Connect with us

LaBarbera: Will Sandusky’s Penn State Victims Grow Up Thinking They’re Gay?



Calling homosexuality a “perversion,” and “sinful, destructive and changeable,” Peter LaBarbera (image, left) today suggests that the victims of Jerry Sandusky will grow up thinking they’re gay, despite any factual evidence to support his mistaken argument. Jerry Sandusky, now in jail, was — as the world has learned in recent days — the heir-apparent to revered and now fired Penn State football coach Joe Paterno. Sandusky stands accused of sexually molesting, assaulting, or raping up to 20 young boys across a 15 year period, amid rumored new allegations of child prostitution.

In a blatant attempt to intermix homosexuality, an innate trait fixed at birth, with pedophilia, a psychological disorder, LaBarbera flouted his ignorance and bigoted hatred through none other than the decades-old Christian News Wire.

Peter LaBarbera is the 48-year old president of the SPLC-certified anti-gay hate group, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, who has bounced around the extreme right-wing fringe groups that serve as self-appointed anti-gay crusaders, like Accuracy in Media, and the Culture and Family Institute, yet has been unable to secure an official role in the Republican Party. Recently, the IRS stripped Labarbera’s group of its tax-exempt status.

“Many openly homosexual (“gay”) men, like CNN anchor Don Lemon, were molested as boys or experienced abnormally early sexualization,” LaBarbera writes, ignoring the possibility that they could have been born gay and molested or assaulted anyway. “Yet many of these same men do NOT see their boyhood victimization at the hands of homosexual male predators as causing their homosexuality.”

The lack of simple logic — not to mention, empathy for victims of child sexual abuse — is staggering.

Offering no sympathy for Sandusky’s victims, nor offering any evidence of attempting to contact any who might now be adults, LaBarbera asks, “how many boy victims of homosexual predator Sandusky will end up believing that being homosexual (‘gay’) is ‘who they are’? How many will struggle with sexual identity issues? And how many will be told by LGBT advocates and liberal-minded people just to “accept being gay” as “who they are” because they were ‘born that way’?”

Had LaBarbera bothered to read the 23-page Grand Jury indictment, he would know that it lists eight victims (although there are reports that state there are up to 20 victims,) and five of the eight are now adults ranging from 22 to 27 years of age.

LaBarbera should also remember that Sandusky is not a homosexual, but a pedophile (assuming the mountainous charges are true) and is married with two grown sons.

Were Peter LaBarbera, himself a father, especially concerned about the victims, or, a little thing called accuracy, he could have traced them, or attempted to locate them. No doubt, if they are gay, and if they attribute their homosexuality to Sandusky’s molestation and rape, no doubt they would consider responding to a public request from someone so devoted to demonizing homosexuality.

But LaBarbera is only interested in spreading false information, furthering his personal stature as an avowed homosexual hater, and padding his bottom line — this time on the backs of sexual assault victims. One has to ask, has LaBarbera no shame what so ever?

LaBarbera offensively identifies “pederastic molestation” as the cause of homosexuality, leading any logical human being to assume that homosexuals are created by sexual assault, and therefore, every homosexual on earth must in fact be the victim of sexual assault. never mind what all the psychological associations say about homosexuality, a certified hate group President must know best, right?

This line of thinking is clearly false, and LaBarbera, for all his blind hatred, should know better.

“There IS a long history connecting homosexuality to pederasty, and a disproportionate link between homosexuality and pedophilia: why else would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual?,” LaBarbera writes, effectively negating his entire argument.

Yes, Mr. LaBarbera, why would so many child molestation victims be boys when only 1-3 percent of the population is homosexual?

“Since cases of women molesting boys remain rare, if homosexuality were not such a strong factor, nearly all of pedophile victims should be girls, which is far from the case.”

The mind absolutely reels.

The facts, not that LaBarbera has ever been interested in spreading those — despite his Orwellian-monikered group — is that heterosexual men sexually assault or molest young girls in far greater numbers than they do young boys, and heterosexual men molest children of either sex at a far greater frequency than do homosexual men, or women, for that matter.

Here’s a fact, straight from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who report that for each year between 2000 and 2005, “female parents acting alone” were most likely to be perpetrators of child abuse.

Kind of blows LaBarbera’s false claims right out of the water, doesn’t it?

Here’s another fact: “According to the Third National Incidence Study, girls are sexually abused three times more often than boys.” And another study offers this:

Statistics indicate that girls are more frequently the victims of sexual abuse, but that the number of boys is also significant. Estimates suggest that males account for 25-35% of child sexual abuse victims.

What LaBarbera might want to do instead of placing blame on homosexuality or homosexuals — which, by LaBarbera’s own admission, Sandusky is not — is to first try to understand the problem, and then, as the head of a “Christian” organization, offer assistance. That is what any real Christian would do.

Editor’s note: Alvin McEwen at LGBTQ nation, Jamie McGonnigal at Talk About Equality, and Kevin Naff at The Washington Blade have all since expressed their concerns about this latest move by Peter LaBarbera.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Reporters Reveal Some Republicans Don’t Understand What a Default Means – and Don’t Believe the Debt Ceiling Is Real



CNN’s Jim Acosta and John Avlon compared notes on Republicans speaking on raising the debt ceiling over the weekend only to realize that the far-right members refuse to support the deal between Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Joe Biden.

Acosta cited an interview he conducted Saturday with Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), who said he’s voted for shutdowns and would vote again this week.

After ranting about cutting spending, Acosta said, “Well, you can have the argument about cutting spending during the budget and appropriations process, but as you know, Congressman, the U.S. has never missed making payments on its bills before. In the last 45 years, Congress has raised the debt ceiling 65 times. So, again, I go back to the question: is it responsible — I understand what you’re saying about how much your daughter spends, but we’re not talking about $15. We’re talking about the American economy. Is it responsible to be the deciding vote to send the country into default?”

Burchett claimed that the country wasn’t going to be sent into default. He crafted a conspiracy that Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen kept changing the date the U.S. default would happen.

“Nobody is, as the young people say, nobody has provided the receipts. Nobody has called her into Washington and said, ‘Show us the math on this,'” he said.

Yellen works at the Treasury Department, which is in Washington.

Burchett also had his own math, saying that if they cut the budget spending to the 2022 levels, the country would be in a surplus. The House passed a massive defense spending package that would have required cuts from other places.

“All they’re doin’ right now is scarin’ people,” Burchett claimed. “They’re talkin’ about cutting programs that have no need other than political cronyism, we’re tellin’ our seniors — and the Democrats will, and I get it — they’re tellin’ the seniors they’re gonna be cut. Veterans are gonna be cut. And nothing can be farther (sic) from the truth. And that’s just the reality of politics.”

The reason Democrats were citing cuts to seniors and veterans goes back to the Republican Party budget bill that required cuts to seniors and veterans. That’s because returning to the 2022 budget levels means making cuts to increases already passed by Congress.

Acosta turned back to Burchett to ask if he believed the debt ceiling wasn’t real.

“I think the debt ceiling is — it’s just a creative thing to hold us into responsible — into check,” said Burchett.

Avlon cited Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC), who claimed he refused to sign a bill that would bankrupt the economy.

“Well, hold it right there,” said Avlon. “I mean, if you let the country default on its debt, that’s functionally the same thing.”

An annoyed Avlon was frustrated the process was even something allowed to happen.

“It’s a fact, Congress has to control the pursestrings. So, frankly, someone should figure out the 14th Amendment side of this because I think this is not the way we’re supposed to play ball, the greatest nation in the world constantly every couple of years when there’s a Democratic president flirting with defaulting on our debt because it’s fiscal policy by extortion,” said Avlon. “This is a win to the extent that we came up to a bipartisan agreement, but this is not the way the greatest nation in the world should conduct its fiscal policy. It’s ridiculous. And it didn’t happen when Donald Trump was president because Democrats worked with Republicans to ensure the debt ceiling was raised three times.”

See the discussion below or at the link here.

Image: GOP Rep. Tim Burchett


Continue Reading


‘Start the Kevin McCarthy Death-Clock’ After Biden Wins Debt Ceiling Battle: Rick Wilson



Appearing late Saturday night on MSNBC after it was announced that President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) had reached an agreement “in principle’ on a budget deal, former GOP strategist Rick Wilson claimed this could be the beginning of the end for McCathy’s speakership.

Sitting in on a panel with guest host Michael Steele, Wilson suggested that McCarthy’s decision to compromise with the president to avoid a default that would spin the economy into chaos will not go over well with far-right members of his House caucus who could make a motion to “vacate the chair” to express their displeasure.

Asked by host Steel about what comes next, Wilson stated it was a win for the White House which will not make conservatives happy.

RELATED: ‘Crazy cuckoo MAGA people’ could sink debt ceiling deal: Dem strategist

“Great night for Joe Biden, great night for the White House even though I think their messaging has been kind of tentative the past few weeks” the Lincoln Project founder began. “I think though we are now going to start the Kevin McCarthy death-clock. He has certainly got a very angry part of his caucus tonight who probably burning up his phone no matter how good it is for the country not to default.”

“It’s not going to please the chaos caucus in the GOP,” he added.

Watch below or at the link:


Continue Reading


Debt Ceiling: McCarthy Faces ‘Lingering Anger’ and a Possible Revolt as Far-Right House Members Start Issuing Threats



As House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) continues to negotiate a deal to avoid a debt crisis, members of the far-right Freedom Caucus are growing furious with him over broken promises he made to them.

According to MSNBC political analyst Steve Benen, with a slim GOP majority in the House, McCarthy is walking a tightrope to get a budget deal passed and may need help from House Democrats if members of his caucus refuse to go along with him.

As Benen points out, in order to win the speakership McCarthy agreed to an easier path for a motion to “vacate the chair” which could end his tenure as Speaker. That could come into play if the Freedom Caucus stages a revolt.

“… as the negotiations approach an apparent finish line, the House Republicans’ most radical faction is learning that it isn’t likely to get everything its members demanded — and for the Freedom Caucus, that’s not going to work,” he wrote in his MSNBC column.

ALSO IN THE NEWS: Trump in danger of heightened espionage charges after bombshell report: legal expert

Citing a Washington Times report that stated, “[Freedom Caucus members] want everything from the debt limit bill passed by the House last month plus several new concessions from the White House,” Benen suggested far-right House Republicans are now issuing veiled threats.

In an interview, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) stated, “I am going to have to go have some blunt conversations with my colleagues and the leadership team. I don’t like the direction they are headed.”

With Politico reporting, “The [House Freedom Caucus] was already unlikely to support a final bipartisan deal, but lingering anger with Kevin McCarthy could have lasting implications on his speakership,” Benen added, “If this is simply a matter of lingering ill-will from members who come to believe that GOP leaders ‘caved,’ the practical consequences might be limited. But let’s also not forget that McCarthy, while begging his own members for their support during his protracted fight for the speaker’s gavel, agreed to tweak the motion-to-vacate-the-chair rules, which at least in theory, would make it easier for angry House Republicans to try to oust McCarthy from his leadership position.”

Adding the caveat that he is not predicting an imminent McCarthy ouster he added, “But if the scope of the Freedom Caucus’ discontent reaches a fever pitch, a hypothetical deal clears thanks to significant Democratic support, don’t be surprised if we all start hearing the phrase ‘vacate the chair” a lot more frequently.”

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.