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 »
Barber says Barack’s own words betray his extremist homosexual agenda
Obama’s San Francisco Values? Matt Barber argues that Barack Obama’s pro-homosexual positions — including his call for a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, which Joe Biden voted for and which Bill Clinton signed into law) — have far more in common with the radical sexual ethos of the nation’s “queer” Mecca than with the Middle America Obama claims to represent. At left, “Sister Mary [F-cking] Poppins,” one of the male-homosexual-drag-queen mock “nuns” of the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” — a San Francisco-based “charity” group despised by many Catholics but adored by the city’s homosexuals — poses for a photo at the Folsom Street Fair. Folsom is a pornographic, nudity-filled, outdoor sadomasochistic celebration that draws hundreds of thousands of visitors annually to the Bay city. Click on photo to enlarge.
By Matt Barber
If Bill Clinton was the first black president, Barack Obama, if elected, will be the first “gay” president. No, I don’t mean he’ll personally decorate the West Wing, open a bathhouse in the Rose Garden or take up with Barney Frank. I mean he’ll be the most radically pro-homosexual, anti-family president in history. He’s very quietly pledged as much to the homosexual “Human Rights Campaign” and other fawning members of his homofascist fan club.
In the wake of the current economic crisis, neither presidential candidate is talking much about social issues. But in the months and years preceding this election cycle, Obama did plenty of talking. Unfortunately, most people have no idea what he’s said. If the mainstream media would do its job, quit shilling for their ideological messiah and objectively report on Obama’s unwavering fidelity to extremist homosexual pressure groups, many of his unsuspecting supporters might kick him to the curb.
You may have heard the term “San Francisco values” bandied about from time to time. These values do not so much derive from a geographical locale as they do from a shared, deeply engrained “progressive” worldview – a worldview marbled throughout in murky tones of secular humanism and moral relativism. Central to San Francisco values is the notion that the only thing immoral is to believe there are things immoral.
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 »