Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was accused of sexual assault by a civilian in Idaho. Idaho law enforcement interviewed him, found him to be credible and the claims to lack any merit, and they refused to act on the allegations.

Unfortunately, the military demanded to be privy to the interview record and took interest in the Colonel’s admitting to engaging in a same-sex sex act. Fehrenbach’s been under investigation ever since.

Short of his 20th year in the service, he’s not letting them try to take him out:

Officer Sues to Block His Discharge Under Gay Ban
By JAMES DAO | August 11, 2010

. . On Wednesday, Colonel Fehrenbach’s lawyers filed papers in Idaho federal court requesting a temporary order blocking his discharge. The petition contends that a discharge would violate Colonel Fehrenbach’s rights, cause him irreparable harm and fail to meet standards established in a 2008 federal court ruling on don’t ask, don’t tell.

Good for him. Nobody’s asked him, he’s never told anyone. That is, outside of Idaho police who, understandably, should be accommodated the truth given a sexual assault investigation.

Openly serving gay military people have rallied around the case because Col. Fehrenbach isn’t just hoping for the best — he’s attacking the military for their illegal and destructive behavior:

Under new regulations issued by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates this year, “don’t ask” investigations must be based on information from credible sources. Colonel Fehrenbach’s lawyers argue that the credibility of his accuser is clearly undermined by the dismissal of the sexual assault case.

His lawyers also assert that his case underscores the ways the ban hurts military readiness, the very thing it is supposed to protect. They say that Colonel Fehrenbach’s performance reviews were consistently glowing, including his most recent one, which says he was a “proven leader” who “raised morale” in his unit, according to papers filed by his lawyers.

If Fehrenbach’s case is as it seems, it’s a good one. What do the government have to fall back upon? What have they ever really had to fall back upon, other than free-floating fear? Unease?

. . During his 19 years in the service, Colonel Fehrenbach says, he deployed six times as a weapons systems officer, in charge of finding targets and guiding bombs or missiles. He flew combat missions over Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. “I would love to get back into the cockpit and deploy again,” he said.

Hold your church’s millenia-old beliefs at your own risk?

University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs
Published July 09, 2010

URBANA, Ill. — The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral . .

Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam.

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same.”

An unidentified student sent an e-mail to religion department head Robert McKim on May 13, calling Howell’s e-mail “hate speech.” The student claimed to be a friend of the offended student. The writer said in the e-mail that his friend wanted to remain anonymous.

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another.”

This is a tough call. On its face, the professor’s case seems like a reasonable one: if he makes it clear that he’s airing his beliefs, then what’s the harm? It’s a venerated tradition in university settings to allow personal views to be expressed without them limiting or defining the intellectual discussion. In a best case scenario, one’s personal feelings can be ultimately changed by a decent battle of ideas. One realm is considered to be both bigger and more rigorous than the other.

But then intellectual arguments can be slippery. Your position can change pretty quickly depending upon the day, the arguers and the facts on hand at the time. Your beliefs are much more likely to be solid and un-changing.

So I can understand that a gay man would take offense at hearing that his professor believed him to be ‘immoral’ in both the religious and natural sense. You can’t imagine a professor saying the same thing about someone who happened to be black. Even if it’s only his silly belief, even if it’s merely (ostensibly) in a classroom discussion, it’s probably shocking and painful to hear.

So, how did we get to this unfortunate place, where a professor’s routine (for many Catholics) beliefs ended up getting him fired? It sounds like some sort of law has been broken, doesn’t it?

It’s because this particular religious belief is dangerously out of step with modern thinking and understanding. Specifically, religious folks who damn what appear to be a group of behaviors, homosexuality, are actually damning a whole group of people. It’s tantamount to hate speech.

Even if it’s a sacred part of your religion, why should society tolerate this? Calling murder, or incest, or even theft a sin is a valuable tenet from society’s point of view: these behaviors cause damage to people. Society seeks to prevent and punish such things.

But the key difference that swings the religious view to publicly intolerable is that homosexuality is no crime: there’s no victim by definition in a routine, consensual homosexual act. In a civilized society, two adults certainly should be able to engage in this manner without condemnation or harassment. Or being barred from society’s benefits, or barred from work, or their animal persecutors being barred from prosecutions and imprisonment.

Especially when, as we are aware now, homosexuals appear to be born homosexual. It is almost always the case that a gay person will tell you that they have no recollection of ever being any different. I have no reason to doubt them. And any intention to disregard these memories because one prefers to view the reporters as morally flawed is a callow one.

Homosexuals are simply born gay, there’s no debate on this any more. So, when you call their behavior — natural behavior — unnatural or immoral or evil, it’s not just factually wrong, it’s an egregious act. You can try to hide behind whatever you like, but the net result is the same: it’s particularly uncivilized speech. You’re harming society. Period.

Thus, a college professor gets fired. Understandably, fired.

There was a time, centuries ago, when religion led society as a moralizing, civilizing power. It taught people to obey the rules, to respect life, to love one another and to get along when little was known of the natural world, or the people in the next hamlet, or county, or country. The secular world wasn’t quick to learn, but there’s no denying that religion worked as perhaps the only major institution to enlighten it.

Now, it seems as if the roles have reversed: it’s society which seeks to drag religion into the new world. I see no reason to be shy about expanding secularism’s role here as long as we can agree that it’s not anything to be taken lightly. The facts that homosexuality has always been and always will be part of humans’ existence, is a naturally occurring expression of sexuality and is a positive, not remotely criminal, way of behaving are damning of religion’s moribund or alabaster responses to the discovery of truths. If religions now refuse to honestly accept or discuss man’s essential worldly and spiritual characteristics, then we’ll be forced to shift the heeding of voices wholly into the public, secular realm.

This discourse, absent of ancient religious dogma, then becomes more than a cosmopolitan exercise, it becomes critically important for us to function in a meaningful way. It carries a bigger, more universal responsibility than it once did. And maybe it’s time that it should — do we really need to indulge people who believe that “sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same”? That’s an argument conspiratorially stupid, one that any decent high-schooler would shred in mere seconds. For someone like me, with a background in Genetics, it’s a howler.

Well, then, what should the poor professor have done? After all, they’re only his personal beliefs, right? Yes — but his beliefs are insulting to civilized society. Sounds bad, but that’s because it is bad. Iron-clad religion can be very bad for us, and that’s a truth we’ve got to openly admit to if we’re to do right by our fellow man. If we’re to do more than pretend to make a moral world for everyone to exist in, we’re demanded to say it.

A wise professor might wonder if stating his beliefs, though they be held dear, amounts to categorically abominating a blameless fellow man. Society only increasingly sees this as anachronistic bigotry. I’ll ask that he refrain from it at the University, or at any other public place.

University of Illinois Instructor Fired Over Catholic Beliefs
Published July 09, 2010

URBANA, Ill. — The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.

“Natural Moral Law says that Morality must be a response to REALITY,” he wrote in the e-mail. “In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same . .”

. . been thinking about this for a couple of days, will throw in my 2 cents later. [NOTE: the next day's thoughts, here.]

Meanwhile, take in some Freeper reaction:

I fully expect that one day a bunch of faggots will beat down my door and kill me, or someone who thinks/speaks/looks like me. ‘Course, I’ll mow down six of them on the way, and so there’s a good side to the story.

posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 3:13:33 PM by MarineBrat

So, the faggots step up their attacks on the Catholic Church. No big surprise.

Hey Protestants! Those of you whose churches haven’t already capitulated to the queers, brace for collision! The sodomites will be after you, next.

posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 3:28:24 PM by ArrogantBustard

Hers’s with some commentary on the letter …

No, because I wanted my love of buttsecks to be confirmed.

posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 4:00:19 PM by BenKenobi

Thank you for the links to the emails! I cannot believe the student thinks the teacher’s email is hate speech…HATE speech!?!

What’s really amazing? The student actually claimed classes should encourage independent thought and public discourse while engaging in an attack on the very same things!!!

posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 4:17:05 PM by CitizenUSA

. . this hilariously dubious offering of patriotism comes from, I assume, some sort of mini-skirted spirit-leader for America! over at The Heritage Foundation.

Like any other reader of that blog, simply remind yourself that you, the captain of our football team, aren’t about to edit some wobbly facts when you’re only getting a love letter:

Morning Bell: Reclaiming Our Founding Principles

Posted July 5th, 2010 at 8:45am
by Julia Shaw

Happy Birthday America! America is 234 years old. She was born on July 4, 1776, with the passage of the Declaration of Independence. Since then, America has grown from thirteen colonies on the east coast to fill a vast continent.

Actually, Canada is bigger than we are. So, they’re better at ‘filling’ the continent. We’re certainly less than half-filling the vastness.

Her economic and military power is envied around the world.

Perhaps some of her things are envied around the world? Her school system certainly isn’t. Sadly, Julia Shaw, the writer, are mocked for her incompetence.

And the American people are hardworking, churchgoing, affluent, and generous.

Shall we go any further? Many, but nowhere near all, of her people are churchgoing. Ditto for hardworking (conservative bloggers being a durable exception). And something like 14 million children live in poverty in the U.S. What is that — 20%?

The Declaration of Independence serves as a philosophical statement of America’s first principles. As Matthew Spalding describes, the Declaration affirms that all men are created equal. By nature, men have a right to liberty that is unalienable, meaning it cannot be given up or taken away.

Philosophically speaking, yes, but certainly not in reality. The Indians and the Blacks and the Mexicans and the Women and the Gays . .

And because individuals equally possess such inalienable rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights, and the people retain the right to alter or abolish a government that fails to do so.

HAHAHA . . hoo! You’d think so, wouldn’t you? The Negroes waited a couple centuries before invoking that casual right, by getting a few hundred thousand white folks to die for them in a breezy war.

These principles have made America the great nation it is today.

More elementally: it is the willingness of a brave few people to hold the nation to these routinely unpopular principles that has made America the great nation it is today. Huuuuge difference.

But, since the early 20th century, these principles have been under attack in the academy, the media, and popular culture. So-called progressives have rejected the existence of self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. Instead, they embrace the notion of “Progress” that is constant change towards an unspecified end. From these faulty principles, it follows that, all men are not created equal; some people are further along in the historical process than others. There are not permanent rights with which man is endowed. Government creates rights, and these rights evolve according to the demands of the time. There is no need for consent of the governed, just experts who will tell us how to live and how to progress.

This is a serious attack on our principles, but not an insurmountable one.

No, it was the progressives — they better understood American principles and fought for poor individuals during the Great Republican Depression of the thirties, employing them with the New Deal and giving their grandparents food money with Social Security. It was the actual America-savvy people who fought for civil rights in the sixties and who opposed the slaughter of the Vietnamese. It was those same leftists that backed feminism and saw that gays would rightly demand their civil rights as well. It was those people that saw Cesar Chavez for the hero he was.

What are we up to, now — the second half of the twentieth century? It’s the liberals who square the behavior of the United States with your precious Constitution. It’s the Heritage Foundation that opposes this, repeatedly, by calling themselves more patriotic than the few people who can qualify as patriots. It takes a lot more than some pom-poms and a blog page to force America to deliver on the Founding Fathers’ promises.

Prancing ballerinas in the Marine Corps! Tryin’ to talcum yer artillery? Perfume yer grenades? Dainty yer foxhole? NO! Can’t have ‘em makin’ googly eyes at the Iranians, sending them XOXO kisses in the mail! We can’t tell them to rush into battle, have ‘em whip off their uniforms and wag their wieners at the North Koreans!

Mocking! Sassing!? GIGGLING?! In THE ARMY? NO!

Can’t have ‘em fixin’ their buddies hair! Wipin’ the greasepaint off their faces! Complainin’ about the heat! Can’t have ‘em rolling onto their backs at the sound of gunfire, begging to be mounted! LA LA LA LA BAYONET ME!?

June 7, 2010
Why I’m disappointed in Rush Limbaugh
By Matt C. Abbott

This column may open up a can of worms, but here it goes…

I guess we conservatives (and, for the record, I don’t consider “socially moderate” Republicans to be in the conservative camp) should be grateful that Rush Limbaugh, a prominent media critic of the left for a number of years, hasn’t been silenced by the powers that be.

However, as a pro-life, pro-family Catholic, I’m disappointed in Rush. He just got married for the fourth time and even paid Elton John, the anti-Christian queen of pop-rock, a reported $1 million to perform at his wedding . .

What?! Elton John got a million bucks to play Viet Cong Ass-Pimple’s 2010 divorce launch? Yeah:

Rush Limbaugh Weds for 4th Time, and Elton John Sings
By Stephen M. Silverman

Talk about an odd couple: conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh and outspoken gay-marriage advocate Elton John.

But, according to a News Corporation (which owns Fox News) wire report, the Rocket Man, 63, serenaded the 400 guests into the wee hours Saturday night to celebrate the marriage of Limbaugh, 59, to Kathryn Rogers, 33, in the Ponce de Leon ballroom of Florida’s fabled Breakers hotel in Palm Beach. Sir Elton’s fee: $1 million, the report notes.

Limbaugh, of course, will tell you the silly wife just likes Elton’s music. Elton, of course, will tell you to fuck off and then throw a fit.

May 28, 2010
Homosexuality, Hitler, and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
By Bryan Fischer

The bottom line from what follows is this: Homosexuality gave us Adolph (WTF? –ed.) Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews. Gays in the military is an experiment that has been tried and found disastrously and tragically wanting. Maybe it’s time for Congress to learn a lesson from history.

I don’t like the Holocaust. Gays are startin’ to bug me.

Ah yes, the gays who fought like hell. For Hitler. Why wouldn’t they?

You know who were even more vicious, even than the gays? The Jews. And then the gay Jews — they were the worst. They fought like hell for Hitler. Why wouldn’t they? So Hitler surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, with gay Jews.

Except for the Russians. Like the homicidal ones who routed him right out of Berlin. They were THE WORST. The gay Russian Jews. They fought like hell for Hitler — why wouldn’t they? So Hitler surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Brownshirts, with gay Russian Jews.

Except for the freaky-deeky Americans. THEY WERE THE WORST. The gay Ameri-Russo Jews. Talk about vicious. When they came plowing across Europe, shooting or stomping or having sex with everything that moved, hell-bent on cutting Hitler’s head off, sticking it on a pike and kissing it, trying to make it giggle, he wisely made them all Stormshirt Browntroopers. THEY FOUGHT LIKE HELL FOR HITLER WHY WOULDN”T THEY?? So Hitler surrounded himself, virtually all of the Shoop-Shooper Worm-Boopers, with gay Ameri-Jew-Russkis. Gay-Merry-Jew-Rules-Keys. Gay-Marriage-Yer-Brewskis? I Do! You are now free! To tickle Hitler.

If Elena Kagan Is a Lesbian, She Should Say So because Public Has a Right to Know

Americans For Truth News Release, May 10, 2010
Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631;
americansfortruth@comcast.net

CHICAGO, Ill. — In the wake of AP’s report that Solicitor General Elena Kagan is President Obama’s choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) reiterates its call for Kagan to answer the question: ‘Are (or were) you a practicing homosexual?’

According to some reports it is an open secret that Kagan is a practicing lesbian — to which AFTAH President Peter LaBarbera responds:

BOO!

He needed somebody to go to Europe and push his “luggage” around:

Christian right leader George Rekers takes vacation with “rent boy”
By Penn Bullock and Brandon K. Thorp
Thursday, May 6 2010

The pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his “smooth, sweet, tight ass” and “perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)” and explains he is “sensual,” “wild,” and “up for anything” — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

On April 13, the “rent boy” (whom we’ll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy’s client and, as it happens, one of America’s most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. “I had surgery,” Rekers said, “and I can’t lift luggage. That’s why I hired him.” (Medical problems didn’t stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.) . .

I heart Samson . . ite

For decades, George Alan Rekers has been a general in the culture wars, though his work has often been behind the scenes. In 1983, he and James Dobson, America’s best-known homophobe, formed the Family Research Council, a D.C.-based, rabidly Christian, and vehemently anti-gay lobbying group that has become a standard-bearer of the nation’s extreme right wing. Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there. (The Family Research Council would not comment about Rekers’s Euro-trip.)

Dr. Rekers’ website:

***MISLEADING INTERNET REPORTS ABOUT PROFESSOR GEORGE REKERS***

“A recent article in an alternative newspaper cleverly gave false impressions of inappropriate behavior because of its misleading innuendo, incorrectly implying that Professor George Rekers used the Rentboy website to hire a prostitute to accompany him on a recent trip . .”

“Contrary to Internet stories based on this slanderous article, following medical advice Professor George Rekers requires an assistant to lift his luggage in his travels because of an ongoing condition following surgery. His family, local friends, and even another university professor colleague have offered to accompany him on trips to lift luggage. Professor Rekers was not involved in any illegal or sexual behavior with his travel assistant.”

HEY it’s me, Satan. What’s next is that I’ll be tricking your horny teen boys into castrating themselves and then suturing their penises onto their heads. That’s funny!

They’ll be a horde of skull-centric neutered freaks. WHOA, here they are, chatting in the locker room after football practice:

HA HA HA. Good luck with some sexual intercourse! Their eyes would need nuts for that.

And I should know. I used to be a gay prostitute.

” . . toma, and his trouser snake with glaucoma.” That was my street schtick. “Ooooh . . the swelling!” I’d coo and giggle. “Wanna take off my paaaannts? Or smoke some grraaaaasss? That’d make it all better . . ” Oh, the evil.

And I used to do it all. Sodomy, lesbianism, bestiality, pedophilia — my trick bag was full, sailor. But my real specialty was murder. Murderin’ bug-penis-eyed toma, that’s how everybody knew me. And did I make money killing my regulars, or what? No — not what — yes! I did!

“What’s it gonna be today, buddy?”

“I’d like some rape and some pederasty. Say, 50/50?”

“Oh yeah? Well, what about a little of THIS?!”

*WHACHA*

I’d reach over and murder them. Oh man, you should’ve seen the looks on their disembodied faces. They were always completely amazed: “. . that was AWESOME!” And then I’d get a big tip, ka-ching.

“Lesbianism for me, toma.” *WHACHA*, suffocated. “UNBELIEVABLE!” Ka-ching.

“I’m a big fan of sodomy — can you insert a lighthouse up my . . ” *WHA-CHA-CHA*, legs amputated, hanging from a shower rod. “KEEEWWL . .” Cha-ching.

“Here I am, tied up like a whimpering dog in the laundry room . . ” *WHA-CHOO-CHA*, pulmonary embolism. “I’M WEEPING, JUST SHEDDING TEARS . .” Cha-chaka-ching.

Let’s see your frigging Pope do that.