Zogby Poll Scam Pushes Homosexuals in Military; Meehan Introduces Repeal Bill Today

Kudos to Elaine Donnelly and the Center for Military Readiness for uncovering the latest media “spin” scam — this one involving a Zogby poll whose results were distorted to promote a repeal of the law banning homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces. Turns out in another poll that only 30 percent of active servicemen polled favored — and 59 percent opposed — the idea of letting open homosexuals to serve in the military. — Peter LaBarbera

TAKE ACTION — Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) is introducing a bill in the House today — mischievously called the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act” — to repeal the ban on homosexuals in the military. Call your U.S. Congressman and Senators today (202-224-3121) and tell them to leave the ban alone, especially during this time of war.

While you’re at it, tell them you oppose creating a federal “Hate Crimes” law including “sexual orientation” and the radical pro-homosexual, pro-“transgender” bill ENDA (Employment Non-Discriimination Act) — both of which soon will be pushed in the Democrat-led Congress.

——————————-

From Zogby Poll Spins Push for Gays in Military, published Feb 28, 2007, by Center for Military Readiness (and reprinted in full with permission):

Manufactured “Momentum” for Meehan Bill

In 1993 Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA) failed in his attempt to help President Bill Clinton lift the military’s ban on homosexuals in the military. An amendment to strike Senate-passed legislation to codify pre-Clinton Defense Department regulations banning gays from the military, which Meehan sponsored together with liberal Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder (D-CO), was defeated overwhelmingly on a 264-169 bi-partisan vote. (Sept. 28, 1993)

Now Meehan is back with similar legislation to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law, a statute that has been upheld as constitutional several times. This time Meehan and his supporters are claiming that the military is on their side, pointing to a poll by Zogby International, released in December 2006.

Using classic P.R. strategy, the Zogby news release highlighted the meaningless “comfort” question, “Are you comfortable interacting with gay people?” Of those responding, 73% said they were. But this is an innocuous question, about as relevant to the controversy as an inquiry about daytime talk shows: “Would you rather watch Ellen DeGeneres’ show or Rosie O’Donnell on The View?”

The key question asked of survey respondents was, “Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?”

On that question, 26% of respondents agreed, but 37% disagreed. The poll also found that 32% of respondents were “Neutral,” and only 5% said they were “Not sure.”

The 26% of respondents who want the law repealed cannot compete with the combined 69% of people who are opposed or neutral on repeal. This is hardly a mandate for radical change.

Military Knows Best

Polling organizations recognize that respondents who believe a policy is already in place are more likely to favor that policy, while those who know otherwise are less likely.[1] Constant but incorrect assertions that “homosexuals can serve in the military provided that they do not say they are gay” are probably skewing polls of civilians, who mistakenly believe that homosexuals are eligible to serve. People in the military, however, are more likely to understand what the homosexual exclusion law actually says. [See text HERE]

In the most recent poll announced by the Military Times newspapers, in answer to the question “Do you think openly homosexual people should be allowed to serve in the military?” 30% of the active duty military subscriber respondents said Yes, but 59% said No, 10% having No Opinion. The same percentage, 59% in opposition, was reported by the Military Times survey in 2006 (Army Times, Jan. 8, 2007).

A closer look at the Zogby poll reveals more interesting details that should have been recognized in news reports:

• This is the latest in a string of media events orchestrated in a failed public relations campaign announced by gay activist groups four years ago. The Zogby poll news release clearly states that it was designed “in conjunction with the Michael D. Palm Center,” formerly the Center for Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (Dec. 18, 2006). This is an activist group that has promoted homosexuals in the military for years—usually by releasing or promoting various faux “studies” that cannot withstand close scrutiny.

• The poll claims to be of 545 people “who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (or in combat support roles directly supporting those operations), from a purchased list of U.S. Military Personnel.” But the U.S. military does not sell or provide access to personnel lists. Due to security rules that were tightened in the aftermath of 9/11, personal details and even general information about the location of individual personnel are highly restricted.

• Apparent absence of random access undermines the credibility of the poll, even though the news release makes the inflated claim, “The panel used for this survey is composed of over 1 million members and correlates closely with the U.S. population on all key profiles.”

• Activists frequently claim that the greater comfort of younger people with homosexuals is evidence enough to justify changing the law. If that were the case, all referenda banning same-sex “marriage” would have been soundly defeated. On the contrary, the voters of several states have approved 27 of 28 such referenda, often with comfortable majorities.[2]

Support the Law – Scrap “Don’t’ Ask, Don’t Tell”

Ideologues who want to repeal the homosexual conduct law are determined to impose the gay agenda on the military. This would include the full range of benefits and “sensitivity training” programs to promote acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle and conduct. (Washington Times, Feb. 10, 1993)

President George W. Bush is obligated by the U.S. Constitution to enforce all laws, but he is not required to retain administrative regulations written by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. This includes policy regulations known by the catch phrase “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which were found by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to be inconsistent with the law in 1996. [See related article here]

Problematic inconsistencies between Clinton’s enforcement regulations and the 1993 homosexual conduct law have contributed to years of confusion, and an advantage for activists who want to repeal both. To ensure that the intent of Congress in passing the law is respected, understood, and followed, the Secretary of Defense should:

• Improve understanding and enforcement of the law by eliminating the Clinton Administration’s policy/regulations, known as “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which are inconsistent with the 1993 law that Congress actually passed. (P.L. 103-160, 10 US Code, Section 654)

• Oppose any legislative attempt to repeal the 1993 homosexual conduct law in Congress.

• Ensure that the 1993 statute is vigorously defended every time it is challenged in the federal courts.

• Prepare and distribute accurate instructional materials that include the text and legislative history of the 1993 law.

In doing these things the President and Secretary of Defense should not apologize or be intimidated by civil rights analogies and pejorative accusations. The law deserves support because it respects the human desire for modesty and privacy in sexual matters, to the greatest extent possible, in the interest of encouraging good order and discipline.

As columnist Thomas Sowell wrote in 1993, “Military morale is an intangible, but it is one of those intangibles without which the tangibles do not work.”

For the sake of civilian institutions as well as the military, homosexual activists should not be allowed to impose their agenda on the armed forces. All Americans can serve our country in some way, but not everyone is eligible to serve in the military.

ENDNOTES

1. Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Commissioner Generated Finding 14, p. C-135, referencing civilian and military surveys done by the Roper Organization, Inc., for the Commission, September 1992.

2. David E. Smith, Illinois Family Institute, Nov. 8, 2006.

Posted in Media Promotion, Military, News

UPDATE: Homosexual Air Force Officer Found Guilty of Raping Four Men

Update on our previous post…

Excerpted from Air Force Officer Found Guilty of Raping 4 Men, published Feb 27, 2007, by Fox News:

An Air Force officer was found guilty of raping four men and attempting to rape two others.

A nine-member military jury deliberated for about seven hours Tuesday in Capt. Devery L. Taylor‘s court-martial. Taylor gave no reaction upon hearing the verdict.

Taylor, a medic and the former chief of patient administration at Eglin Regional Hospital, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. Sentencing was to begin Wednesday.

“I am pleased. I am emotional, but I am very, very pleased,” said Maj. Kathleen Reder, a military prosecutor…

Military prosecutors described Taylor, 38, as a serial rapist who met men in bars, spiked their drinks with the “date-rape” drug gamma-hydroxybutyrate, or GHB, and kidnapped them.

Taylor was charged with two counts of attempted sodomy, four counts of forcible sodomy, two counts of kidnapping and one count of unlawful entry.

Posted in Drug Abuse, Homosexual Rape, Military, News

Chuck Colson: Legal Fictions, Creating Parents with a Judicial Magic Wand

From Legal Fictions, by Chuck Colson, published Feb 27, 2007, by Breakpoint:

Isabella Miller-Jenkins is only four years old, but she is at the center of one of the most important legal battles of our time. A judge will soon decide whether a woman with no biological or adoptive ties to Isabella can legally be declared her mother.

It sounds incredible, but it is the logical result of where our anything-goes society has been leading us all these years.

As the Washington Post reports, Isabella was conceived via artificial insemination while her mother, Lisa Miller, was in a same-sex civil union with Janet Jenkins. But later the civil union fell apart. Lisa took Isabella and left Vermont for Virginia. She also returned to the Christian faith of her childhood and became “determined to ‘leave the [lesbian] lifestyle’.” That meant that she no longer considered Janet to be Isabella’s parent.

But in our reckless pursuit of getting whatever we want at all costs, our nation has begun interpreting the law in a way that reinforces all the fictions that Lisa Miller no longer believes.

The subhead in the Post article says it all: “Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller got hitched and had a baby together.” Together? Anybody who knows anything about biology knows that’s impossible. But that’s just how the courts are looking at it. As a judge in the case told Janet Jenkins’s lawyer, Janet (the lesbian partner) “without question is presumed to be the natural parent . . . by the basis of the civil union.” So in the court’s eyes, Isabella is the child of two women, something biologically impossible.

How is it possible that laws and court procedures could have become so dangerously fantasy-based? Actually, we should not be surprised. Many modern parents have unwittingly been collaborating with the process for years. The Washington Post tells us how Judge Cohen explained it: “Consider the situation of a heterosexual couple in which an infertile husband agrees for his wife to be artificially inseminated with donor sperm.” In such a case, the judge stated, the husband would be presumed to have parental rights even though someone else had actually fathered the child.

It all ties together. Heterosexual couples have tacitly approved this practice of including a silent third partner in a marriage to produce a child. And then it makes it very difficult to cry foul when homosexuals do the same thing.

Isabella’s plight shows us the tragic consequences of rejecting the biblical view of marriage, which provides for one man and one woman in the union to raise the child. Sure, there are extraordinary circumstances, and adoption is possible. But the norm is the norm, and the law has always recognized the natural moral order.

If Janet Jenkins wins her case—which may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — Isabella may be taken from her biological mother to live with a woman she barely remembers. And not only Isabella; many other children would also be threatened by this waving of the judicial magic wand to produce legal parents out of nowhere.

…We need to see how our attitude of “I can do anything I want, and it won’t hurt anybody” has led to a situation that could hurt families everywhere.

For additional resources, go to Breakpoint…

Posted in "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", A - What does the Bible say about homosexuality?, Conception, Court Decisions & Judges, Current State Law, Custody, News

Never Satisfied, Homosexual Activists Target Private Schools

Excerpted from Homosexual Activists Consider Targeting Private Christian Schools for “Homophobia”, by Gudrun Schultz published Feb 27, 2007, by LifeSite News:

Want provincial ministry of education to exert “more control” over curriculum and staff hiring

Ontario private schools are coming increasingly under the lens of homosexual activist groups for “homophobic” teaching stemming from the schools’ primarily religious foundations, a report in Ottawa’s homosexual news media indicated earlier this week.

[WARNING: The following link to the original story in a pro-homosexuality
publication is accompanied by extremely offensive advertising.]

In an article warning about the increasing trend toward private and religious schools in the province, Ottawa’s Capital Xtra objected to religious schools that teach children “only their own values.”

The article quotes Tony Lovink, a homosexual Christian teacher in the Ottawa public school system, as saying,

“All private schools tend to be at least implicitly homophobic. And I would say all religiously formed independent schools are definitely homophobic.”

[Note from AFTAH: Based on Scripture, we contend that it is not possible
to simultaneously engage in homosexual behavior and be a faithful Christian…
but change is possible in Jesus Christ.]

The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario said they were concerned the provincial ministry of education wasn’t “exerting more control” over the curriculum used by private religious schools. Unless a school wants to grant students government-recognized Secondary School Diplomas, Ontario private schools are free to use their preferred curriculum. Even schools that do grant the government diplomas may teach any additional material they choose, so long as the required curriculum is covered.

As well, the CLGRO objected to provincial standards that permit private schools to hire teachers based on the school administration’s own qualification requirements.

Continue reading at LifeSite News…

Posted in Boards, Administrators, Teachers, Counselors, Canada, D - GLBTQ Pressure Within Churches, News, Pending Legislation, School Officials, Sex-Ed Curriculum

Suze Orman: Lesbian and Virgin?

Words have meaning. To be a virgin is not just to abstain from sexual intercourse with a man, but to remain completely chaste and pure. It’s no more accurate to say that a sexually active lesbian is a virgin that it was for Bill Clinton to say “I did not have sex with that woman” — and furthermore, it’s terribly dangerous to mislead young people like this. When young people heard Bill Clinton equivocate and deny that oral sex was indeed sex, they felt liberty to try it themselves — and now society is reaping the consequences. Similarly, if Suze Orman identifies herself as a lesbian while calling herself a virgin, she sends a confusing and mixed message — and a deceitful one — to young women.

Homosexual sex may not carry the “risk” (or as we Christians like to think if it, the great blessing) of pregnancy, but homosexual sex practices (lesbian, “gay,” or “trans”) substantially increase the risk of physical, emotional, and spiritual damage to the human body and soul. If Suze Orman has been in a lesbian relationship for seven years, she is no virgin. If you “experiment with” or engage openly in homosexual sex (or are heterosexually intimate, even without intercourse), you cannot please God unless you repent (ie, change). — Sonja Dalton

——————————

The following is excerpted from She’s So Money (an interview with financial guru Suze Orman), by Deborah Solomon, published Feb 25, 2007, by New York Times Magazine:

Q: Are you married?

A: I’m in a relationship with life. My life is just out there. I’m on the road every day. I love my life.

Q: Meaning what? Do you live with anyone?

A: K.T. is my life partner. K.T. stands for Kathy Travis. We’re going on seven years. I have never been with a man in my whole life. I’m still a 55-year-old virgin.

Q: Would you like to get married to K.T.?

A: Yes. Absolutely. Both of us have millions of dollars in our name. It’s killing me that upon my death, K.T. is going to lose 50 percent of everything I have to estate taxes. Or vice versa.

Continue reading at New York Times Magazine…

Posted in "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", 02 - Lesbian, A - What does the Bible say about homosexuality?, Celebrities, Current State Law, New York Times, News, Oprah, Pending Legislation

Tim Gill’s Stealth Strategy Targets State Legislators for Defeat in Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington

If you read only one article about the homosexual agenda this year, make this be the one. It describes homosexual activist and Quark founder Tim Gill‘s stealth strategy of targeting pro-family, Republican state legislators for defeat by funneling “gay” donors’ money to these candidates’ opponents. The plan worked and the result is that states like Iowa are now facing a burst of pro-“gay” legislation fueled in part by out-of-state checks — about which the average citizen knows nothing.

We don’t imagine that The Atlantic Monthly’s editors would be quite so upbeat about this story if it were about secret donations from evangelical moneymen targeting pro-homosexual state legislators. But now is not the time for sour grapes. Instead, we need concerted action to stop this sneaky plot from succeeding in the form of new “sexual orientation” laws.

One more thing: isn’t it telling that Patrick Guerriero, the former head of the national Log Cabin Republicans — a group dedicated to advancing homosexual interests in the GOP — took a job to help achieve Democratic takeovers of state capitols? More proof that the Log Cabin activists are homosexuals first, and Republicans second. After all, this is the same “Republican” group that refused to endorse President Bush for re-election because he supported a Federal Marriage Amendment (horrors!). And yet there are still plenty of “moderate” Republicans who insist that the key to the party’s success is tilting more toward the Log Cabins and away from the GOP’s conservative, religious base. — Peter LaBarbera

——————————

The following is excerpted from They Won’t Know What Hit Them, by Joshua Green, published March 2007 in Atlantic Monthly:

The software mogul Tim Gill has a mission:
Stop the Rick Santorums of tomorrow before they get started.
How a network of gay political donors is stealthily
fighting sexual discrimination and reshaping American politics.

…Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, …was among the dozens of targets of a group of rich gay philanthropists who quietly joined forces last year, under the leadership of a reclusive Colorado technology mogul, to counter the tide of antigay politics in America that has generated, among other things, a succession of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage.

Like many other state legislatures last year, Iowa’s was narrowly divided. …If Democrats took control of the House and Senate, however narrowly, the initiative would die, and with it the likelihood of further legislation limiting civil rights for gays and lesbians…

Over the summer, Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated. Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics…

Tim Gill is best known as the founder of the publishing-software giant Quark Inc., and for a long time was one of the few openly gay members of the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans…In 2000, he sold his interest in Quark for a reported half-billion dollars in order to focus full-time on his philanthropy.

Gill’s principal interest is gay equality. His foundations have given about $115 million to charities. His serious involvement in politics is a more recent development, though geared toward the same goal. In 2000, he gave $300,000 in political donations, which grew to $800,000 in 2002, $5 million in 2004, and a staggering $15 million last year, almost all of it to state and local campaigns…

“My goal is to see that all Americans are treated equally regardless of sexuality,” he told me when we met.

…Gill decided to find out how he could become more effective and enlisted as his political counselor an acerbic lawyer and former tobacco lobbyist named Ted Trimpa, who is Colorado’s answer to Karl Rove. Trimpa believes that the gay-rights community directs too much of its money to thoroughly admirable national candidates who don’t need it, while neglecting less compelling races that would have a far greater impact on gay rights—a tendency he calls “glamour giving.” Trimpa cited the example of [a prominent, Democratic presidential candidate]: an attractive candidate, solid on gay rights, and viscerally exciting to donors. It feels good to write him a check. An analysis of [the candidate’s] 2004 Senate race, which he won by nearly fifty points, had determined that gays contributed more than $500,000. “The temptation is always to swoon for the popular candidate,” Trimpa told me, “but a fraction of that money, directed at the right state and local races, could have flipped a few chambers. ‘Just because he’s cute’ isn’t a strategy.”

Together, Gill and Trimpa decided to eschew national races in favor of state and local ones, which could be influenced in large batches and for much less money. Most antigay measures, they discovered, originate in state legislatures. Operating at that level gave them a chance to “punish the wicked,” as Gill puts it—to snuff out rising politicians who were building their careers on antigay policies, before they could achieve national influence. Their chief cautionary example of such a villain is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who once compared homosexuality to “man on dog” sex (and was finally defeated last year, at a cost of more than $20 million)…

Gill’s idea was to identify vulnerable candidates like Danny Carroll and move quickly to eliminate them without the burden of first having to win the consent of some risk-averse large organization or board of directors. Another element of this strategy is stealth. Revealing targets only after an election makes it impossible for them to fight back…

In the 2006 elections, on a level where a few thousand dollars can decide a close race, Gill’s universe of donors injected more than $3 million, providing in some cases more than 20 percent of a candidate’s or organization’s budget. On Election Day, fifty of the seventy targeted candidates were defeated, Danny Carroll among them; and out of the thirteen states where Gill and his allies invested, four — Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington — saw control of at least one legislative chamber switch to the Democratic Party… Gill’s stealth campaign was both effective and precedent-setting. For the first time, in a broad and organized way, gays had taken the initiative in a sweeping multistate strategy and had mostly prevailed.

Posted in "Civil Unions" & "Gay Marriage", Gill Foundation, News, Pending Legislation

PBS’ “In the Life” Profiles Confused LGBT Youth

By Sonja Dalton

Parents and church leaders, to understand what is at stake with the “gay” political/cultural agenda, you really must watch this pro-homosexuality program online — it’s most enlightening:

February 2007 — The Principles of Youth

This Febuary, In the Life, America’s gay and lesbian newsmagazine, presents “THE PRINCIPLES OF YOUTH,” an episode dedicated entirely to stories about LGBT youth. Hosted by Grammy® Award-winning songwriter and performer Ani DiFranco, this month’s In the Life, gives voice to an often unheard and overlooked population.

Program segments include:

I’m Still Emily — In the Life asserts that an Iowa teenager that considers herself lesbian is also a devout Christian. Of course, God clearly says otherwise. Jesus did indeed die for Emily’s sins, as well as those of all mankind, but He demands repentance — change.

Hebrews 11:26-27 teaches “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.”

Emily’s pastor at New Hope Evangelical Church provided excellent counsel to her: God made Eve for Adam and He blessed that heterosexual union. The Bible addresses homosexual behavior and calls it sin. There are two good options for a Christian struggling with same-sex attraction: either honor God’s word and live in celibacy or develop greater faith to battle and overcome homosexuality to achieve greater joy. Let us pray that she will listen to him.

Good As You — Profiles the blog of Jeremy Hooper, 26, who, at least according to the narrator, “attacks ‘bigotry’ with humor and wit.” Jeremy claims in this program: “I don’t throw bombs; I take the bombs that are thrown at us and I just sort of casually toss them aside, I don’t really throw them back” in his effort to create a “new sort” of homosexual activism.

(Check out Hooper’s blog and judge for yourself whether he throws bombs or not…or simply listen to his ITL segment where he shares his view of the “professionally anti-gay” as “almost like cartoon characters in their nuttiness” and sees them as “little men with pitchforks and torches who are like “ARRR, I’m going to get you, you faggot.” You might note that AFTAH has never and will never call anyone a “faggot.”)

Jeremy’s Tennessee family opposes his behavior, but his “partner” Andrew’s parents approve.

Miss Elizabeth Latex — (Remember that this segment is purportedly for/about YOUTH…) Madonna introduced “vogueing,” a form of dancing that originated in the underground homosexual club scene. “Elizabeth Latex” is a Puerto Rican male that dresses as a woman, survived as a prostitute and now lives as a vogue-dancing “female” and works for House of Latex — his brother also cross-dresses. Sadly, both spent much of their childhood in foster care.

Coming Out Stories — Heartbreaking.

TAKE ACTION — Pray for all these young people.

Posted in A - What does the Bible say about homosexuality?, E - Praying for the Lost, Gay Straight Alliance, News

Wealthy Homosexuals Fund Nation’s First Endowed Academic Chair on Sexual Orientation Law

Excerpted from UCLA Gets $1 Million to Study Legal Topics Involving Gay Couples, published Feb 26, 2007, by Associated Press:

A gay couple who hope to marry one day has donated more than $1 million to the University of California, Los Angeles, to fund research on legal topics involving same-sex relationships.

The gift announced Friday from John McDonald and Rob Wright will support what is described as the nation’s first endowed academic chair in sexual orientation law.

The two say they want to promote objective [?] research, but they also hope to aid the campaign for gay marriage and other gay rights issues…

Continue reading at Associated Press…

Note just how “objective” they are:

• This is not McDonald and Wright’s first gift to UCLA designed to promote homosexuality in American culture.

• McDonald and Wright are also benefactors of the public television newsmagazine In the Life which publicizes various aspects of the homosexual lifestyle.

Posted in Foundations, In the Life TV, News, Not with MY Tax money!, Universities & Colleges