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.
The case of Larry King is a horrible tragedy, which homosexual activists have sought to exploit to crusade for “hate crimes” laws. Now the victim’s parents are complicating the GLBT Lobby’s campaign; if they succeed, it will send a message to schools everywhere not to pander to politically correct activism on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” –Peter LaBarbera
Family of Slain Homosexual Boy Blames School
Friday, August 15, 2008 CNSNews.com
By Wire Dispatches, Associated Press
Ventura, Calif. (AP) – The family of a gay teenager who was fatally shot in class blames the school district for allowing their son to wear makeup and feminine clothing to school – factors the family claims led to the death.
The parents and brother of 15-year-old Larry King of Oxnard filed a personal injury claim against the Hueneme school district seeking unspecified damages for not enforcing the dress code.
King, an eighth-grader at E.O. Green Junior High School, was shot in February. Classmate Brandon McInerney pleaded not guilty to the shooting last week. He was charged as an adult and also faces a charge of a committing a hate crime.
The family’s claim, filed last week in Ventura County Superior Court, said administrators and teachers failed to enforce the school’s dress code when King wore feminine clothing and makeup to school.
His parents, Dawn and Gregory King, said faculty members knew their son had “unique vulnerabilities” and was subject to abuse because of his sexual orientation.
OK for Denmark, but not for the United States of America
[Note to AFTAH readers: click HERE to watch the Congressional testimony of Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness]
Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is shown here training with the Danish Home Guard (59,000 strong). Unlike Denmark, America’s armed forces (1.43 million active duty members; 1.46 million in reserves) protect freedom the world over — and cannot afford the problems and distractions caused by politically correct social experiments like open homosexuality in the military.
By Jack Roeser
I’m a business owner now, and I was a private in the Combat Engineers, having volunteered in 1942 and served over three years at the bottom of a big army in a big war.
All this patty cake about “don’t ask don’t tell” or of just accepting homosexuals in the army doesn’t take into account how that affects military life.
First of all, the army is not a democracy, it is all about accepting orders without a vote. Promotions or assignments are the prerogative of sergeants and officers. This power must be used with some restraint and fairness or the cohesiveness of the unit suffers. As a soldier you have to work together, perhaps with a lot of gripping, but you know there are unpleasant or dangerous things to do that someone must do, hopefully not you. Put a homosexual into that mix and you get trouble when he or his homosexual buddy get into the command structure. Thereafter promotions and assignments will be seen as affected by weird sexual influence. Fairness and respect suffer. Retribution of a very unfair sort may result.
I have heard from many friends who missed the live CSPAN broadcast of the testimony I gave before the House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on July 23. Those who did see the program recognized that my opening statement, concentrating on the consequences of repealing the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military, confronted the committee members with serious issues that they did not want to hear. My fellow witness, retired Sgt. Maj. Brian Jones, also talked about concepts that he knows well as a former Army Ranger and Delta Force soldier. Those matters seemed beyond the understanding of liberal members who berated us with absurd questions and diversionary insinuations that were repeated in hostile news reports.
Alleged church shotgun murderer Jim Adkisson had a problem with the Bible and the church, liberals and homosexuals, according to reports.
The president of Americans for Truth says homosexual activists will use the recent church shooting in Knoxville, Tennessee, to advance their agenda and call for “hate crimes” legislation.
According to police reports, Jim Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville on Sunday and opened fire — killing two and wounding five others. Authorities believe Adkisson selected the congregation because of its liberal social stance, including support for homosexual causes.
Shortly after the shootings took place, pro-homosexual groups such as the Human Rights Campaign were offering assistance to the church. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality thinks groups with agendas similar to HRC’s will use the tragedy to continue their push for federal hate crimes legislation.
“The fact is, this case will get the attention it deserves — and I believe this man could be given the death penalty, without any extra help from the feds and any sort of hate crimes prosecution,” he explains. “If he’s guilty of murder, and [if] the facts are true, he should get the death penalty.”
Jim David Adkisson allegedly went on a shotgun killing rampage at a liberal Tennessee church. If convicted, he should get the death penalty. “Hate crimes” laws are not necessary to bring killers like this to justice.
I just sent this short note to Joey Leslie, editor of the Tennessee homosexual newspaper “Out and About,” concerning the case of Jim David Adkisson, 58, who allegedly went on a shotgun rampage at a Tennessee church, killing two people and leaving several others in critical condition.
Of course, pro-homosexual activists will seek to exploit this case to win passage of a federal “hate crimes” law, but as I told an American Family Association reporter today, surely justice can and will be done in this case — possibly including the death sentence that this (alleged) murderer deserves — without the extra help of special “hate crimes” prosecution. Please pray for the injured victims and the families of all the victims of this senseless act. — Peter LaBarbera
Mr. Leslie, I am diametrically opposed to your agenda as a pro-family advocate on the other side of the homosexuality issue, but if this account is true, this murderer [Jim David Adkisson] should get the death penalty. And that can be done without federal Hate Crimes legislation. Best–pl
Schools can protect all students from abuse and harassment without promoting homosexuality and gender confusion.
The campaign for passing an anti-bullying law was stopped in its tracks by concerned citizens of North Carolina in the final days of the short session of the NC General Assembly last week.
Fayetteville-based Donna Miller, Americans For Truth’s Special Projects Director and a leader for CWA (Concerned Women for America)-NC, coordinated an effort in her county to alert members between CWA-NC and the NC Federation of Republican Women of the impending legislation.
One of the most bizarre aspects of the July 23 Congressional hearing on homosexuals in the military was the effort to read 21st-century political correctness back into American history.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) insisted, “We’ve had gays in the American military from the first unit that was ever formed.” Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) echoed this astonishing claim, saying that “gays have served in every conflict, every war” this country has fought.
In fact, Shays was even more specific, noting a patriotic event in his district at which they read the names of “everyone who lost his life in the French and Indian War–some of whom were gay.”
Building public acceptance of homosexuality is coincident with a general moral unraveling of our society, with all its destructive consequences
Star Parker makes a great point here: the undeniable reality that momentum is on the side of the homosexual activists does not make their agenda a good thing for America. Historically, societies in which sexual immorality flourishes are unhealthy, declining societies, so don’t buy the Left’s definition of “progress.” — Peter LaBarbera
For the first time since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law was enacted in 1993 by President Clinton, the House Armed Services Committee has scheduled hearings to review it. The law disqualifies gays from serving in the military.
Individuals are deemed gay, according to this ruling, if they publicly state so. However, the military is prohibited from asking. Thus, “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Activists are now pushing for change to allow gays to serve openly.
We can anticipate a technical discussion. Does the presence of openly gay soldiers undermine cohesiveness of units, morale, and discipline? How would retention rates of troops or enlistments be affected?
We can be sure, though, that a discussion about the general moral implications of such a policy will not take place.
