Below is the first part of the statement by Idaho Values Alliance — the Idaho affiliate of American Family Association — calling for Sen. Larry Craig’s resignation, following reports that the Republican senator was arrest for lewd homosexual conduct in a restroom in the Minneapolis airport (emphasis added).  

IVA regretfully calls for Sen. Craig’s resignation
Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Bryan Fischer, Executive Director

IVA REGRETFULLY CALLS FOR SENATOR CRAIG’S RESIGNATION IF ACCUSATIONS ARE TRUE

By now virtually all of America is aware that Idaho’s Sen. Larry Craig pled guilty on August 8 in Minnesota to a charge that he engaged in lewd behavior in an airport restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. (The charge was technically reduced to disorderly conduct.)

There are disturbing questions raised by the police report (which you can read here) that the senator needs to address in full, so that Idahoans will have all the information they need to make an informed judgment about what happened and how it reflects on Sen. Craig’s fitness to continue in public office.

The report suggests that the senator was familiar with the protocol used by homosexuals to arrange anonymous sexual encounters, which, if true, indicates that this is not the first time the senator has practiced this behavior.

According to the Minnesota Monitor, the restroom where the senator was arrested is “well known among men who seek sex in public places.” Directions to this particular restroom are posted on a gay website bulletin board, and one visitor to the website said, “This is the best spot for anonymous action I’ve ever seen.”

The police officer had no motive to lie, particularly since he did not know who was in the adjacent stall at the time, whereas the senator, out of simple self-protection, had reason, when the events came to light, to shape them in a way that put his conduct in the best possible light.

It strains credulity to think that the senator can provide an explanation for his guilty plea if he did nothing more than accidentally brush someone’s foot with his shoe and pick up a piece of paper off the floor.

The Judeo-Christian tradition says that the standard for identifying the truth is that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact is confirmed.” The senator’s guilty plea, when added to the officer’s testimony, satisfies the biblical standard for confirming the essential truth of what happened, and unless the senator can provide a compelling and convincing explanation for his plea, we will need to regretfully accept that the fact of his behavior has been established. It seems unlikely that he can “unring the bell” his guilty plea has sounded.

Click HERE to read the full IVA statement on Sen. Craig

If the senator did indeed engage in the behavior to which he pled guilty, then the appropriate thing for him to do is to resign from office. Character is an essential qualification for public service, and the essence of character is what you do when you do not think anyone is looking.

 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.

A news release from Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays:

Arlington, VA (Aug. 28, 2007) — Last week Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) exhibited at the Arlington County Fair in Arlington, Virginia.  PFOX has exhibited at this county fair for the past four years and hands out materials on same-sex attraction and tolerance for the ex-gay community to a hungry public.  A local gay group also exhibits there and distributes materials on gay rights.

As happens every year, gay activists disrupted our booth activities.  They screamed obscenities, threw our materials from the exhibit table to the ground, insisted we recognize their same-sex “spouses,” demanded that PFOX leave, and hit a PFOX volunteer because he is ex-gay.

When we explained that the county’s sexual orientation law allows both the gay booth and our ex-gay booth to exhibit, the unhappy gays insisted that sexual orientation laws on hate crimes and discrimination do not apply to ex-gays — only gays — and no tolerance should be extended to former homosexuals. 

All the gays who stopped by our booth that week insisted that no one could change their sexual orientation from gay to straight, although they knew of people who had changed in mid-life from heterosexual to a gay lifestyle or had changed their gender. 

The gays became infuriated when our ex-gay volunteers testified about leaving homosexuality.  They adamantly refused to accept the ex-gays’ sexual orientation.  One gay man went so far as to hit our ex-gay volunteer because he refused to recant his ex-gay testimony.  We summoned a police officer, who ejected the gay man off of the fairgrounds.  Our ex-gay volunteer decided not to press assault charges against the gay man because he wanted to turn the other check as Jesus had done. 

Kevin McCullough is one of the few talk radio hosts who is not afraid to take on the homosexual activist movement. 

As one who has been on the receiving end of too many online “gay” lies to count, I can sympathize with Kevin McCullough — one of the few radio conservatives nationwide who doesn’t downplay the homosexual issue. (And there are some pretty big names in conservative radio who do by going ‘PC’ on this issue with their silence … so support Kevin.)

McCullough’s basic point is one that cannot be repeated enough: people have a choice over their sexual (mis)behavior — which is why homosexual activists stress the expedient ideological construct of (supposedly innate) “sexual orientation.”

Racial minorities have no such choice. Unlike homosexuals, they cannot leave their minority group, as every ex-gay or ex-lesbian does when he or she abandons that destructive lifestyle choice. Thus the biggest “gay” lie of all is that “being gay” — i.e., naturally predisposed toward homosexuality — is “who you are.” — Peter LaBarbera

_________________________

Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Why do angry gay bloggers always lie?
Posted by: Kevin McCullough at 8:17 AM

NGBlog [WARNING: NGBlog has a hard time making his point without cussing–Ed.] and OutsideTheTent have had me in their sights for sometime.

And when the towering intellects that they both are come up short against an actual point of substance the best they can do is call me stupid, or poopy pants, or whatever brilliant turn of phrase pops into their skull.

They are so desperate to make me appear stupid they slow down the video of me discussing the Mary Cheney pregnancy on CNN to the one frame where in the middle of speaking I appear half-inebriated.  [See an AFTAH post on the Mary Cheney baby story HERE.]

Classy…

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.”

 Click HERE to view the actual online web page for Lambda Legal’s “Little Black Book” to help homosexual “public sex” cruisers “keep out of trouble.” 

By Peter LaBarbera 

From AFTAH’s “We-Couldn’t-Make-This-Up-if-We-Tried” Department:

Lambda Legal, a high-powered homosexual legal group, publishes a “Little Black Book” to help homosexual men “cruise safely” in public parks and restrooms. The booklet is linked to on a homosexual “Cruising for Sex” website as a helpful tool for “cruising” men to stay out of legal trouble. Click HERE to go to the Lambda web page for their “Little Black Book, and  HERE to view the PDF.

“Cruising” is a popular “gay” male term describing the search for sexual partners, including in public places such as parks and store restrooms. See the “cruising” site’s listings for Ft. Lauderdale HERE. 

Typical irresponsible “gay” activism here: rather than tell men not to engage in such reckless depravities like oral sodomy in a public restroom, Lambda Legal’s Little Black Book advises, “If you cruise in parks, bathrooms or other spaces open to public view, trust your instincts, be aware of your surroundings — and know your rights.”

The Lambda Legal booklet continues (emphasis added): “While Lambda Legal and other groups are fighting against the ways police target men who have sex with men, having sex where others might see you and take offense can subject you to arrest, publicity and other serious consequences. If you feel unsafe, you should leave.”