Republicans for Family Values

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) has a strong pro-homosexual voting record, and voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion, among other anti-life votes.

By Laurie Higgins

With all the recent bad press about Mark Kirk’s prevaricating about his military record and his weaselly responses when confronted by the media about his prevarications, multiple people have made the argument that as bad as he is, it’s better to have a Republican elected than a Democrat. In the past I shared that view.  I have never voted for a third-party candidate or refused to vote—until now.  I have always been firmly committed to voting for the Republican candidate even if I had to hold my nose while voting—until now. Is there a limit to how bad a Republican candidate can get before Republicans will stand on principle? I’m beginning to think that Republicans have a limitless capacity for capitulation.

This is my thinking:

I think that it will be easier for a good Republican candidate to unseat Alexi Giannoulias in six years than it will be for a good Republican to unseat a semi-skillful incumbent like Mark Kirk. If Kirk gets in office, I fear we’ll have him for decades. I don’t think that’s the case with Giannoulias. The loss of the Senate seat to Giannoulias would provide Illinois Republicans six years to find a truly worthy Republican candidate. No matter which position Republicans take, it’s a crapshoot. We’re all speculating. Giannoulias could be an effective senator and, therefore, very difficult to unseat. Or he could be incompetent and, therefore, easy to unseat. With Kirk, we know we’re getting a skillful and experienced legislator who will be difficult to unseat.

Marc Ambinder, political editor of The Atlantic, writes this about the prospect of a Kirk win:

If Kirk wins the seat, he’s instantaneously the biggest name in the GOP.  The seat, you’ll remember, was Barack Obama’s seat. Kirk would be bigger than Massachusetts’ lion killer Scott Brown, bigger than the presidential candidates for a while, and he can be a kingmaker.

He’ll have a huge donor list, he’ll own Obama’s seat, and then he’s faced with a choice. Does he moderate himself truly, work in a bipartisan way and be a leader in the Senate.  Or, does he go with immediate ego gratification and position himself to be on the vice presidential short list for 2012? If Kirk doesn’t want to run again in 2016, he can bank on the fact that he’ll either be on the veep short-list then, or he’ll be a bona fide presidential contender in his own right.(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/05/mark-kirk-the-next-scott-brown/56598/)

Continue Reading »

Mark Kirk has a radical pro-abortion and pro-homosexual-agenda voting record, so most conservatives are not enthused about him becoming the next U.S. Senator from Illinois.

Dear RFFV Readers,

We’re back! With this post by my friend Laurie Higgins, Republicans for Family Values (www.rffv.org) is reactivating after a long silence — just in time for primary elections. The case of Congressman Mark Kirk running as a Republican for U.S. Senate in Illinois is a troubling one: here’s a fellow who voted AGAINST banning partial-birth abortion — and then rationalized the vote to party VIPs and activists as one necessitated by his liberal district (suburbs north of Chicago).

I don’t know which is more pathetic: Kirk’s pandering to pro-abortion feminists, leading him to miss an opportunity to criminalize de facto infanticide; or his sorry attempt to justify it politically. I realize most pseudo-compassionate left-wingers are heartless when it comes to the defenseless unborn, but is there really any congressional district so liberal that it necessitates protecting the gruesome practice of piercing the skull of a late-term unborn baby fully capable of living outside the womb so as to end its (inconvenient) life? Shame on you, Mark!

On the “gay” front, Mr. “Real Integrity” (a Kirk radio ad extols him as a “leader with real integrity”) is one of the most pro-homosexual-agenda of all the Republican legislators on Capitol Hill. According to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most powerful homosexual lobby group, Kirk has the following rankings for the last three Congresses (voting with HRC’s misguided agenda) : 85%, 575 and 88% in the 110th, 109th and 108th Congresses, respectively.

In contrast, fellow Illinois Congressman Peter Roskam, also a Republican, has an HRC ranking of zero percent in the 110th Congress (his debut term).

This may explain why radical homosexual “outers” like Mike Rogers are in no hurry to talk about Kirk’s sexual proclivities, since they focus more on secretly homosexual Republicans who have a strong “pro-family” voting record. Of course, as Higgins writes, this would influence a “Senator Kirk” to continue voting pro-homosexual while the “gay” pressure ratchets up for him to reverse his few pro-family votes on the issue as his profile grows in Washington.

Continue Reading »

Barack Obama is a charlatan on abortion. He has pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would increase the number of abortions across the country by overturning pro-life reforms. Click HERE to watch Obama’s 2007 speech at Planned Parenthood.

Republicans For Family Values  — News Release
www.rffv.org

November 3, 2008; contact: Peter LaBarbera: rffv@comcast.net

CHICAGO – Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (RFFV), said Barack Obama’s ideological devotion to both the homosexual and abortion agendas should weigh more heavily than non-moral issues as committed Christians weigh their vote tomorrow.

RFFV has published an essay, “Obama is FOR Gay Marriage even as He’s Against it,” to illustrate the Democratic candidate’s double-speak on “same-sex marriage.” Obama has promised homosexual activists that he would work to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. This issue has been largely ignored by the media, and John McCain has given Obama a pass on it.

“The Obama spin machine has done a con job on evangelicals and Catholics,” LaBarbera said. “Obama courts Christians by saying he supports traditional marriage. Meanwhile, he does everything he can to support the homosexual ‘marriage’ agenda – including his promise to “gay” activists to repeal DOMA.

“Similarly, Obama courts people of faith by pledging to ‘reduce the number of abortions.’ Yet he opposed an Illinois bill to give human rights to babies ‘born alive’ through botched abortions. And he blasted a Supreme Court ruling upholding a law banning heinous partial-birth abortions (infanticide).

Continue Reading »

Democratic deception has worked: most ignorant about Obama’s radical anti-DOMA agenda

By Peter LaBarbera

As a social conservative, one of the most troubling aspects of this presidential campaign has been the media’s (and John McCain’s) failure to flesh out Barack Obama’s “audacious” doublespeak on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

Here’s the question Obama was lucky enough to have never been asked in this campaign: What does it mean to say you support traditional marriage (one man, one woman) – when you do so much to advance the pro-“gay marriage” cause, including denouncing state marriage-protection amendments like Prop 8 in California as “discriminatory and divisive”?

Did you know that Obama has promised homosexual activists that he will work to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act? DOMA was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996 and protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.” It was passed overwhelmingly by the Senate, 85-14, with Sen. Biden joining 28 other Democrats in voting yes. How liberal is Obama’s anti-DOMA scheme? Hillary Clinton, a trusted gay ally, pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.

Neither McCain nor Gov. Palin has made an issue of Obama’s extreme anti-DOMA sop to the homosexual crowd even though they had a clear opening. (One 2007 Quinnipiac poll revealed that a homosexual group’s endorsement of a candidate would be a net electoral loser among voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.) The result is that Obama’s DOMA Destruction Plan never surfaced in the debates and barely in the major media.

Continue Reading »

Gagnon says Obama ‘audaciously’ twists Christ’s Sermon on the Mount to affirm homosexuality

A Special Report for Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org)

Note: RFFV has excerpted the text in question on pages 222-224 of Barack Obama’s book, The Adacity of Hope, here:  “Obama’s ‘Audacity of Hope’ Passage Downplays ‘Obscure Line in Romans’ Proscribing Homosexual Sex.” The “obscure line” in the New Testament Book of Romans to which Obama refers is evidently this (all links are to the New International Version of the Bible):

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27)

________________________________

Barack Obama’s Disturbing Misreading of the Sermon on the Mount as Support for Homosexual Sex

by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
gagnon@pts.edu

October 23, 2008

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has written in The Audacity of Hope—a book that perhaps should have been entitled The Audacity of Portraying Myself Messianically as the Herald of Audacious Hope—that he is not “willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans [about homosexual practice] to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.”[1]  He repeated this line in a campaign appearance in Ohio this past March. He stated that if people find controversial his views on granting the full benefits of marriage to homosexual unions, minus only the name, “then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.”[2]  These remarks by Obama represent a gross distortion of the witness of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

On Romans 1
First, they misrepresent the text in Romans 1:24-27 against all homosexual practice, a text that belongs to one of the two or three most important books in Scripture, a catalyst for frequent spiritual revivals for the past two millennia. Romans 1:24-27 depicts all homosexual practice as an “indecency” and moral “impurity” that does three things. First, it violates God’s male-female standard for valid sexual relations given in Genesis 1:27 (the text contains strong echoes to Genesis 1:26-27). Second, it violates the obvious evidence in the material structures of creation that male and female, not persons of the same sex, are each other’s sexual counterparts or complements (a particularly obvious example on the plane of human interrelationships of suppressing the truth about God and ourselves accessible in creation and nature). Third, it “dishonors” the sexual integrity of the participants who engage in such activity by imaging themselves as only half their own sex in their attempt to merge with an alleged complement of the same sex. The passage is no more “obscure” than Paul’s comments on idolatry in the preceding passage in Romans 1:19-23 or his comments regarding a case of adult-consensual man-stepmother incest at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5—another instance of prohibited sexual intercourse between persons who are too much alike (here on a familial level, already of the same “flesh”).

On Scripture Generally
Second, Obama’s remarks misrepresent Scripture generally in that they suggest that Paul’s stance on homosexual practice is somehow an oddity within the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with an example of consensual sexual relations that the witness of Scripture opposes more strongly, consistently, and absolutely. Paul’s remarks were certainly not isolated. Every law, narrative, proverb, poetry, metaphor, teaching, and exhortation in Scripture that has anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite. The creation texts in Genesis 1 and 2 both establish such a prerequisite. Genesis 1:27 integrates the creation of “male and female” as a sexual pair with being made in God’s image, suggesting that same-sex pairing would efface that part of the image of God stamped on the sexual self (as also would adultery and incest, the latter even of an adult-consensual sort). Genesis 2:21-24 portrays a male-female sexual bond as the re-merger of the two complementary sexual halves of an integrated sexual whole. In other words, the sexual “counterpart” or “complement” of a man is a woman (and vice versa), a being both “corresponding to him” and “opposite him” (as the Hebrew word kenegdo infers).

Continue Reading »

Rabbis, priests and pastors concur on homosexual unions and child sacrifice; Obama’s extreme social record exposed

News Release; October 13, 2008

CONTACT/INTERVIEWS: Print, Radio, Web: Lynne Campbell or Shauna Whitlock 630-848-0750
office@specialguests.com

Television: Todd Bauman 512-868-8395; todd@specialguests.com  OR
Jerry McGlothlin 212-699-2518; jerry@specialguests.com

Over 325,000 USA churches, synagogues get new publication, ‘The Judeo-Christian View’

Vista, CA (Monday, October 13) – Over 325,000 rabbis, priests and pastors in every Jewish and Christian congregation in America have received the inaugural issue of The Judeo-Christian View by U.S. mail, according to the publisher of the new periodical. The launch edition deals with the volatile issues of religion, presidential politics, same-sex unions and “child sacrifice.” Signed by dozens of clerics who concur that homosexuality and partial birth abortion – plus related policies of U.S. Senator Barack Obama – are at odds with the ancient Biblical faiths, the first edition also went online during Yom Kippur (www.thejudeo-christianview.com) and is heading to another 5 million U.S. clerics, theologians and religious laity via e-mail as part of an ambitious subscription strategy.

Signatories of the ecumenical epistle — rabbis, pastors and theologians themselves — urge congregational leaders to boldly pray, preach and teach “the Judeo-Christian view” on same-sex intercourse while conveying to their flocks where Senators Obama and John McCain stand on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law that shields states from forced legal recognition of gay unions from other states, such as Massachusetts and California. The “multimedia journal of opinion”– including a graphic DVD “video sermon” for congregations which cites both Jewish and Christian Bible translations — reports that Obama favors full repeal of DOMA and supports same-sex unions, while McCain takes the opposite stand.

Continue Reading »

Here’s how she should have responded to homosexual ‘marriage’ question

Republicans For Family Values News Release, www.rffv.org

Barack Obama says he supports traditional marriage even as he actively supports the homosexual lobby’s campaign to spread “gay marriage” nationwide. Obama supports the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which running-mate Joe Biden supported and which was signed into law by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996. “Both Sides Barack” also opposes ALL statewide ballot measures to constitutionally preserve marriage as one-man, one-woman.

Contact: Peter LaBarbera, Republicans For Family Values: 630-457-0178; rffv@comcast.net

NAPERVILLE, Illinois, Oct. 7, 2008 — GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin missed a golden opportunity Thursday in her debate with Joe Biden to expose Barack Obama’s double-speak on “gay marriage,” Republicans For Family Values founder Peter LaBarbera said today.

Obama claims to support traditional marriage even as he promises to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – signed into law by Bill Clinton – which protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state homosexual “marriages.” Obama also opposes state Marriage Protection Amendments, and even promised gay activists that he would use the “bully pulpit” to promote same-sex adoptions.

After vice-presidential debate moderator Gwen Ifill asked Biden, “Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?” the Delaware senator answered that “in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.”

Seemingly contradicting that sweeping statement, Biden then said that he (like Obama) does not “support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.”

Responding to the same debate question, Palin strongly defended traditional marriage but failed to mention Obama’s extreme plan to overturn DOMA. Palin – who as Governor vetoed a bill denying benefits to homosexual state employees on the advice that it was unconstitutional — said granting same-sex benefits undermines marriage.

Continue Reading »

Running for president is heady stuff, but does Barack Obama know better than God Himself about the sin of homosexuality?

Republicans For Family Values
www.rffv.org

September 2, 2008

Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-457-0178; rffv@comcast.net

ST. PAUL, Minn. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion and pro-homosexual candidate ever to receive a major party’s nomination, Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org) founder Peter LaBarbera said today.

RFFV will be at the GOP convention to educate Republicans and the media on Obama’s extreme record on the two most important moral crises facing our nation: the killing of millions of innocent, unborn babies; and the campaign to use government to force Americans to support (and subsidize) homosexual behavior against their conscience.

“While pro-life advocates have done an outstanding job alerting the nation to Obama’s radical abortion record — he opposes banning heinous partial-birth abortions and opposed an Illinois bill recognizing human rights for babies “born alive” after botched abortions — Obama’s extreme pro-homosexual record remains largely hidden from the public.

The following are some examples of Obama’s pro-homosexual advocacy:

• Despite repeatedly professing his belief in traditional marriage, Obama’s stated public policies invariably promote the Homosexual Lobby’s “gay marriage” agenda. In other words, he claims to support marriage while simultaneously undermining it;
• For example, Obama promises to completely repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed into law by fellow Democrat Bill Clinton. If DOMA were to be repealed, states could be forced to recognize out-of-state “same-sex marriages” against their will. (Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged to repeal only part of DOMA.);
• Obama opposes the California marriage protection amendment (Prop 8), which would simply reinstate marriage as solely between a man and a woman – the very thing that the Illinois Senator SAYS he supports;
• Obama congratulated San Francisco Democratic homosexual activists on “getting married” – again showing his hypocrisy on marriage, and his old-politics habit of trying to appeal to both sides of this and other controversial issues at the same time;
• Obama pledged to homosexual activists to use the White House bully pulpit to advocate for homosexual adoption of children – thus creating the potentially absurd spectacle of a U.S. President using the moral authority, power and prestige of the office to push for placing children in same-sex households that are motherless or fatherless by design;
• Obama distorts the Bible to justify his support of homosexuality and even used Jesus Christ’s Sermon on the Mount to support same-sex unions.

Democrat supports full repeal of Defense of Marriage Act, using Bully Pulpit to promote homosexual adoptions

America’s liberal media do not see Barack Obama’s radical pro-homosexual advocacy as a big deal, but to many millions of Americans, it may help solidify him as too liberal to be president. But will most Americans find out how strongly pro-homosexual Obama is?

In the interview for the following story by AFA’s OneNewsNow, I indicated that Barack Obama becomes the first major party’s presumptive presidential nominee to support homosexual “marriage.” Other Democratic presidential primary candidates in 2004 and this year — e.g., Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH) in 2008 and Rev. Al Sharpton in 2004 — went even further than Obama in supporting full “gay marriage” rights, but they never got close to the Democratic nomination. — Peter LaBarbera, Republicans For Family Values

OneNewsNow reports (click HERE to listen to it online):

Obama — the Pro-’Gay’ Candidate

Jeff Johnson – OneNewsNow – 8/11/2008

According to at least one political analyst, Barack Obama has gone farther in supporting the homosexual agenda than any other presidential candidate [major party nominee] in history.

Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans for Family Values, says a recent letter from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to a homosexual activist group confirms the extremism of his positions.

“He advocates the full repeal of DOMA, which goes farther than Hillary Clinton, who only recommended repealing part of the Defense of Marriage Act,” note LaBarbera. “He’s talking about opening up the military to homosexuality in a time of war. He’s talking about ‘gay’ adoption — putting children in homes that are intentionally fatherless or intentionally motherless, and using the White House bully pulpit to do that.”

On August 1, Obama responded to an inquiry from the pro-homosexual Family Equality Council, pledging in a letter [click HERE for PDF] his support for “LGBT families” — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender. He also congratulated homosexual couples that have recently “married” in California and Massachusetts.

Continue Reading »

Republicans For Family Values is back online, just in time to highlight this report from the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade — which aptly explains both social conservatives’ ambivalence toward Sen. John McCain and the reason why, when faced with a potential President Obama, most are reluctantly supporting the Arizona Republican.

McCain’s Human Rights Campaign 2006 Congressional Scorecard rating of 33 percent, though way too high from the perspective of most conservatives, is in stark contrast to Obama’s 89 out of 100 in the same HRC Scorecard. McCain voted against HRC on all but one key vote (he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment), while Obama voted with HRC on all but one vote (he did not support a pro-homosexual immigration bill).

Here is another way to compare the two senators’ records: Human Rights Campaign’s analysis of Obama’s co-sponsorship of pro-homosexual legislation backed by HRC, versus the same analysis for McCain.)

The fact that McCain’s spokesman reports (below) that the senator was “proud” to receive the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans — a group that crusades for homosexual “marriage” and routinely demonizes Christian conservatives just as all the other “gay” activist groups do– will stick in the craw of pro-family Republicans.

We eagerly wait to see if McCain smartly makes a serious play for pro-family, conservative voters in the wake of California’s homosexual “marriage” ruling, or opts instead to try to split the middle of the GOP’s “big tent” — perhaps even making bolder pro-homosexual overtures to court “moderates.” — Peter LaBarbera

The following is excerpted from a Washington Blade report June 6 (emphasis added):

Continue Reading »