If you don't want to miss anything posted on the Americans For Truth website, sign up for our "Feedblitz" service that gives you a daily email of every new article that we post. (This service DOES NOT replace the regular email list.) To sign up for the Feedblitz service, click here.
Homosexuals in the military are about three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals
FRC analyst Peter Sprigg found that the "most common type of homosexual assault in the military "is one in which the offender fondles or performs oral sex upon a sleeping victim." Encouraging open homosexuals to serve in the military will only exacerbate this problem.
A Family Research Council analysis of publicly available documents–the Pentagon’s own report on sexual assault in the military for Fiscal Year 2009, and published decisions from military courts of appeals over the last decade and a half–have shown that there is already a significant problem of homosexual misconduct in the military. This problem can only become worse if the current law is repealed and homosexuals are openly welcomed (and even granted special protections) within the military, as homosexual activists are demanding.
What price will America pay to celebrate “gay pride” in our Armed Forces?
Aubrey Sarvis of the homosexual Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) said it was "not a big deal" serving in the Army as a homosexual way back in the 1960s. The gays-in-the-military debate is NOT about discreet homosexuals serving in the Armed Forces, but the desire of homosexuals to be "out and proud" even in the conservative military culture.
Folks, note how homosexual activist and former Army infantry sharpshooter Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network (SLDN) — the “gay” organization lobbying for homosexuals in the military — answers this question by MSNBC host Chris Matthews on his show Feb. 2, 2010:
MSNBC’s Matthews: “As a gay man, what was it like [serving in the Army]? You were not out in the open, obviously. What was your experience in that regard? What did you learn in terms of this issue of whether gay people should be allowed to serve openly?
Sarvis replies: “Well, by and large, even in the ’60s, Chris, I found that gays and lesbians serving — and most were serving in silence then — it was not a big deal. But all gays and lesbians want to serve openly. They want to be honest about their service to their country. And as Adm. Mullen said today, it comes down to integrity, and every servicemember counts — gay or straight.” [more analysis follows video….]
Sarvis’ comment is most reasonably interpreted to mean that it was “not a big deal” for homosexuals like himself to serve — i.e., they were not harassed or persecuted, presumably as long as they kept silent about their homosexuality. By extension, he may also be asserting that it was “no big deal” to the majority of straight soldiers that there were (discreet, non-public) homosexuals in the Army.
Like Peter Sprigg of Family Research Council, I believe that “homosexuals” [for purposes here: people who practice homosexuality or claim a (deviant) sexual attraction to members of the same sex] should not serve in the military. That is the law. But think back to the days of Arvis’ youth 40 years ago — when homosexuality was much more condemned by society than it is today. If men or women were capable of serving (as secret homosexuals) then — without major difficulties — what is behind the current, politically manufactured “gays-in-the-military “crisis” that supposedly necessitates a revolution in our military conduct policy during wartime?
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.
Here’s another terrific piece by our friend (and AFTAH Board Member) Matt Barber. We should note that (Solicitor General) Elena Kagan’s reported zealousness for the homosexual activist cause does not depend on her being a lesbian. In fact, these days some of the most vocal pro-homosexual activists are “straight” (e.g., actress Judith Light). Ideological bias is the most important factor in evaluating Kagan’s suitability for the nation’s highest court, but clearly a newly seated, suddenly “out of the closet” Justice Kagan–or even a Justice Kagan whose lesbianism is slowly revealed over a period of years–could have extraordinary sway in a “same-sex marriage” case or other homosexuality-related questions before the Court.
For that matter, an officially “closeted” Justice Kagan whose homosexuality nevertheless becomes an open secret on the Supreme Court (wink, wink) could also win sympathy among fellow justices and thus skew decisions in favor of “gay” activism. So Ms. Kagan herself, and not her surrogates, needs to speak directly to this issue. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
I don’t see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their “reporting” is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it’s one of their own––when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny––its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.
Media, here’s your question: “Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?” Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: “Yes” or “no.”
Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite “progressive” protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality––or a lack thereof––a pertinent factor in contemplating one’s fitness for any public service––chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.
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.
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:
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.
Why is Choi still in the military after blasting his Commander-in-Chief — in uniform?
Transgender activist "Autumn" Sandeen (the man dressed in a woman's Navy uniform at left) and homosexual activist Lt. Dan Choi (second from left) join others in chaining themselves to the White House gate Wednesday. The Obama administration has delayed responding to a request by Choi's National Guard commanders to discharge him.
Lt. Dan Choi (second from left)– homosexual activist, Iraq war veteran, West Point graduate and New York National Guardsman — continues to engage in illegal activism in ratcheting up his pressure campaign to homosexualize the military in the name of “civil rights.” Choi’s latest protest Wednesday was another violation of the longstanding military policy of disallowing political actions in uniform (see earlier actions in the YouTube videos below).
We talked with Maj. Kathy Oliver, a spokesman for Choi’s National Guard unit in New York, who relayed that his commanders — having already moved to discharge him last summer but awaiting the Defense Department’s delayed decision on the case — are not taking further actions against Choi for his ongoing public “civil disobedience” against the military. This appears to free up Choi — who remains in the Guard — to engage in more political stunts (in uniform) without additional cost.
Lt. Choi is caught up in a media-approved crusade, which he sees as a quest for “integrity” but which in reality is nothing but sexual deviancy activism. Homosexual behavior is immoral and degrading to the soul of those who practice it and to any institution — including the Armed Forces — that “tolerates” it (or worse, celebrates it). Imagine what our military will become if — under Obama’s leadership — it capitulates to “queer” militancy and opens itself up to the full promotion of homosexuality at every level. This will surely lead to a mass exodus of tradition-minded soldiers and sailors who did not sign up for military service to have their religious and moral values abused.
Lt. Choi, a bright but confused and over-indulged young man, should be dishonorably discharged from the National Guard post haste. Failure to do so will only chip away at the morale of servicemen who might rightly wonder which other military codes will go unenforced due to Obama’s leftist political considerations. Matt Barber’s statement follows. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org
P.S. Please pray for this young man, Dan Choi, that he will accept the Bible’s truth about homosexuality as a sin habit that can be overcome, and that he will one day join the growing ranks of former homosexuals. To learn more about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, see www.NeedHim.com or call 1-888-NEED-HIM.
“Rather than taking the biblical ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ approach to sexual immorality, these false prophets preach counterfeit Christianity, devoid of the faith’s core tenet: redemption.”–Matt Barber on Fred Phelps of “God Hates Fags” notoriety
"Rev." Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church clan are taking their twisted "God Hates Fags" to soldiers' funerals.
Folks, long before Fred Phelps started picketing soldiers’ funerals and “thanking God for IEDs” [improvised explosive devices], his ugly “God Hates Fags” message was proving to be a boon to the Homosexual Lobby and to liberal reporters working to make Christians look like kooks.
Do Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church have a “right” to stage their demented protests at servicemen’s funerals? The Supreme Court will decide. Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, I thought Ann Coulter was very persuasive when she noted that courts have blocked “free speech” rights for pro-life counselors in “bubble zones” surrounding abortion clinics — so why not protect grieving families of soldiers who died for our country?!
Personally, although I accept that there are good people and First Amendment-lovers on the other side of this issue, I would put this in a similar class with rejecting the supposed “free speech right” to burn the American flag. Having sad that, it would be foolhardy to ignore that there are plenty of homosexual activists and leftists who seriously would love to see the government censor all speech opposing homosexuality.
ACTION STEP: To make a donation to the father of slain Lt. Cpl. Michael Snyder, Al Snyder, who is battling the Westboro Baptist Church clan in court after his son’s funeral was protested by Phelps, go HERE.
Matt Barber, AFTAH Board Member, writes after the jump (some links were added that were not in the original piece):
