DNA Deniers On The March

The media have launched a major campaign on behalf of the “transgendered.” The Bruce Jenner ABC News interview is the most visible manifestation of this campaign. However, the NBC Nightly News on Wednesday ran a story by Kate Snow about the “transgender grandchild” of Democratic Rep. Mike Honda of Hawaii. Lacking in the coverage is any concrete definition of the term “transgendered” or any discussion of how children are now being used to promote an increasingly bizarre sexual agenda that requires physically mutilating or chemically treating very confused young people.

The Human Rights Campaign, a group co-founded by accused sex offender Terry Bean, a major Democratic Party fundraiser, quickly highlighted this latest NBC News report in a continuing series on “transgender youth.”

However, just like the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual, the word “transgendered” applies to certain behaviors or appearances and does not signify anything scientific or biological about a person.

Regardless of what you may see or read in the media, nature has given humanity two sexes — male and female — which are defined by DNA. People can call themselves anything they want, but the biological facts of life cannot be denied.

This is why, when The Washington Post ran a recent story about a “transgendered” soldier who claims to be a man, the paper noted that the military regards “him” as a “her,” because biologically that is what he really is. You cannot change your DNA.

The point is that those claiming to be one of any number of categories of alleged sexual minorities can accurately be labeled DNA deniers if they deny their fundamental biological identity.

The liberals and their media allies always claim they are in favor of science on matters such as global warming or climate change. But strangely, on the matter of human sexuality, science is denied and people are allowed to make up “facts” about themselves, describing their sexuality in terms that happen to be pleasing to them for any reason at all. A new category is “questioning,” meaning that a person can decide, apparently from day to day, what sexual minority they belong to.

If someone feels he or she is a member of the opposite sex, then that is perfectly acceptable, according to the LGBT community and its supporters.

But facts are facts, and science is science. Even liberal publications have to admit this. “The simplest thing DNA can tell you is whether someone is male or female,” notes the Guardian.

But consider the NBC story. Snow referred to Rep. Honda as having “tweeted a photo of himself on Twitter back in February, grinning next to his beautiful 8-year-old granddaughter Malisa…” But Malisa is not a girl. Malisa is biologically a boy. He was born with the name Brody.

Snow reported that the parents “thought their second child would be a boy. But by the time their child was three, she had chosen a new name for herself—Malisa.” A child at the age of three decided to become a girl? Could it be that the child was going through a phase and living in a fantasy? It seems apparent that the child was born a boy and was going through some confusion about his sexual identity. The parents decided to encourage this confusion by allowing the child to now identify as a girl.

Rather than celebrate this bizarre development, the parents should be questioned about their child-rearing skills. What the child (and the parents) may need is serious psychological counseling.

Of course, the homosexuals and their supporters, most notably President Barack Obama, adamantly oppose any kind of change therapy to return troubled young people to their biologically-based sexual orientation.

Snow reported, “Although there are no exact numbers, Malisa joined what experts say is a growing number of children transitioning at a young age.” No exact numbers? Experts? Who are they? This is propaganda masquerading as journalism. It is designed to feed the notion that nature’s determination that humans are born male and female is a gross miscalculation, and that humans can decide whether they are male or female, or whatever.

What Snow is describing is sexual confusion brought on by a culture (and possibly parents) which has obscured the sexual differences between men and women. This is where the homosexual movement has brought our nation.

Snow reports, “The family knows they are just at the beginning of this journey with Malisa, and work closely with a team of doctors. As she approaches puberty, they’ll have to consider whether to use so called puberty blockers and hormone therapy.”

The “puberty blockers” will be designed to stop “Malisa” from being the boy “she” is. They will stop the growth of facial hair and an Adam’s apple. He may also have to undergo some form of sex change surgery or other medical treatment.

Rather than challenge this insidious campaign of making children into pawns of the sexual “liberation” movement, some conservative and Republican politicians on Capitol Hill are voting for measures to, in some way, “protect” or outlaw alleged “discrimination” against sexual minorities.

For example, ten Republican senators voted for a measure introduced by far left-wing Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt.) to protect alleged “LGBT homeless youth.” They were Senators Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Susan Collins (Maine), Dean Heller (Nev.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Rand Paul (Ky.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Dan Sullivan (Alaska), and Pat Toomey (Pa.).

The term “LGBT homeless youth” is designed to expand the reach of the federal government into yet another area of human activity, based on questionable surveys and experts.

The power of the propaganda emanating from the media has created the perception, even among these Republicans, that this is a major problem that the federal government must address.

Not surprisingly, the homosexual movement was ecstatic. Thanks to those 10 Republicans, the headline over the AP article was, “A Majority Of The Senate Is Voting For LGBT Rights.”

The DNA deniers are on the march, making serious inroads into the national Republican Party.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Newly Unearthed Footage Shows Obama Confirming ‘Frank’ Is Frank Marshall Davis

In his 1995 book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama never discussed the identity of the mysterious “Frank” who had given him important advice on growing up black in what was described as a white racist world. We learned in 2008 that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party who was the subject of a 600-page FBI file. Still, the major media never asked Obama about this important relationship during his growing up years in Hawaii.

Now, in an extraordinary development, video of Obama explicitly and openly identifying “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis has suddenly surfaced on the Internet. The footage is said to have been recorded on September 20, 1995, with the program originally airing on Channel 37 Cambridge Municipal Television as an episode of the show, The Author Series.

It’s not clear how many saw this program when it aired. For some reason, this “From the Vault” Barack Obama presentation was just recently posted on YouTube. In the video, Obama is introduced as a Harvard Law School student and President of the Harvard Law Review. He discusses “Frank” as Frank Marshall Davis at about 8:37 in the video.

In his remarks, Obama never identifies Davis as a communist or even a leftist. But the remarks do reflect the significant influence that Davis had over his young life as he was growing up in Hawaii. Obama talks about how Davis “schools” him on the subject of race relations. The term implies a teacher-student relationship the two of them had, confirming what we had reported back in 2008 — that Davis had functioned as Obama’s “mentor.”

It’s important to understand what Obama is saying here. Getting ready to read directly from his book, Dreams from My Father, Obama talks about the passages ending with “me having a conversation with a close friend of my maternal grandfather, a close friend of gramps, a black man from Kansas, named Frank, actually at the time a fairly well-known poet named Frank Marshall Davis, who had moved to Hawaii and lived there, and so I have a discussion with him about the kinds of frustrations I’m having, and he sort of schools me that I should get used to these frustrations…”

Davis was indeed a black poet. His works included attacks on Christianity. One Davis poem referred to Christ irreverently as a “nigger.” Davis was himself an atheist.

However, Davis was better known as a communist propagandist whose work for the Communist Party in Hawaii earned him surveillance by the FBI and placement on its “security index.” Davis was also a pornographer who engaged in bizarre sexual practices, even pedophilia.

Needless to say, Obama’s willingness to identify “Frank” as Davis before this audience raises questions as to why “Frank” wasn’t identified by his full name—Frank Marshall Davis—in the book itself. Obama made references to “Frank” 22 times throughout his book. Paul Kengor notes that Obama’s audio version of Dreams from My Father omitted every reference to “Frank” that was in the book. Those omissions were clearly designed to keep people from asking questions about “Frank,” since Obama was considering a run for the presidency.

Today, in 2015, discovering film of Obama identifying “Frank” as Davis is confirmation of the obvious. It doesn’t make a lot of difference politically, since Obama is serving out his second term. But it could have made a difference seven years ago, in 2008, when we identified “Frank” as Davis, during Obama’s campaign for his first term in office.

The clip of Obama talking about Davis during his 1995 Cambridge presentation is important for other reasons, however.

By his own admission, Obama was preoccupied with his own feelings and thoughts about race relations. He saw himself as an “angry young man” whose father was absent from his life. He said he was “without father figures around who might guide and steer my anger.”

That’s significant because it’s clear, from the passages he reads, that Davis became that father figure. Davis was indeed picked by his white grandfather to be a role model or father figure for the young Barack Obama.

In the passages he read back in 1995, Obama discussed inviting some white friends to a black party and seeing them squirm. “They’re trying to tap their foot to the beat and being extraordinarily friendly,” he said. They are trying to fit in but they are uncomfortable and they tell Obama they want to leave. Obama concluded, “What I have had to put up with every day of my life is something that they find so objectionable that they can’t even put up with a day.”

This is like a revelation to Obama about the world of white racism. All of this, he says, “triggers” something in his head and he comprehends a “new map of the world.” He gets a sense of the anger and betrayal in society and even in his own family, where he is being raised by his white grandfather, “Gramps,” and white grandmother, “Toot.” This leads him to seek advice from “Frank.” Frank Marshall Davis then “sort of schools me that I should get used to these frustrations,” Obama says.

The passages that he reads from the book before the Cambridge audience include a discussion of when his own white grandmother was accosted by a black panhandler. Davis told Obama that his grandmother was right to be scared and that “She understands that black people have reason to hate.”

In other words, Davis did not encourage Obama to pursue racial harmony or reconciliation. He told Obama that blacks have a reason, or right, to hate.

It is significant that, back in 1995, Obama decided to read these passages. They clearly reflect what he is all about.

This was also clear to us from reading the book and understanding what Davis was all about. We wrote a column back in 2012 that was titled, “Reason to Hate: Barack Obama’s Racist Roots.” Paul Kengor’s book on Davis, The CommunistFrank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, examined in more detail the Davis mentality and ideology that shaped Obama.

Kengor’s book documented that Davis:

  • Considered American racism a “disease” that “Red Russia” had solved
  • Wrote in a column on July 20, 1946, that the Soviet Union had, “in less than a generation,” abolished “discrimination and racism”
  • Wrote that “the only people” Winston Churchill cared about were “the white people of the British empire”
  • Labeled the Marshall Plan for Western Europe after World War II a form of white imperialism, designed to “help maintain European empires at the expense of exploited dark colonial peoples”
  • Considered anti-communism a form of racism.

In the video, Obama says that Davis’s remarks about blacks having “a reason to hate” had a profound impact on him. “The earth shook under my feet, ready to crack open at any moment,” he wrote. “I stopped, trying to steady myself, and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone.”

During his talk at the Cambridge Public Library, Obama also said some nice things about white people. While he faulted America for not making “a serious effort” to address racial problems, he did say that “Americans are decent people,” and commented that some things have changed for the better.

But one can sense that the anger is still there.

Looking back at this presentation, and taking into account the policies of the Obama administration, there can be no doubt that Davis’ racism did have a profound impact on Obama.

As we wrote back in 2012, after examining the racist outlook of Davis, “The Obama administration’s tactics are to exploit and manipulate racial and ethnic differences for political gain. This is not an accident but a deliberate political strategy that one can find in the mind of Obama’s communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who ‘educated Obama during his critical growing up years. Black people, Davis told Obama, have ‘reason to hate.’ The evidence shows that Obama has incorporated that hatred in his policies and pronouncements.”

Now that Obama’s personal confirmation of the critical role that Davis played in helping to formulate his worldview on racial politics has been made public, perhaps The Washington Post will admit that those of us who warned about Davis’s influence on Obama were right. But we doubt it. The Post won’t ever admit that it missed this story.

Davis’ communism had an impact on Obama as well. Perhaps racism was the hook that got Obama into the Marxist movement. Like Davis, it looks like Obama does see Marxism as the answer to white racism. And that helps explain why the true identity of “Frank” was concealed during Obama’s run for the presidency.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Lawyers Warn First Amendment Rights At Stake In Gay Marriage Case

Flickr/cool revolution (cropped)

With media coverage slanted in favor of gay marriage by a five-to-one ratio, it’s unlikely that the legal documents being filed before the Supreme Court in favor of a traditional one man and one woman marriage will ever be covered in an objective fashion.

Yet, some of the legal briefs carry ominous warnings about what could happen to the American system of democratic self-government and its Christian heritage if the Supreme Court unilaterally decides to impose same-sex marriage on the states. They also warn about freedom of the press and religion being threatened by a powerful pro-homosexual movement that requires obedience to its desires and demands.

The court will hear arguments on April 28 and rule in June.

A powerful brief filed by the firm of William J. Olson, P.C., Attorneys at Law, and the U.S. Justice Foundation cites the late conservative journalist M. Stanton Evans in his book, The Theme of Freedom, as saying that homosexuality constitutes “a reversion to pagan ways of thinking,” and that putting the United States on the road to paganism could lead to a government “with totalitarian powers.”

Examining the nature of the homosexual movement and where it is driving the nation, the legal brief notes that sexual categories once limited to heterosexual and homosexual have now been expanded to include more than 50 gender options, as defined by Facebook, and that “some consider pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation, returning us to the pagan pederasty of ancient Greece.”

With the court affirming same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, the lawyers see the culture sliding further into debauchery. “Television no doubt will become even more pro-homosexual,” the attorneys argue, “making it more difficult for persons adhering to traditional values to live their lives and raise their children in an increasingly debased culture.”

“In this brave, new, homosexual-friendly world,” they go on, “every licensed professional would be required to embrace the new orthodoxy, to bow down to the idol of ‘non-discrimination,’ or be cast out of his profession. People who first claimed only to want tolerance of their behavior will allow no toleration for other views.”

The Olson brief says a Court decision in violation of America’s founding principles could directly affect the free press rights of those offering information about withdrawing from homosexual behavior. Websites offering such counseling could be outlawed as “hate speech,” the legal document says.

“In California,” the document notes, “it is already a crime” to counsel minors that homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. It says New Jersey passed a similar statute, which was recently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This statute was signed into law by New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie.

“Newspapers likely will be forced to publish homosexual wedding announcements, in violation of their existing editorial control over what they publish,” the attorneys assert.

A decision in favor of same-sex marriage could also result in Christians being “driven from public office” for objecting to participation in gay marriage ceremonies, the brief says.

The Olson firm and the U.S. Justice Foundation filed the brief on behalf of Public Advocate of the U.S., Joyce Meyer Ministries, U.S. Justice Foundation, The Lincoln Institute, Abraham Lincoln Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Pastor Chuck Baldwin.

The brief says that a constitutional right to homosexual marriage could supersede the religious freedom of churches, ministries, Christian schools and colleges, and that these entities “would be placed in jeopardy of losing their federal tax-exempt status.” The loss of federal income tax-exempt status “could lead to loss of contribution income, and forfeiting of church properties to pro-homosexual charities,” the brief says. In addition, it goes on, “criminal penalties might be imposed on church leaders. In Idaho, two pastors recently were threatened with fines and jail time unless they performed homosexual marriages at their wedding chapel.”

In addition to the threat posed to the First Amendment rights of a free press and religious expression, the conservative public interest law firm Judicial Watch has filed a brief noting that the will of the American people through the voting process has already been subverted by liberal judges.

The group points out that “most of the States where the traditional definition of marriage has been changed has been done through judicial actions and not the will of the people. And in fact, several States including California and Virginia where the voters clearly desired to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, state administrators and federal courts denied their collective voices.”

“The right to vote is clearly defined in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution,” Judicial Watch points out. Yet, courts have declared through “judicial fiat” that “the millions of voters who democratically adopted the marriage amendments were wrong,” thereby abridging “the right to vote of each and every one of those citizens.”

The brief goes on to say that “The message sent to these citizens is that, despite engaging in the democratic process and debate regarding issues predominately within the state sphere and casting their constitutionally protected votes, when a federal court decides it knows better, their votes will mean nothing. The inevitable consequence of this type of federal interference will be voter disenfranchisement. How can we beat the patriotic drum of voter involvement when the ultimate end can be erased by a few federal judges?”

The Olson brief also takes up the theme of the American people being denied their say in these matters, noting cases of judges who “have treated challenges to traditional marriage as an opportunity to exercise raw political power…”

Inevitably, the lawyers warn, the nation could witness the legalization of multiple-partner and incestuous marriages.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Republican Party Elites Abandon Traditional Marriage

Accuracy in Media

Only six of 54 Republican members of the Senate signed a pro-traditional marriage legal brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that was submitted on Friday. USA Today noted, “By contrast, 44 Democratic senators and 167 Democratic House members filed a brief last month urging the court to approve same-sex marriage. The brief included the full House and Senate [Democratic] leadership teams.”

These developments strongly suggest that while the homosexual movement remains solidly in control of the Democratic Party, the tactics of harassment and intimidation that we saw wielded against the religious freedom bill in Indiana last week are taking their toll on the Republican Party as a whole.

In the Indiana case, a conservative Republican governor, Mike Pence, abandoned the fight for religious freedom in the face of homosexual and corporate pressure.

It appears that more and more elite or establishment Republicans are simply deciding to give up on the fight for traditional values and marriage.

While this may seem politically expedient, this dramatic move to the left by the GOP could result in millions of pro-family conservatives deciding to abandon the Republican Party in 2016, a critical election year.

USA Today also noted that, “while some members of the 2012 Republican National Convention platform committee filed a brief against gay marriage Friday, it notably did not include GOP Chairman Reince Priebus.”

The Republican senators signing the brief included:

  • Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
  • Senator Steve Daines of Montana
  • Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma
  • Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma
  • Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky
  • Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina

Fifty-one members of the House of Representatives signed the brief. But House Speaker John Boehner’s, R-Ohio, name was not on it.

Taking the lead for traditional marriage in the House was Representative Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., who not only signed the pro-marriage brief but has also introduced House Joint Resolution 32, the Marriage Protection Amendment, to amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family, and children by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The resolution has 33 co-sponsors and has been referred for action to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Huelskamp is the only member of Congress who has authored one of the 30 state constitutional amendments that prohibits homosexual marriage and polygamous marriage. In 2005, when he was a state senator, 71 percent of Kansans voted for the state constitutional amendment that he authored.

In reintroducing the federal marriage amendment, Huelskamp said, “In June 2013 the Supreme Court struck down section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one man and one woman, but upheld the right and responsibility of states to define marriage. Since then, though, numerous unelected lower court judges have construed the U.S. Constitution as suddenly demanding recognition of same sex ‘marriages,’ and they struck down state Marriage Amendments—including the Kansas Marriage Amendment—approved by tens of millions of voters and their elected representatives.”

However, on April 28 the U.S. Supreme Court will review the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which upholds marriage laws in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. A ruling is expected in June.

USA Today noted that scores of prominent Republicans last month joined a brief on the homosexual side filed by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, a former lieutenant to Karl Rove who came out of the closet and announced in August of 2010 that he was a homosexual. He has since launched a “Project Right Side” to make the “conservative” case for gay marriage.

Big money Republican donors such as Paul Singer, David Koch, and Peter Thiel have either endorsed homosexual rights and same-sex marriage or funded the homosexual movement. Thiel is an open homosexual.

A libertarian group funded by the Koch brothers, the Cato Institute, has been in the gay rights camp for many years and its chairman, Robert A. Levy, wrote a “moral and constitutional case for a right to gay marriage.”

Other signatories to the Mehlman brief included Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois, and former presidential candidates Rudolph Giuliani and Jon Huntsman.

The signers of this brief at the Supreme Court in support of same-sex marriage were described as “300 veteran Republican lawmakers, operatives and consultants.” Some two dozen or so had worked for Mitt Romney for President.

One of the signatories, Mason Fink, who was the finance director of the Mitt Romney for President campaign, has signed on with a super PAC promoting former Florida Republican governor Jeb Bush for president. In another move signaling his alignment with the homosexual movement, Bush has reportedly picked Tim Miller, “one of the most prominent gay Republicans in Washington politics,” as his communications director.

A far-left media outlet known as Buzzfeed has described Bush as “2016’s Gay-Friendly Republican,” and says he has “stocked his inner circle with advisers who are vocal proponents of gay rights.”

But some conservative Christians are fighting back against the homosexual movement.

A brief to the court filed by Liberty Counsel notes that, in the past, the Supreme Court has upheld marriage as “a foundational social institution that is necessarily defined as the union of one man and one woman.” It cites the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma, in which marriage was declared to be “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,” and Maynard v. Hill, in which marriage was declared “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

Liberty Counsel said the court is being asked to affirm a false notion of marriage based upon fraudulent data about homosexual activity in society. It said, “For the past 67 years, scholars, lawyers and judges have undertaken fundamental societal transformation by embracing Alfred Kinsey’s statistically and scientifically fraudulent ‘data’ derived from serial child rapists, sex offenders, prisoners, prostitutes, pedophiles and pederasts. Now these same change agents, still covering up the fraudulent nature of the Kinsey ‘data,’ want this Court to utilize it to demolish the cornerstone of society, natural marriage.”

The homosexual movement has long maintained that Kinsey validated changes in sexual behavior that were already taking place in society. In fact, however, the evidence uncovered by Dr. Judith Reisman shows that Kinsey deliberately exaggerated those changes in a fraudulent manner by using data from pedophiles and prisoners.

Commenting on the impact of the acceptance of the fraudulent Kinsey data, Accuracy in Media founder Reed Irvine noted, “Gradually over the years, acceptance of the Kinsey morality has grown to the point where premarital and extramarital sex raise no eyebrows, where, in some communities, out-of-wedlock births are in the majority, homosexuality is glorified and aggressively promoted in our schools and the last taboo—adults having sex with young children—is now under attack in some of our institutions of higher learning.”

The Mattachine Society, a gay rights organization started by communist Harry Hay in 1950, cited the flawed Kinsey data in an effort to convince the public that homosexual behavior was widespread in American society.

The book, Take Back! The Gay Person’s Guide to Media Action, said the Kinsey Report on male sexuality “paved the way for the first truly positive discussion of homosexuality in the mainstream media.”

Today, this same Kinsey data is being used to convince the Supreme Court to approve homosexual “marriage” as a constitutional right.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Even Conservatives Are Cowering Before Big Media On Homosexual Issues

Western Journalism Screenshot

Robert R. Reilly, author of the highly controversial (and suppressed) book, Making Gay Okay, says the capitulation of the Republicans to the homosexual lobby seemed to begin under President George W. Bush, when General Peter Pace was hung out to dry for expressing his view that homosexuality is immoral. That was in 2007.

Pace, who also condemned adultery at the same time, “was not backed up by anyone in the Bush Administration,” including the president, Reilly noted. Yet, Pace made a statement “that would have been considered standard at any other time in our history,” Reilly added.

Reilly made these comments to me during an interview about his book, which describes the transformation of the homosexual rights movement from a request for tolerance into a cultural conquest. We are now seeing the homosexual lobby on the march in states such as Indiana and Arkansas, where Republican governors are on the defensive, even afraid to offer a vigorous defense of religious freedom in the face of an aggressive gay agenda.

Beyond the Bush administration, Reilly believes that some of the “cultural elites of the Republican Party” have simply decided to push the GOP in the same direction that the Democrats are going. He calls it “the era of unreality,” when what is unnatural is portrayed as morally right.

Before Reilly tackled the topic, the late Alan Stang’s incendiary book, Not Holier Than Thou, examined the presence of influential homosexuals or sympathizers in Republican ranks. He named the names. One of them came forward, in a strange sort of way, when Republican Senator Larry Craig of Idaho got caught making a sexual advance toward another man in a bathroom.

Stang did not pull his punches. “Government has ruthlessly suppressed smoking because it allegedly promotes lung cancer,” he wrote in his 2007 book. “Now it is talking about doing the same thing to junk food to suppress obesity. Question: Why is it not suppressing sodomy, which…is much more deadly than smoking?”

Reilly, who takes a scholarly and academic approach, taught at the National Defense University, and served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he was Senior Advisor for Information Strategy from 2002 to 2006.

He notes that one of the last people in a prominent political position in the United States to speak about the problem of homosexuality was Rick Santorum when he was a Republican senator from Pennsylvania. “And when he did so, he was badly beaten up…with the instrument of the media,” Reilly notes. This sent a message to other Republicans.

We are seeing history repeated as the Republican governors of Indiana and Arkansas get “beat up” because their legislatures have stood for traditional values and even religious liberty.

What these governors need to do is read Reilly’s book. But what’s particularly distressing, Reilly tells me, is that the conservative press has largely avoided even reviewing his book. He says that National Review, The American Spectator, The Wall Street Journal, and The Weekly Standard all refused to review it.

“Some of them have been Mao-Maoed by what’s called the homosexual mafia,” he says. “They don’t want to take the grief. Or they themselves are complicit to some degree with the arguments [for moral acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle]. Or some of these publications also have been infiltrated.”

He adds, “There is another reason I think: they don’t want to be associated with a losing cause. Their attitude is, ‘Well, we’ve lost this one, so I don’t want to be tainted with a lost cause. Let’s just forget it and move on.’”

Reilly says, “But we can’t because there’s just too much at stake in this.”

In an article in the New Oxford Review, “The Conservative Surrender in the Culture Wars,” Tom Bethell surveyed the censorship of the book in the conservative media. “We would expect liberal publications to ignore Reilly’s book,” he says. “And they have. But conservative journals have followed suit.”

On the other hand, Bethell reports, Making Gay Okay received a number of favorable reviews, almost all from conservative religious sources.

The late conservative commentator and author, M. Stanton Evans, was never afraid to take on the homosexual lobby. Stan had condemned as “pagan” the campaign “to change societal views of homosexuality—to treat it as an ‘alternative lifestyle,’ as valid in its way as heterosexual conduct.”

In his book, The Theme is Freedom, Stan cited the acceptance of homosexuality in ancient civilizations such as Babylon and noted, “All of this was unequivocally condemned by the religion of the Bible.” He said America’s religious values were the foundation for all of our freedoms.

Stan believed in and defended traditional values. We need more journalists like him at this critical time.

In the tradition of Stan Evans, a young conservative from the Heritage Foundation, Ryan T. Anderson, stepped forward and accepted an invitation to go on the MSNBC show hosted by Ed Schultz to talk about the Indiana religious freedom law and big business opposition to it. Schultz cut his microphone off when Anderson was dominating and winning the debate. “Cut his mic off,” Schultz demanded.

That’s perhaps to be expected when left-wing “progressives” are losing the debate and want to censor the opposition. But why have conservative press organs muzzled a scholar like Reilly and censored his book?

If conservatives get some guts, like Ryan T. Anderson showed on the air, perhaps more Republicans will follow. Reilly’s book describes the stakes for our nation.

This article originally appeared at AIM.org and is reprinted here with permission.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom