Mark Foley

Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League, with allies such as House Republican leaders John Boehner and Eric Cantor and Fox News commentator Glenn Beck, succeeded in their multi-pronged attack to censor the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery’s “Hide/Seek” exhibit. They called on the Smithsonian to censor the work of artist David Wojnarowicz, whose work was meant “to depict the suffering of an AIDS victim” (side note: today is World AIDS Day). Even though the exhibit is completely supported by private funding, right wing leaders misleadingly portrayed “Hide/Seek” as a taxpayer funded exhibit. Donohue blasted the exhibit as “anti-Christian,” and ultimately the Smithsonian agreed to remove Wojnarowicz’s video.

Wojnarowicz is not the first target of Donohue’s fear-mongering, and he certainly won’t be Donohue’s last.

Right Wing Watch monitors Donohue’s extremism, and compiled some of his most extreme views on politics, religion, and the separation of church and state, in Bill Donohue: In His Own Words:

On Child Molestation

• In response to then-Congressman Mark Foley’s efforts to defend his abusive conduct as having been molested by his priest as a child, he said “Most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn’t allow themselves to be molested” and asked then-Congressman Mark Foley, “So why did you?”
• “Why did this young man not object earlier? Why did he allow the ‘abuse’ to continue until he was 18? The use of the quotes is deliberate: the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing. While still objectionable, there is a glacial difference between being rubbed and raped.”
• “No institution, religious or secular, has less of a problem with the issue of sexual abuse today than the Catholic Church.”

On Holidays

• “There is something sick about Friendship Trees, Winter Solstice Concerts, Holiday Parades and Holly Day Festivals. The neutering of Christmas extends to the banishment of Nativity Scenes from the public square, the expulsion of baby Jesus from crèches not otherwise forbidden, the banning of red and green at school functions, the censoring of “Silent Night” at municipal concerts, etc…. By celebrating Christmas we are celebrating diversity. Don’t let the cultural fascists get their way this year.”
• “Cultural fascists invoke ‘diversity’ every December as cover for neutering Christmas—they never choose some other month to practice their multicultural religion. And by the way, who are these people from other religions who hate Christmas? I never met one. It would be more accurate to say that it’s precisely the persons who make this charge who hate Christmas.”

On Jews

• “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it.
• “None of the media distortions of this issue excuses those in the Jewish community who have lashed out at the pope. They should know better. Is their commitment to good relations with Catholics so thin that it can wither because of something like this? We certainly hope not.”

On “Jokes”

• “I dealt with him earlier today on an MSNBC show, and I said we could hypothesize that there’d be a Columbia University pingpong team made of Asians, and somebody goes out there and says, ‘All gooks go home’….What about the gook jokes? I want to know, why don't you have a sense of humor about gook jokes?”

On Censorship

• Led a campaign against Phillip Pullman’s books and the Golden Compass movie: "It's selling the virtues of atheism. The real person we want to get on this is Pullman. I don't want to see these books flying off the shelves at Christmas. I want them to be collecting dust."
• Opposed Obama speaking at Notre Dame, saying the university’s president was “bestowing an honor on someone who supports selective infanticide”

On Progressives and Progressive Christians

• “We need more, not fewer, Catholics on the Supreme Court. But not of the Ted Kennedy kind. We need more loyal sons and daughters.”
• Called the director of Catholics for Choice “the biggest anti-Catholic bigot in the nation”
• On Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Council, he said “If these are the best ‘committed Catholic leaders, scholars and advocates’ Obama can find, then it is evident that he has a ‘Wright’ problem when it comes to picking Catholic advisors.”
• Regarding progressive Catholics, he said “it’s unfortunate that we have these people, I regard them as termites.”
• Maintained that progressive Christians and “pro-abortion Nuns” are “no more Christian than the man in the moon.”
• Referring to progressives, believes “today we are stuck with people who are cultural nihilists, they want to annihilate our society. They are intellectually and spiritually and morally bankrupt.”
• “Indeed, the signature appetite of the left has always been power. Now, they are running up against the American people.”

On Obama

• Compared Obama to leaders of the Soviet Union.

On Gays and Lesbians

• “The idea of two men marrying is so bizarre and so anti-marriage that it is a great tribute to the American people that they continue to respect the right of gays to participate in American life without harassment while simultaneously rejecting the extremist gay agenda.”
• “Their goal is not to contest the First Amendment rights of Catholics and others—their goal is to put religion on trial. What they are saying is that religious-based reasons for rejecting gay marriage are irrational, and thus do not meet the test of promoting a legitimate state interest.”
• “We’re not going to allow gay people to adopt children, that’s against nature, it’s against nature’s god”
• “They say we had a pedophilia problem, it’s been a homosexual problem all along.”
• “The Times continues to editorialize about the ‘pedophilia crisis,’ when all along it’s been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.
• “Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style.”
• “Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism.”

You know how just earier today I was saying that Peter LaBarbera was on an "are you now or have you ever been gay?" witch hunt against every public official? 

Well, that is exactly what he is doing, launching an effort via his Republicans for Family Values targeting specific individuals, demanding to know if Elena Kagan, Reps. David Dreier and Patrick McHenry, and Gov. Charlie Crist ar (or were ever) gay under the guise of eliminating potential blackmail efforts and conflicts of interest, saying "homosexuals' privacy interests simply do not outweigh the public's right to know":

Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org), urged potential Supreme Court pick Elena Kagan , Republican Reps. David Dreier and Patrick McHenry, and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist -- each the subject of wide speculation that they practice(d) homosexuality -- to answer the question: "Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?"

"In an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it's ridiculous that constituents should be left guessing as to whether a judicial nominee or politician has a special, personal interest in homosexuality," LaBarbera said. "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 fighting to keep military recruiters off the Harvard campus because the military bars homosexuals. So Americans certainly have a right to know if her activism is driven by deeply personal motivations that could undermine her fairness as a judge."

In a similar vein, Rep. Dreier (R-CA) was "outed" by alternative publications years ago. (In recent days, his staffers twice hung up on calls from RFFV inquiring about the Congressman's sexuality; in 2007, Dreier switched to support the pro-homosexual Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and was quickly congratulated by gay "outing" activist Mike Rogers.) Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) also has been targeted by Rogers and "gay" activists, as has Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who just left the GOP.

"Especially in the wake of the Eric Massa (D-NY) and Mark Foley (R-FL) scandals, these men need to honestly answer the question about whether they are or were practicing homosexuals," LaBarbera said. McHenry is getting married in June, but that does not settle the question, as there is a history of "closeted" homosexuals entering into sham marriages to cover up their illicit lifestyle, according to LaBarbera.

"Given the important homosexual-related issues coming before the Supreme Court , Kagan should say so if she has a personal interest in lesbianism. Similarly, any politician -- especially those representing conservative districts -- should come clean on the homosexuality question if it is an 'open secret' like Foley's homosexuality (years before the page scandal) or becomes the subject of wide speculation.

The Foley scandal demonstrates the political dangers for Republicans of covering up for covertly homosexual members. Duplicitous homosexual legislators can become extortion targets or be pressured to make pro-"gay" votes like Dreier on ENDA. But generally, constituents have a right to know if their representative secretly practices any immoral behavior -- including homosexuality, but also if he is a skirt-chaser, gambling addict, etc.

"We appeal to Kagan, McHenry, Dreier, Crist, and all potential 'hiding-in-the-closet' politicians or appointees to answer the question: 'Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual or do you consider yourself homosexual (gay)?' Homosexuals' privacy interests simply do not outweigh the public's right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their representatives and judges," LaBarbera said.

I've tried to ignore the latest nonsense from Senate candidate Andy Martin and his allegations that Rep. Mark Kirk is gay because, frankly, Martin is a certified nut. 

If I posted on every crazy thing Martin said, this blog would consist of nothing else ... like his claims that Max Baucus is a "habitual sex offender" or that Wikipedia "is a tax-exempt protosocialist scam that seeks to harass Republicans, conservatives and Obama opponents."

But Peter LaBabera doesn't think that Martin is a loon, which is why Martin participated in the Americans for Truth fundraising banquet earlier this year:

David Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, accepted an award on behalf of Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman of the American Family Association (AFA) and American Family Radio. [Wildmon, who is recovering from encephalitis, was the recipient of AFTAH's first annual American Truth Teller Award; his son, AFA President Tim Wildmon, thanked Americans For Truth with a video message played at the banquet.]

Though the AFTAH banquet was not a political event, two candidates seeking statewide office were present. Dan Proft, who is running for Governor in the GOP primary and Andy Martin, who is seeking the Republican Party nomination in the U.S. Senate race, joined pro-family supporters at the AFTAH fundraiser.

So that is why it comes as no surprise that LaBarbera seems to think Martin's claims and antics are perfectly acceptable, even though he doesn't mention him by name:

Do voters have a right to know that their Congressman — especially one that bills himself as “pro-family” — is having adulterous affairs with women? Yes. Do the same voters have a right to know if their Congressman is himself a homosexual — especially since he will likely be voting on “gay”-related legislation predicated on the (false) assumption that homosexuality is a “civil rights” criterion? You bet they do.

In this post-Will & Grace age in which vulgar sodomy jokes are aired uncensored on primetime TV, it is unfair, hypocritical and simply odd to enable homosexual candidates to hide their pet sexual sin behind the “gay” “closet” — or to demand that any questions on the topic are inappropriate. I write this as one who hoped for the defeat of Republican “pro-family” politicians who were exposed as philanderers.

So our question to any candidate around which “gay” rumors are swirling is this:

Are you a homosexual — i.e., or have you practiced homosexual behavior or been in “gay” relationships?

There is no easy way to ask this awkward question, but it is as relevant as asking a candidate rumored to be a cad if he has been faithful to his wife. From a Christian perspective, sexual sin is sexual sin, and the politics of homosexuality and “outing” should not be dictated by the needs and wants of pro-homosexuality advocates or the GLBT Lobby.

The problems and ethical implications of secretly “gay” politicians are also exacerbated by the policy of homosexual activist “outers” who specialize in exposing the homosexuality on only the candidates they regard as hypocritical (read: anti-homosexual-agenda) on homosexual issues. This creates an incentive for covertly homosexual pols to vote pro-”gay” on GLBT legislation because that will lessen the likelihood of an embarrasing [sic] “outing” episode.

This is another reason why voters deserve to know if their representative or potential representative has a conflict of interest on homosexuality issues.

If you are a Republican and you think it’s unfair for homsoexual politicans [sic] to have their homosexuality revealed, here’s three words for you: Mark Foley scandal. As one who monitors the “gay” press, I knew about Foley’s homosexuality years before the page scandal happened — and had GOP leaders not swept that under the rug, perhaps the whole sordid Foley episode could have been avoided, and all its bad consequences for the Republican Party in the 2006 elections.

Any candidate hit with the “gay” question can simply answer my question above. We hope they wouldn’t lie about it, but that seems to have happened with one Republican candidate in Illinois who I sought answers from on the homosexual issue.

If history is any guide, any time there has been any criticism of the Catholic Church, you could count on Bill Donohue to come riding in to defend the church and attack all those leveling the criticism - just as he did when former Rep. Mark Foley claimed he had been molested as a teenager and Donohue responded by blaming Foley for being so weak.

So the only surprise involved in this latest statement from Donohue on the controversy stemming from the fact that Pope Benedict recently lifted the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying priest is that it took him as long as it did to weigh in. Donohue dismisses the entire thing as "nonsense" and then proceeds to criticize all the Jews who dared to voice outrage at the move:

"None of the media distortions of this issue excuses those in the Jewish community who have lashed out at the pope. They should know better. Is their commitment to good relations with Catholics so thin that it can wither because of something like this? We certainly hope not."

You know who should know better?  Bill Donohue.  After all, he's not exactly the poster boy for maintaining "good relations" between Catholics and Jews, considering that he's prone to making statements such as this:

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it.

Tony Perkins and Chuck Donovan - president and executive vice president, respectively, of the Family Research Council – took to the pages of the Politico today to state in no-uncertain terms that the prospect of a Rudy Giuliani victory in the GOP presidential primary is completely unacceptable to the Right:  

Now comes Mayor Giuliani, telling us that the moral core [opposition to abortion] of his party is no big deal after all. On this, Rudy is wrong. He is sparking a fight whose moral seriousness appears, so far, to be lost on many of his allies. The Wall Street Journal, for example, has editorialized that advocates for life are raising questions about Rudy because we want to be on television. Excuse me, but if we really wanted headlines and flashbulbs, we would sacrifice our core convictions and hug Rudy at noon in Times Square.

…

Make no mistake, however; the aim of social conservatives is not to strew the path of the Republican Party with roses. We are not waiting in the winner's circle with a garland of roses for whoever becomes the GOP nominee. Social conservatives have entered the political fray with abiding beliefs about mediating institutions like church and family that both coincide with and make smaller government conservatism possible. Their first allegiance is to those beliefs, however, and not to a party label.

It is odd that Perkins and Donovan would warn they and their right-wing activists and allies are not beholden to a “party label,” considering that their recent, and upcoming, activities certainly suggest otherwise.

For good measure, they also trot out their favorite bogus claim that all Republican electoral losses can in one way or another be attributed to the fact that the GOP abandoned its right-wing base: 

Today, the Republican Party is in trouble with the body politic not because it has been too "pro-life," too committed to budget restraint or too devoted to ethics in government. The GOP is struggling today because voters have come to believe that it "grew in office." The GOP "grew" comfortable with close proximity to the spending power, piling up earmarks to suit members' personal interests. The GOP "grew" addicted to the perks of office, soliciting and dispensing favors to lobbyists bankrolled by gambling interests. The GOP "grew" comfortable with the homosexual subculture, proclaiming devotion to the family but protecting then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) from public exposure of his misconduct.

FRC’s ire is directed not only at Giuliani, but also his supporters who have been more or less telling right-wing activists to put a sock in it when it comes to concerns about the candidate’s position on choice. But FRC clearly has no intention of staying silent, going so far as to proclaim that, should he win the GOP primary, Giuliani “will bury his party's future hopes” by ultimately destroying the heretofore mutually beneficial political relationship between the Republican Party and its right-wing base.

Amid allegations that Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, had a three-year relationship with a gay male prostitute, James Dobson did what he has taken to doing frequently since the media began investigating reports of increasing voter disenchantment with the GOP even among the most conservative voters - and that is to blame the media for trying to keep so-called “values voters” from the polls next week.

"It is unconscionable that the legitimate news media would report a rumor like this based on nothing but one man's accusation. Ted Haggard is a friend of mine and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election -- especially the vote on Colorado's marriage-protection amendment -- which Ted strongly supports.”

Ever since the Mark Foley scandal broke, Dobson has been on a mission to blame every piece of news that might harm Republican turn-out at the polls as part of a conspiracy by the liberal media:

"What Mark Foley did was unconscionable. It was terrible," Dobson said. "... Thankfully he's gone. But tell me -- now that he's gone, why is it still with us? Why are they still talking about it? Why are they trying to blame somebody for it? It is because they are using that to suppress the values voters."

Dobson hammered away at this supposed conspiracy again just the other day on this radio program, according to FOF’s own “CitizenLink” news service

It is imperative, he said, for conservatives to be alert to what's at stake. Dobson asked [Gary] Bauer whether he's ever seen the media more biased and more determined to suppress conservative turnout. "I thought I had seen it all," Bauer said. "This has been unbelievable. It's not even camouflaged. Big, liberal media has been engaging in an all-out war on the Christian vote -- to suppress that vote, to discourage faith-based voters, to make them think through distorted polls that the election is already over."

Haggard was named in a TIME magazine cover story as one of the most influential evangelicals in the U.S. He was recently on the big screen in the highly acclaimed indie documentary “Jesus Camp” although he complained about the way he was “portrayed in the movie.” The film’s directors responded to Haggard’s complaints: saying

Perhaps Pastor Ted regrets how he comes off in the film and is expressing it by criticizing us, Becky, and the children in the film. What he calls “negative” and not “normative” we see as simply true and accurate.

Watch the clip here of Haggard in "Jesus Camp" joking

“I think I know what you did last night. If you give me a thousand dollars, I won’t tell your wife.”

UPDATE: A spokesperson for Haggard's church has acknowledged that "some of the accusations were true."

The acting senior pastor at New Life, Ross Parsley, told KKTV-TV of Colorado Springs that Haggard admitted that some of the accusations were true. "I just know that there has been some admission of indiscretion, not admission to all of the material that has been discussed but there is an admission of some guilt," Parsley told the station. He did not elaborate, and a telephone number for Parsley could not be found late Thursday.

Reacting to the swearing-in of openly gay Mark Dybul as the nation's new Global AIDS Coordinator by Condeleeza Rice, some from the powerful religious right-wing base of the Republican party expressed “disgust” with the administration’s pick and with comments Rice made at the swearing in ceremony.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, says the secretary's comments were "profoundly offensive" and fly in the face of the Bush administration's endorsement of a federal marriage protection amendment, though that backing be [sic] less than enthusiastic.

…

"We have to face the fact that putting a homosexual in charge of AIDS policy is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," says Sprigg. "But even beyond that, the deferential treatment that was given not only to him but his partner and his partner's family by the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is very distressing."

What were the “disgusting" comments by Rice? 

“I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator,” Rice said. “I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark’s parents, Claire and Richard, his partner, Jason, and his mother-in-law, Marilyn,” she said.

“You have a wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that’s always important to us. Welcome,” Rice said.

The Family Research Council is now demanding an explanation from Rice about why she used the term “mother-in-law.” Suggesting it somehow adds insult to injury, FRC wants to know specifically why Rice used the term in front of the First Lady.  

If Laura Bush was offended in any way it was hard to tell.  

In remarks following the swearing-in, Laura Bush noted that Dybul will oversee President Bush’s $15 billion Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a widely acclaimed program backed by AIDS activists and approved by Congress as part of an aggressive U.S. effort to fight AIDS in developing countries.

“I know you’ll bring great skill and enthusiasm to the fight against AIDS,” Laura Bush said. “Congratulations, ambassador.”

The Bush-nominated Dybul was confirmed by unanimous Senate vote on Aug. 3.  The swearing-in ceremony which produced the nation’s third openly gay ambassador was held in the Benjamin Franklin room at the State Department where Dybul reportedly placed his hand on a Bible held by his domestic partner, Jason Claire.

What’s Foley got to do with it?

Sprigg says in light of the Foley scandal, "it's inexplicable that a conservative administration would do such things."

The religious right have clearly seized upon the Foley scandal as carte blanche to say in the mainstream media what they usually reserve for their own audiences. And that is what they really think about gay Americans - dropping the pretense of using more innocuous sounding anti-gay code phrases such as “preserving traditional marriage” or marriage is “between one man and one woman.”   

And in yet one more example of right-wing’s willingness to scapegoat and demonize gay Americans, they have now turned their misguided homophobic rhetoric upon gay Republicans.

As the USA Today report notes, the Rice statement comes in the midst of news stories dealing with the Mark Foley scandal, many of which have talked about the number of homosexual staffers on the Republican payroll. Some pro-family people are starting to wonder if this homosexual influence within the GOP may account for the party's lack of action on social conservative issues. FRC's Tony Perkins says that among the questions that need to be asked are: "Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staffers?"

In a typical display of right wing message discipline, today yet another FRC spokesperson said:

"The big-tent strategy could ultimately spell doom for the Republican Party," said Tom McClusky, chief lobbyist for the Family Research Council, a Christian advocacy group. "All a big-tent strategy seems to be doing is attracting a bunch of clowns."

The Agape Press story concludes:  

[T]he USA Today account of the swearing-in ceremony concedes that the Foley investigation may be exposing what it calls a "politically awkward" fact of life in the world of national politics. That is, some leaders in the Republican Party "practice a more tolerant brand of politics" in office hiring than others in the party have conveyed on the campaign trail.

Politically awkward.  Ya’ think??

The Traditional Values Coalition weighs in on the Mark Foley scandal and predictably blames the Democrats and the media for the whole thing.  Relying in part on WorldNetDaily, which is never a good idea, TVC claims that Democrats sat on the story until it would do the most damage and blames the media for failing to thoroughly investigate allegations regarding Foley’s sexuality.

After fruitlessly blaming everyone but the GOP, TVC gets back to its real agenda: demonizing gays

Liberal Republicans constantly talk about the Republican Party being a "big tent open to everybody."

As radical homosexuals have been welcomed into "the big tent," it has become a less welcoming place for religious conservatives and a dark and dangerous place for children.

Today Republicans need to take a long and hard look at what they have done by welcoming homosexuals into the GOP. Republicans need to make a simple choice between the innocent children and radical homosexuals who prey on them.

Washington insiders are reacting to this whole Foley scandal as though they are surprised by what the end results of what homosexual behavior can produce.

…

THIS IS NO SURPRISE. Predatory behavior is one of the end results of homosexuality. Plain and simple.

At one point, Lou Sheldon tries to put forth a slightly more practical reason for the GOP to get all the gays out of the party:  their presence is scarring children for life

 “We hope and pray that the Republican leadership will truly recognize that when it comes to homosexuality, political correctness fails—and it fails children, too. The Republican Party needs to gain the high moral ground so that children will feel welcome to become Republicans when they are young adults.”

If one had to guess, it is probably safe to assume that the barely-tolerated presence of gays in the party has less of an impact on whether or not young adults become Republicans than does the GOP’s embrace of hatemongers like Sheldon and his ilk. 

Focus on the Family President James Dobson – who declared his intention, despite disappointment in the GOP, to work in key states to ensure the survival of the Republican majority in Congress – continued his “Stand for the Family” rallies in Minnesota, “one of three states targeted by his national group to mobilize ‘values voters,’ to urge support for candidates who take a hard line against terrorism, gay marriage and abortion,” reports the Star-Tribune.

Dobson noted that the Foley scandal is affecting even him, as he struggles to fit it in to the message he brings to his rallies:

Dobson, 71, a child psychologist, said Tuesday had been "a hard day" because of fallout from the abrupt resignation on Friday of former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., after the disclosure of e-mails and lurid instant messages he sent to former congressional pages.

"I've had 50 requests for interviews," Dobson said. "You can see the media salivating.

"Neither party has a cornerstone on morality," Dobson said, "but if it were Democrats, it would have a very different feel."

One observer has posted video on YouTube of Dobson’s comments on Foley.