the secularists have nothing to substitute for Biblical truth but lies and ideologies that hurt people. (Another “gay” activist, Bob Hattoy, who made a famous anti-Reagan, anti-Bush speak at the Democrats’ ’92 convention, died prematurely of AIDS — at 56 — last week.)

We spend so much time crafting palatable “public policy” positions that we almost forget that homosexuality is first and foremost a moral issue. Clear messages like Gen. Pace’s, backed by reason, will turn idealistic young people’s minds back toward the truth. Let’s make our policy arguments, to be sure, but shed our defensiveness and be clearly moral, yet humble, like Gen. Pace.

Moral-minded people owe the good general a debt of gratitude for having the courage in this cowardly and confused age to speak the Truth and publicly agree with God about immoral homosexual acts.

From The View from the Bottom, by Robert Knight, published Mar 16, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are portions of the five-minute discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

Fisher: “But it’s OK to kill people.”

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

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

Fisher: “And have a leg up”

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

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

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

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

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

Inquiring Viewers want to know.