Peter LaBarbera

What could be worse than spending an hour listening to Religious Right activists like Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera spewing their anti-gay bile?

The idea of spending three days listening to it:

We’re delighted to announce the debut of our ongoing “Americans For Truth Academy,” designed to train young people (as well as older pro-family advocates) how to answer “gay” activist misinformation and fight the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda. Below is a flier with the basic information. Please consider sponsoring a student to attend for $99 or attending yourself. Rarely will you get a chance to learn from such brilliant teachers on the homosexual issue all in one rigorous seminar.

This August 5-7, AFTAH will bring together some of the country’s leading pro-family experts on homosexuality to teach both young and old how to answer the lies and myths that so readily emanate from the “GLBT” (“gay”) camp. I am very excited about this new project’s potential to reverse years of pro-”gay” brainwashing in the schools and popular culture — corrupting the hearts and minds of our young people.

Let’s face it: much of the conservative establishment has dropped the ball on fighting the homosexual agenda (or given up entirely), so AFTAH is stepping up to train a new generations of activists to contend with the sexual sin movement that has fooled so many Americans into treating a human wrong — changeable same-sex behavior — as a “civil right.”

...

August 5-7, 2010

AFTAH headquarters in Carol Stream, Illinois, outside Chicago

This is a rigorous, 3-day program featuring some of the leading pro-family experts on homosexuality in the Culture War. Prospective attendees will need to be approved with references; this is not open to pro-homosexual activists but only to those who share AFTAH’s belief that homosexuality is immoral and that the GLBT movement is destructive to America and a direct threat to our religious freedom.

Cost: Students 14-25: $99; Adults: $199

Limited Seating Available

Youth Scholarships: we will be soliciting donations with the goal of covering the cost of attending the AFTAH Academy for as many students as possible. If you would like to sponsor a student for the Academy, send your tax-deductible gift of $99 or more to AFTAH at the address below or online at www.americansfortruth.com/donate .
Tentative List of Instructors:

Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries

Peter LaBarbera, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

Ryan Sorba, Young Conservatives of California

Prof. Robert Gagnon, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

Prof. Rena Lindevaldsen, Liberty University Law School

Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel

Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute

Greg Quinlan, Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays

To reserve a place in the AFTAH Academy, send us your references or those for your child. For more information, write: americansfortruth@gmail.com or call 630-717-7631.

• The Right continues to weigh in on the nomination of Elena Kagan.
• Peter LaBarbera says that he is not gay.
• Only in Alabama do political candidates have to fight off attacks that they believe in evolution.
• ALIPAC's William Gheen does not buy Marco Rubio's change of heart on the issue of immigration.
• Finally, Sen. Jim DeMint has recently become an influential power-broker among the far right.

Like the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth is also demanding to know if Elena Kagan is a lesbian because "homosexuals’ privacy interests simply do not outweigh the public’s right to know about potential conflicts-of-interest in the lives of their judges and lawmakers":

“If Kagan is practicing immoral sexual behavior, it reflects on her character as a judicial nominee and her personal bias as potentially one of the most important public officials in America. The popular mantra — even among conservatives — is that Kagan’s sexuality is ‘irrelevant.’ But a Justice Kagan would help decide some critically important constitutional issues dealing with: homosexual ‘marriage’ as a supposed civil right; religious liberty and freedom of conscience; and the First Amendment as applied to citizens’ right to oppose homosexuality. So it certainly matters if she, as a lifetime judge, could emerge as a crusading (openly) ‘gay’ advocate on the court.

“Kagan has a strong pro-homosexual record, including, as Harvard dean, fighting to keep military recruiters off the campus because the military bars homosexuals. Americans certainly have a right to know if her activism is driven by deeply personal motivations that could undermine her fairness as a judge.”

“Besides, in an era of ubiquitous pro-gay messages and pop culture celebration of homosexuality, it’s ridiculous that Americans should be left guessing as to whether a Supreme Court nominee has a special, personal interest in homosexuality.

“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 legislator — especially one representing a conservative district — should come clean on the homosexuality question particularly if it is an ‘open secret’ like Mark Foley’s homosexuality (years before the page scandal) or becomes the subject of wide speculation.

“We appeal to Kagan and all potential “hiding-in-the-closet” public officials 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 judges and lawmakers.”

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.

• Peter LaBarbera continues his crusade against Jim Daly and Focus on the Family.
• Ted Nugent loves Sarah Palin.
• And Sarah Palin loves Glenn Beck.
• Will you help restore Stephen Baldwin?
• You know what book I won't be reading? "The Wildmons of Mississippi: A Story of Christian Dissent."
• At least one newspaper is dropping Star Parker's syndicated column now that she is running for Congress.  Will others follow suit?
• Mat Staver explains that Charlie Crist's moderation destroyed his political career.
• Finally, the quote of the day from Rep. Mike Pence on the need for the GOP to diversify its base:  "In my judgment there may be no higher priority for Republicans in the 21st century then to return to that Abraham Lincoln, Jack Kemp vision that at the very center of everything we are as Republicans is the principle of equality of opportunity."

Remember last time around when various Religious Right groups were saying that they would not oppose a Supreme Court nominee just because said nominee was gay? 

In fact, Focus on the Family's Bruce Hausknecht went on record saying "the issue is not their sexual orientation. It’s whether they are a good judge or not":

“Our concern at the Supreme Court is judicial philosophy,” FOF spokesperson Hausknecht continued. “Sexual orientation only becomes an issue if it effects their judging.” For example, he said, “If someone says, `I don’t care what the law says, on the next case involving sexual orientation, I’m going to decide the case in favor of the openly gay party,’ that would be a breach of judicial duty.”

Well, Focus received a lot of flack for that from professional anti-gay activists like Gary Glenn and Peter LaBarbera and now Focus' Tom Minnery has "clarified" their position to LaBarbera, stating that the organization would oppose a gay nominee because said nominee would be, by definition, sinful and immoral: 

“It has been reported that we would not oppose any U.S. Supreme Court nominee over their ’sexual orientation.’ Our Judicial Analyst [Bruce Hausknecht] made a statement to this effect in an interview with The Plum Line. To be honest, this is one of those conversations we’d like to ‘do over.’ We can assure you that we recognize that homosexual behavior is a sin and does not reflect God’s created intent and desire for humanity. Further, we at Focus do affirm that character and moral rectitude should be key considerations in appointing members of the judiciary, especially in the case of the highest court in the land. Sexual behavior–be it heterosexual or homosexual–certainly lies at the heart of personal morality.”

In other news, right-wing groups are planning on raising and spending millions of dollars to fight Obama's nominee, without even knowing who it is:

Even without a nominee, some conservative organizations are bracing for a fight based on the ideological leanings of previous Obama judicial nominees.

Carrie Severino, the general counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, formerly called the Judicial Confirmation Network, said her group was prepared to launch a media campaign costing in the seven figures, similar to the one it waged against Sotomayor.

“I think we have funding in place. We are prepared to really fight,” she said.

Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, another conservative group, said that a judicial fight can boost fundraising and energize the base to get out and vote in the midterm elections.

Finally, Penny Young Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, has an op-ed on FoxNews.com explaining just "What Women Want In a Supreme Court Nominee" - remarkably, what all women want seems to be exactly the same as what CWA wants:

Just because Justice Stevens was a liberal on the Court, it does not mean that President Obama must nominate another liberal to replace him. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards is already salivating at the possibility of a justice who will “stand equally strong for” abortion on demand.

Obama sailed into office as a man expected to heal the nation, unite the political parties, and bring warm fuzzies to a country divided. On the contrary, since entering the White House our president and his policies have driven the country into an unfathomable divide, even lending to the uprising of the Tea Party movement, which brought out everyone from retirees to soccer moms -- and professionals who never cared about politics -- because Obama introduced policies that would destroy the lives they had built.

Women want a Justice who will uphold the Constitution, the right to life, and will preserve the family as a foundational cornerstone of our society. They don’t want someone who will legislate from the bench and uphold abhorrent legislation like the health care bill.

• Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has declared April to be Confederate History Month.
• Newt Gingrich says people need to stop attacking RNC Chair Michael Steele and instead focus on defeating Democrats.
• J.D. Hayworth says his race against Sen. John McCain is pitting the Tea Partiers against Washington.
• It looks like Team Huckabee is fracturing over a House race in Tennessee.
• Peter LaBarbera says Augusto Pereira de Souza doesn't need asylum in the US because Brazil is just about the gayest place in the world.
• Finally, I am very much looking forward to seeing "Casino Jack and the United States of Money":

• Both the Senate and House are expected to vote on resolutions condemning Uganda’s "kill the gays" bill.
• Anti-abortion extremist Neal Horsley is now running an anti-gay website.
• Sen. Bob Bennett's effort to stop Washington DC's marriage equality law failed.
• Why am I not surprise by the Peter LaBarbera would have someone on his radio program who writes things like "Have I mentioned lately how utterly *disgusting* Obama is? And, yes, it’s because he’s black. God, help us all"?
• Finally, "listen up, Buckwheat."

While reading through the most recent "Washington Update" from the Family Research Council, I had to stop and wonder if the organzation had perhaps hired Peter LaBarbera or Matt Barber and put them in charge of drafting the daily email.

But no, this language can be attributed to FRC president Tony Perkins himself, who responds to this Washington Post article claiming that Washington DC's recognition of marriage equality will be a boon to the District's economy by claiming that it'll actually damage the economy due to the "massive health care expenses incurred by taxpayers every year to cope with the diseases spread by homosexual behavior":

Not so fast, says FRC. The last census counted 3,678 same-sex partner homes in D.C. Assuming that number has stayed roughly the same, then the 150 who applied for marriage licenses yesterday would amount to a whopping four percent of the local homosexual population--hardly the stuff of economic recovery. For the Post's $52.2 million projection to come true, all 3,678 of those D.C. couples would have to get married and spend over $14,000 per wedding. (I don't know about you, but my wife and I spent a LOT less!) These "marriages" (which have yet to meet financial expectations in other states) may make a fast buck in the short term, but they will do nothing but drain the economy down the road. Consider the massive health care expenses incurred by taxpayers every year to cope with the diseases spread by homosexual behavior. According to the Kaiser Foundation, federal funding grew to more than $18 billion in 2004 to deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Over half of all U.S. infections are in men having sex with men! That means taxpayers spend roughly $10 billion a year treating the diseases caused by a behavior celebrated in same-sex "marriage." So much for economic development!