ConWebWatch home
ConWebBlog: the weblog of ConWebWatch
Search and browse through the ConWebWatch archive
About ConWebWatch
Who's behind the news sites that ConWebWatch watches?
Letters to and from ConWebWatch
ConWebWatch Links
Buy books and more through ConWebWatch

WorldNetDaily's Year of

WND spent 2011 peddling lots of anti-gay hatred, from selling a discredited book linking gays to Nazis to baselessly linking the Penn State child abuse scandal to homosexuality.

By Terry Krepel
Posted 1/9/2012

In 2008, ConWebWatch detailed some of the lowlights of WorldNetDaily's gay-bashing -- its portrayal of anti-gay activists as victims for expressing their hatred, its misportrayal of anti-discrimination laws in California schools (and its exception to the rule, WND Iraq correspondent and former gay-porn actor Matt Sanchez).

Needless to say, WND hasn't changed its ways -- Les Kinsolving, for example, is still a raging homophobe. And 2011 has been a particularly active year for gay-bashing at the right-wing website.

"The Pink Swastika"

WND began the year by adding to its online store the book "The Pink Swastika," co-authored by anti-gay activist Scott Lively, whose Abiding Truth Ministries has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group for its gay-bashing rhetoric. WND described the book in a Jan. 4 article as "disturbing, compelling and persuasive on its major point – that homosexuals dominated the German Nazi Party from its birth through its catastrophic demise." Then the gushing from WND editor Joseph Farah kicked in:

"This is a deeply disturbing book," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, who recently added a new 4th edition of the book to the WND Superstore. "Perhaps not until very recently, with the mandating of open homosexuality in the military and the widespread promotion of same-sex marriage, could Americans have been expected to see the relevance of this remarkable work to their own society. We say, 'never again.' But do we mean it? Do we even understand what actually happened? I didn't – until I read this book."


"You will never look at Nazism or homosexuality the same way again after reading 'The Pink Swastika,'" concludes Farah.

Already, only a few days after introducing this new edition of the book into the WND Superstore, Farah says homosexual bloggers and commentators have taken notice and "are pulling out the long knives of invective and abuse."

"They say this book has been discredited," Farah says. "But I've read the book and I've read all the criticism. The book more than stands up to all the attacks I've seen, most of which are completely baseless."

Farah didn't explain what the criticism was or why he declared it to be "baseless." But in fact, "The Pink Swastika" has been quite soundly discredited.

Warren Throckmorton -- a psychology professor at the conservative-leaning Grove City College whom WND has previously approvingly cited -- has been hammering away at the book, pointing out that its attempt to link fascism and homosexuality by attacking German writer Thomas Mann as "an apologist for Nietzsche and thus an unwitting contributor to Nazism" when Mann was, in fact, an active opponent of the Third Reich. Throckmorton also noted how Lively and co-author Kevin Abrams selectively quote from the work of Gunter Grau to prove "homofascism," ignoring examples that contradicted their thesis.

Throckmorton also highlighted the criticism of Grove City College history professor Jon David Wynekin, who has extensively studied Nazi history. Wynekin called the book "simply not good history and is, in fact, not really history at all. Instead, in my view, it is a book that uses history as a weapon in a contemporary political battle, completely outside the historical context of Nazi Germany." Wynekin added that Lively "does no original research in primary archival documents; meaning, he has not examined the thousands of documents available on these subjects for himself."

(Throckmorton responded to Farah's gushing over the book and dismissing criticism of it: "I am not a homosexual blogger; Grove City colleague and historian Jon David Wynekin is not a homosexual blogger and we spent lots of time and detail demonstrating the flaws in the book. Campus Crusade for Christ is not a homosexual blogger organization and it removed an excerpt of The Pink Swastika from one of their websites. Exodus International is not a homosexuality affirming organization but they removed the link to The Pink Swastika. NARTH is hardly a gay affirming bunch but they removed all references to Scott Lively and The Pink Swastika.")

Nevertheless, a week later, Farah doubled down on his praise for "The Pink Swastika," writing in his Jan. 13 column:

Yes, it is a thoroughly explosive book – so much so that I have been the victim of a malicious smear campaign in the homosexual blogosphere just for including the title in the WND Superstore.

You will hear that this book has been "thoroughly discredited." Yet I have failed to find one jot or tittle that has been undermined by critics. Most of the primary sources cited in the book are respected historians and the works of homosexual activists themselves.

Again, Farah offered no specifics to back up his assertion.

Another gay-bashing book

"The Pink Swastika" wasn't the only gay-bashing book WND added to its online store. In August, it latched onto something called "A Queer Thing Happened To America" by Michael L. Brown. WND promoted it in an Aug. 30 article:

There are plenty of pro-family, anti-"gay"-agenda books out there ... but this one is considered so radioactive that no publisher would touch it.


Mainly because Dr. Michael Brown tells the story of the pro-"gay" sea change in American culture almost entirely with reference to sources that no pro-"gay" activist could dispute.

He tells the story in their own words.

Well, obviously, a publisher did touch Brown's book, since it exists in book form; therefore, it isn't that radioactive.

The book seem to be all about gay-bashing and denying that those doing the gay-bashing are being hateful in doing so:

"Hate" means: "To hold to Judeo-Christian principles and values; to stand for biblical morality; and to take issue with homosexual practice."

The pro-alternate lifestyle tactic is to "make the person with whom you differ into a small-minded, mean-spirited bigot. The playing field becomes unequal, and your ideological opponent becomes a monster whose ideas are unworthy of serious discussion..."

"Things have shifted so dramatically – they have literally been turned upside down – that it now appears that no matter what you say and no matter how carefully and graciously you say it, if you dare to differ with the GLBT agenda, if you believe that it is immoral for a man to have sex with another man, if you do not support same-sex marruage, then you are an extremist, a bigot, a Nazi and a jihadist."

Brown served up a taste of what we could expect from the book in an Aug. 28 column that sought to liken gays to pedophiles:

Consider, for example, this statement from the late John Hopkins professor John Money: "Pedophilia and ephebophilia (referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent) are no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which they may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why they exist in nature's overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it."

Now, go back and reread that paragraph, substituting the word "homosexuality" for "pedophilia" and "ephebophilia." How interesting!


In point of fact, all the principle arguments commonly used to normalize homosexuality have been used to normalize pedophilia and pederasty, as I documented in painstaking (and painful) detail in "A Queer Thing Happened to America," where I also made clear that I was not equating homosexuality with pedophilia but was instead comparing the arguments used to normalize both.

Brown also regurgitated Judith Reisman's attacks on Alfred Kinsey, even though her work has been discredited as well.

California school laws

WND has reliably freaked out over the new California law requiring the teaching of the contributions of gays and lesbians, repeatedly calling it "'gay' indoctrination" (yes, WND still insists on putting "gay" in scare quotes) and giving anti-gay activists plenty of space to vent their rage. A July 26 article by Bob Unruh is a typical example. Many of the WND articles on the California law, like this one, include this boilerplate attack on Harvey Milk:

In honoring Milk, schools are advocating for the acceptance of what Milk sought: the entire homosexual, bisexual and cross-dressing agenda; a refusal to acknowledge sexually transmitted diseases spread by the behavior; his behavior as "a sexual predator of teenage boys, most of them runaways with drug problems"; advocacy for multiple sexual relationships at one time; and "lying to get ahead"; according to, a leading statewide pro-family organization promoting moral virtues for the common good.

Funny, we don't recall WND similarly claiming that honoring the Founding Fathers means acceptance of personal behavior like owning slaves. And Unruh's depiction of is laughably benign; it's a rabidly anti-gay group that pushes typical right-wing gay-bashing attitudes on homosexuality. A page on the group's website, for instance, asserts that "science has found no biological basis for homosexuality, bisexuality, or transsexuality," and that "Study after study has found the “LGBT” lifestyle to be unhealthy, with the highest rate of sexually-transmitted diseases, and higher cancer rates and earlier deaths."

Barbara Simpson went-on an anti-gay freakout over the law in a July 18 WND column:

The sexual material will be infiltrated into social studies and wherever else it can be inserted. It essentially requires that homosexuality be shown positively and as an equal and acceptable alternative lifestyle.

Parents will not be able to control content, will not be notified and cannot refuse to have their child participate in such lessons.


Now, with a stroke of his pen, Brown makes California the first state in the union to require students be taught about the history and contributions of homosexuals.

We're told students will be safer and respected, engendering a better understanding of homosexuals and increasing their ability to learn.

But, it's also instigating a social agenda that's a slap in the face of tradition, history, a decent education and the rights of parents to control and protect their children's upbringing.

Any doubts about social agenda? Laws already require teaching about minority groups -- women, blacks, Mexicans Asians, Europeans, American Indians and whatever else the state considers an underrepresented cultural and ethnic group.
WND portrays gay-basher as victim

A Sept. 21 WND article by Bob Unruh made a big deal out of how PayPal suspended the account of "Christian activist" Julio Severo -- but Unruh didn't want to tell anyone exactly why.

Unruh writes only in generalities about why Severo's PayPal account was suspended, euphemistically claiming that it was because he "teach[es] the biblical perspective that homosexuality is not acceptable for Christians and is a sin." Unruh asserted that the suspension came as a part of "an online campaign by homosexuals demanding that Christians such as Severo be denied the use of the PayPal system."

In fact, the campaign by targeted only "anti-LGBT extremists," and Severo certainly qualifies. From the group's website:

Julio Severo's Last Days Watchman Site (US/Brazil)
Brazilian anti-LGBT leader and writer/ideologue who fled Brazil after LGBT activists brought a lawsuit against him for incitement of hatred. Julio regularly repeats the lie that 10% of gay people are pedophiles, and goes further to say that most gay men “drink urine, swallow feces and experience rectal traumas on a regular basis”, while they are “drunk, stoned or in orgies.”

Severo ranted on his website about the AllOut campaign:

Differently from gay activists that receive huge government grants, I receive no government penny. Besides, they have many wealthy foundations supporting them. But there is no organization supporting me. What I receive is used to support my family, with our four little children. But if gay activists, who do not have a natural family whom to support, need resources, what about me?

Of course, in the case of homosexual militants, their money in fact does come from government, because no government has its own money. Their money comes from you. It comes from your pocket. Government takes away (steals through wicked tax laws) your money to deliver it to activists. So, whether we like or not, we are forced to contribute for the homosexual movement. Government forces its people to support gay parades and the homosexual indoctrination of school children.

Yet, thank God my blog is not a part of this exploiters’ network that lives at the expense of a population that is plundered through taxes.

The hateful, false content in Severo's words would seem to be germane to the discussion over why his PayPal was suspended, but Unruh obviously doesn't think so.

That may be because Severo is one of WND's favorite self-proclaimed victims. An April 2009 article by none other the founder's daughter, Alyssa Farah, detailed how Severo, whom she claims is "a prominent Brazilian pro-family activist," was "forced into exile because of the "hate crimes" laws that are being implemented in his native land, perhaps providing a preview of what Christians can expect in the United States should similar 'hate crimes' proposals be implemented." Like Unruh, Farah failed to directly quote any of the words by Severo that purportedly forced him into "exile."

And in July, Unruh uncritically repeated Severo's claim that "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has begun watching" his blog.

Penn State scandal

As one would expect given its anti-gay agenda, WND has been working to blame the child sexual abuse scandal involving former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky on homosexuality.

David A. Noebel wrote in a Nov. 15 WND column:

Homosexuality in America is now out of the closet, front and center (and has been for some time). Now homosexual man/boy activity (pederasty) is under the microscope, its normality, genetic implications and social acceptance being examined.

From what we are witnessing at Penn State and the firing of its president, Dr. Graham Spanier, and beloved head football coach, Joe Paterno, it appears that the public in general and the university trustees in particular are voting against man/boy activity – the same kind of activity being promoted in our society within NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

In other words, our libertine culture is in the process of making pederasty as acceptable as the lavender revolution itself.

Noebel goes on to blame the American Psychiatric Association for removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, repeat discredited claims about former Obama administration education Kevin Jennings, falsely claim that Jennings is still working in the administration (he left in May), and assert, "Only morally deficient individuals would allow Kevin Jennings within a million miles of children!"

Farah himself joined the fun, as well as the blaming of the APA, in his Nov. 16 column:

Some may find this hard to believe, but even through the 1960s sexual revolution, homosexuality was perceived as sexual perversion. That began to change only in the 1970s, when the American Psychological Association, under political pressure, changed the very definition of homosexuality from a disorder to an identity.

No longer did God decide for America what was sinful behavior. Ever since, every man and woman has done what is right in his own eyes.

We may not fully understand the details of what Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did or didn't do to young boys in locker rooms and showers, though he does admit inappropriate behavior. But the real question is how he did it for so long without consequences.

But now that being accused of homophobia is considered an offense, while practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue, should it really surprise anyone that such behavior would go unreported or unchallenged for so long?

Even Alan Keyes weighed on the subject in his Nov. 17 WND column:

Why would higher-ups be willing to risk their reputations and life-long careers to cover for the wrongdoing of one of their subordinates? Despite the almost religious promotion of homosexuality now in evidence at all too many of America's institutions of so-called "higher learning," it's hard to believe that they would thus willingly sacrifice themselves to the gods of "political correctness," especially given the fact that the zealous advocates of homosexual rights are still pretending to draw the line at the sexual abuse of children.

Unmentioned by all of these WND writers: There's no credible link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Defending Scott Lively

When Uganda proposed a draconian anti-gay law in 2010 that would have permitted the death penalty for mere homosexuality, WorldNetDaily largely ignored it -- except for Molotov Mitchell, who endorsed the law while denying that it contains that death penalty.

No WND "news" article addressed the law at the time; besides Mitchell, there were only two mentions of it. One was from anti-gay activist Robert Knight, who simply described the proposed law only as "criminalizing homosexuality" -- in fact, homosexuality is already criminalized in Uganda -- and is focused on the New York Times for criticizing the proposed law and those who allegedly inspired it, such as anti-gay activist Scott Lively, because the "dare to tell the truth about homosexuality." Knight did concede that the law is "seriously flawed" and "overreaches," but he doesn't admit the death penalty stuff.

The second article was from Lively himself, who ranted about how "lavender Marxists" are "murderers" who "have fixed their malevolent gaze on Christian Uganda." He made no mention whatsoever about the proposed law, let alone the death penalty stuff, which he seemed to be justifying by portraying gays in Uganda as "murderers."

Since then, the proposed Uganda law has stalled, though discussion of it has recently been revived in the country. Meanwhile, WND mounted a defense of Lively, who has worked with legislators and anti-gay activists in Uganda.

An Oct. 15 WND article by Drew Zahn focused on a brick thrown through a window at a school where the anti-gay group Americans for Truth about Homosexuality was to give an award to Lively. While running to Lively's defense, Zahn also tacitly admits for the first time at WND that the proposed Uganda law would execute gays for being gay:

The press release claiming responsibility for the attack on the Christian Liberty Academy even blamed Lively for murder:

"In 2009, Lively and other American homophobes spoke at a conference in Uganda called 'Exposing the Truth About Homosexuality and the Homosexual Agenda,'" the release asserts. "This conference stirred the anti-gay atmosphere that already exists in Uganda, a country with laws that punish homosexual acts with up to 14 years in prison. As a direct result of this conference, participants have drafted a bill that, if passed, would increase the sentencing for homosexual acts to life sentences and execution and make it a legal responsibility to report homosexuals in the community.

It continues, "On Jan. 26, 2011, Ugandan gay rights activist David Kisule was murdered after being outed in a newspaper ad that listed names and photos of queer people in the community as a part of an anti-gay campaign that is a result of Scott Lively's visit."

The GLN took up a similar complaint about Lively's time in Uganda in a letter to prominent Chicago pastor Erwin Lutzer, urging Lutzer to decline speaking at the AFTAH banquet because Lively and LaBarbera allegedly "support violence [against homosexuals] outright."

Lively, however, made public a letter to LaBarbera in which he countered claims about fomenting "hate" and "violence" in Uganda:

"I am a Bible-believing Christian who abhors violence against anyone, and has never advocated violence or hatred against homosexuals," Lively asserts. "During my 2009 trip [to Uganda] I also addressed members of the Ugandan Parliament in their national assembly hall. My advice to the MPs regarding the law they were contemplating but had not yet drafted was to focus on rehabilitation and not punishment. I urged them to become the first government in the world to develop a state-sponsored recovery system for homosexuality on the model we have in the United States for alcoholism.

"In contradiction to my advice, a few months after the seminar an MP introduced a bill to criminalize homosexuality," he continues. "The terms of the bill were harsh, as is very common in African countries, including capital punishment. ... I do not support capital punishment for any sex crimes, let alone simple homosexuality, which I view as a treatable behavioral disorder, and so I opposed the bill. I was nevertheless accused in the international media of not only endorsing the bill, but of advocating for it."
Zahn made no mention of Lively's earlier description of gays in Uganda as "murderers." Plus, since Lively was directly involved in advising Ugandan legislators on the law, he's a little biased on the subject, meaning that his claims should be seen as defensive rather than an unbiased account of what he actually did there. Zahn made no apparent effort to contact anyone in Uganda for their view of what Lively told them.

Zahn also rehashed Lively's baseless insistence that the murder of Ugandan gay activist David Kato was "unrelated to the passions surrounding the Ugandan bill," repeating his defense that Kato's death was "turned out to be a crime of passion by a male prostitute whom Kato had bailed out of jail and taken to be his houseboy." In fact, Reuters reported that Ugandan police may be trying to cover up a motive of homophobia in Kato's death to protect the Western aid upon which the country relies.

(A man was convicted and sentenced in Kato's death in November, but one observer of the trial thinks the killer was set up to murder Kato for being gay and that he thought if he established a homosexual sex demand, he would be treated leniently.)

Since then, two WND columnists have directly defended Lively against any association with hostility toward gays in Uganda:

  • An Oct. 16 column by anti-gay activist Linda Harvey asserted that Lively was "falsely accused of advocating harm to homosexuals in Uganda."
  • A Nov. 18 column by professional gay-hater Matt Barber depicted Lively as "a pro-family advocate who, in recent years, has been falsely maligned by leftist groups and media-types like Rachel Maddow, for supposedly supporting the death penalty for homosexual behavior – a patently false charge."

Of course, neither mention Lively's depiction of gays in Uganda as "murderers."

Obama "wants to import homosexuals"

On Dec. 6, President Obama issued a memorandum stating that he was "directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons," an initiative that includes combating criminalization of LGBT status by foreign governments and enhancing efforts to protect LGBT asylum seekers.

WND's Bob Unruh, apparently checking in from Bizarro World, offered this, um, unique interpretation of the memo in a Dec. 7 article headlined "Obama offers plan for U.S. to be global LGBT sex cop: Wants to import homosexuals with special asylum privileges":

The Obama administration has announced it intends to make the United States the global sex cop, with plans to try to intervene in the workings of other nations where homosexuality is not promoted as well as plans to create special provisions for homosexuals and those with other lifestyle choices to gain special admittance to the U.S.


Specifically, his plan is to try to intervene in other nation's internal operations where the homosexual lifestyle choice is at risk. That would happen through U.S. government's agencies that would "strengthen existing efforts to effectively combat the criminalization by foreign governments of LGBT status or conduct and to expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBT status or conduct."

Further, special access to the United States needs to be provided to any "LGBT" person, Obama explains.
Contrary to Unruh's claim that "any 'LGBT' person" will get "special access to the United States," according to the memorandum, it specifically states that "LGBT refugees and asylum seekers have equal access to protection and assistance, particularly in countries of first asylum."

Unruh's suggestion that trying to get other countries to not persecute LGBT people is the same as "promoting" homosexuality and serving as the "global sex cop" is another Bizarro World interpretation. He also resorts to false anti-gay talking points in referring to homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice" and portraying the Obama administration's efforts as "interven[ing] in other nation's internal operations where the homosexual lifestyle choice is at risk" and "enhancements ... for those who support the alternative sexual lifestyle choices."

In his article, Unruh quotes Peter LaBarbera, leader of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, which the Southern Poverty Law Center designates as a hate group. LaBarbera lived up to that designation, saying, "Who knew when Reagan was talking about being a shining city on the hill the city would turn out to be Sodom?" Unruh also quotes anti-gay activists Matt Barber ("How dare we, the U.S., export our decline in morality to other nations?"), and Randy Thomasson ("Homosexuality has never shown evidence that it is inherited, or has a genetic or biological origin"). Unruh quoted no activist speaking in favor of the initiative.

Interestingly, though, two of these activists are on record as claiming to be appalled that other countries advocate putting gays to death.

In addition to Barber's earlier defense of Lively, LaBarbera has insisted that his organization "is clearly on record opposing draconian penalties for homosexuality like those imposed by jihadist Islamic radicals." (However, he asked regarding Uganda's proposed anti-gay law that would permit the death penalty for homosexuality, "what is it that qualifies the United States of America to lecture the Ugandans about homosexuality?")

If LaBarbera and Barber think it's abhorrent to put people to death for being gay, why would they also find it abhorrent that the United States is to encouraging other countries to get rid of such laws and provide asylum for LGBT people who are threatened by those penalties? They can't have it both ways.

Nevertheless, Unruh seems to have established an anti-gay talking point. William J. Murray wrote in a Dec. 9 WND column: "In effect President Obama ordered U.S. agencies to import homosexuals from all over the world who are threatened."

Anti-gay columnists

In addition to rabid homophobes Les Kinsolving and Molotov Mitchell, WND regularly publishes other anti-gay commentary.

Farah tried to merge two of his prominent hatreds -- gays and Muslims. On Aug. 21, Farah declared that "the legal acceptance of same-sex marriage will open the door to the legalization of polygamy," adding, "Who benefits? Those who practice polygamy as part of their religion – Muslims." Farah went on to allege "patty-cake politics between the Muslim Mafia and the Gay Mafia."

Farah also ranted in a July 28 column that Perry just didn't hate gays enough for his taste, for not opposing same-sex marriage to the extent Farah does. Farah said that "a more thoughtful response" from Perry on the issue would be to threaten to dissolve the country over the issue: "If we can't agree on fundamentals like marriage, the very fabric of what binds Americans together is becoming so badly frayed that we may have to consider going our separate ways." Farah concluded: "I feel unclean for the nice things I have said about him to date. Forgive me."

Larry Klayman asserted in a July 22 column: "Before I go further, let me make one thing clear. I am not a homophobe." Which, of course, could only mean that he was about to demonstrate just how much of a homophobe he is, in this case by literally demonizing gays:

Why, then, are we conservative Christians and Jews not allowed to express our views about the ungodly pitfalls of the gay political agenda and live our lives as we please?

It is because we have been in an intense culture war in this country; the left – now led ironically by its pro-Muslim president, Barack Hussein Obama, wants to squeeze the teachings of the likes of Jesus and Moses from our public schools and our society in general. By pushing government as our God, and having the government condone and endorse the homosexual lifestyle through such institutions as "gay marriage," they want to squeeze God out of our lives, and instead hand over our mores and values to the "devil."

WND columnist Erik Rush spent an entire column railing against what he claimed was a campaign on Facebook "to target and harass those who oppose homosexuals dictating the moral agenda in America, as well as people with whom they associate." Completely missing from Rush's column was any substantiation of the claims he was making -- no links, no screenshots, nothing but a couple of anonymous, unsubstantiated quotes complaining about the purported harassment -- or even any direct quotes of the comments that set off the purported harassment.

Meanwhile, D.J. Dolce July 19 WND video begins with her ranting, "Who's crazy this week? Gays are crazy." After referencing the California law adding the LGBT community to the list of those whose contributions must be taught in public schools (which Dolce's fellow WND denizens also don't approve of) and criticism of Michele Bachmann's husband for his controversial gay conversion therapy, Dolce then says of gays: "First you let them do their own thing in a corner -- 'Ah, they'll be OK.' Next thing you know, they're marching in the streets. You keep looking the other way, and then one day, boom, they throw you in an oven." Reacting to canned audience noise, Dolce adds: "You can 'ooh' all you want, but you've obviously not read 'The Pink Swastika.'"

A cowardly attorney hiding behind the "pen name" of Frank J. Bleckwenn used a July 15 WND column to attack the then-pending confirmation of "the nation's first openly homosexual federal judge," J. Paul Oetken, asserting that "A vote to confirm this nominee is in effect a vote to subject New York by force of judicial fiat to the homosexual agenda, lock, stock, and barrel." Among the reasons "Bleckwenn" lists to oppose his nomination is that he's gay:

Being an unabashedly "out gay" says some important things. For one thing, Oetken considers sodomizing/being sodomized by a man to be normal, and in fact he personally finds the idea attractive. As Oetken wrote in his Supreme Court brief in Lawrence v. Texas, "what is fundamental to the nature of homosexuals ... is that they desire a sexual and emotional attachment to a person of the same gender ..." For another, he thinks sexual proclivities of this sort are something to be unashamed of. And, crucially for his potential role as a judge, Oetken necessarily rejects millennia of teachings on sexual morality that condemn sodomitical acts and reserve sexuality for a married man and woman.

Oetken’s homosexuality on the sleeve approach, combined with his resume’s track record, leave no doubt of the biased worldview he would bring to any case dealing with aspects of the sexual revolution, same sex "marriage" or the homosexual agenda. Furthermore, as someone who rejects traditional sexual values, he is likely as well to harbor animosity toward the proponents of traditional sexual morality, deeming as "bigots" any churches and synagogues – or their members – that adhere to the traditional understanding of man-woman relations.

WND also gave space to Scott Lively to peddle his gay-hate. From Lively's Sept. 23 column:

I'm old enough to remember the debate about whether homosexuals should be allowed to be teachers at all, let alone allowed to punish students for disagreeing with the class-time advocacy of their sexual lifestyle. I remember the protestations from the pro-homosexual side, that "gays and lesbians just want the right to be left alone. They would NEVER interject their private lives into the classroom." They all lied, and we believed them, and now our children and grandchildren are being forced to celebrate "gay" culture under penalty of law.

That is the end game for the "gays." The final stage of their agenda, which has always been about taking control of things, is the power to punish dissent: to silence or crush their detractors. They only have this level of control in a few places yet, but they are moving fast to achieve it everywhere, and the momentum is on their side. And wherever they have it, they use it.

This brings me, in conclusion, to the subject of "gay marriage." Huh? How does "gay marriage" in any way relate to homosexual propaganda in schools? Or to Christian parents awakening late to the indoctrination of their children?

It is the same issue, my friends. "Gay marriage," "gay" curriculum, "gay" parades, "gay" TV shows, "gay" soldiers, "gay" adoption, "gay" diseases, "gay" recruitment and on and on. So many seemingly separate issues that are really just one issue: the unnatural, dysfunctional, personally and socially destructive phenomenon of homosexual sin. We are warned clearly and emphatically about it in the Bible. We have seen its corrupting effect in history. And we are literally watching its ethic of sexual anarchy supplant the biblical model of family as the guiding value system of our society.


The homosexual agenda represents an existential threat to Christian civilization and we're in the final phase of the war, losing badly. It all hinges upon you, Christian reader. Either get into the "game" in earnest, immediately, or wave goodbye.

In addition to casting more doubt on Lively's claim that he did nothing to inflame Ugandan lawmakers into pushing a "kill the gays" law, this pretty much encapsulates the hatred WND has for gays.

(Some content in this article originally appeared at Media Matters.)

Send this page to:

Bookmark and Share
The latest from

In Association with
Support This Site

home | letters | archive | about | primer | links | shop
This site © Copyright 2000-2012 Terry Krepel