Gay-bashing or outrage?

Little girls are riddled with bullets in a country, Pennsylvania classroom by a man who intended to abuse them sexually before killing them. He "only" killed them.

Washington's silence is deafening.

A Wisconsin principal, trying to prevent further carnage, is shot to death in his school by a student.

Washington's silence is deafening.

TRENDING: CNN's Cuomo: Police reform won't come until white kids are killed

Teenage girls are sexually assaulted and one killed in their Colorado high school.

Washington's silence is deafening.

But all hell breaks loose when a Republican congressman writes compromising e-mails and salacious instant messages to male congressional pages.

Washington's outrage really is deafening with accusations flying from both sides of the aisle. They yell about "the children" – but not about the dead children; they're "upset" about teenage males.

Or are they?

The Democrats, the party of gay rights, is wrapped in umbrage. How could an elected politician – a Republican at that - prey on "our children."

Ah yes, the children. Of course. The Dems – the party of "the children."

Of course, that these "children" were high school males, participants in the congressional page program, puts a slightly different cast on it.

Yes, they're children – aren't we all – but these boys were over 16, the age of consent in Washington and in fact, were 17 and 18. Regardless, they were presumably mature enough to be away from home for a semester.

There's no doubt their parents assumed they'd be safe, particularly from members of Congress.

Basic rule of life: Never assume.

The guy at the core of this mess is Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley, who was in the midst of a re-election campaign.

That's over.

As soon as ABC News broke the story and made headlines, Foley caved. He resigned and immediately went into rehab, saying he is an alcoholic. That conveniently puts him out of reach of reporters for at least a month.

Rehab? For what? E-mail? Salacious instant messages? Is there a cure for that? Haven't we been told, ad nauseam, that sex deviancy cannot be "cured"? What's the deviancy here? That he's gay? I thought Dems consider that "normal."

Then we were told with a straight face that pedophilia was involved.

Sure. Pedophiles always hit on late teenagers. There's no cure for that, either.

That's the same tactic used with Catholic priests accused of sexual activity with "children," except in most cases those "children" were early teens and almost entirely male. But they still called it pedophilia.

It isn't; it's homosexuality, but uttering the word "gay" in connection with priests was anathema. Even when true.

In Foley's case, it's also true. No sooner had he disappeared into "rehab," his lawyer was sent out to announce that Foley is gay and that – get ready now – he'd been abused by a clergyman as a boy.

Oprah, where are you? Publishers, prepare your contracts.

This man has no shame.

In Congress, instead of denouncing Foley for breaking the trust inherent in his elected position, Dem big guns lined up against the Republicans and aimed at House Speaker Denny Hastert. His resignation is demanded for whatever he knew, when he knew it and why nothing was done.

The hypocrisy is evident now that we've gone beyond the sleaze of how Foley got his jollies to the core of the issue: gays in the public eye. The question? When is it OK to point out that a gay is doing something wrong? Does it matter which political party is involved?

Is the sky blue?

As ABC releases more e-mails and more pages tell of their Foley experiences, it's clear many in Washington and the media knew Foley was gay with an inordinate interest in teenage males.

Consider: Some messages date back five and six years. Why would anyone save them? For more than a year, several newspapers, including the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald, and even Fox News, knew Foley was gay and that the messages existed.

It wasn't reported. Did they fear outing a gay?

If Foley's sexual preference and cruising techniques were an open secret, there are plausible scenarios for not reporting it.

The Democrats would savor keeping the information until it could be used against Republicans before an election.

Voila, the October surprise.

Republicans also knew Foley was gay with a liking for young males. But, aside from guarded warnings to him and the page classes, nothing was done. No laws were broken. The pages were of age.

No one, it seems, was concerned with decency, honor or propriety.

They weren't concerned about having a backbone, either. The GOP knew if they outed Foley, the Dems and the media would accuse them of homophobia.

Being gun-shy, they clammed up.

The Democrats knew they would – and relish the Foley controversy amid growing rumors that other GOP "outings" are in store before the November election.

Let me understand: It's OK for the Dems, who defend homosexuality as normal, to deliberately out GOP gays? What happened to privacy? Is it "our gays good, yours bad"? Apparently so. Gay Democrat's get a pass, but Republican gay's are fair game.

Or, is all this a deliberate attempt to influence GOP voters to stay home in disgust on Election Day?

Concerning Foley's actions, both sides are responsible and some heads should roll for not stopping it. Military and other careers are ruined for lesser accusations of sexual harassment.

Parents need to know their children, spending a semester in Congress working and learning about government, will be protected from lechers who prey on the young – whether it's a Republican congressman leering electronically at male pages or a Democrat president "not having sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," who was an intern.

But it doesn't work that way. Democrat Clinton got a pass because it was his "private" life. When Dem Rep. Gerry Studds, Mass., tried his seduction skills with male pages and took a 17-year-old to Portugal for fun and games, he continued to be re-elected. So, too, with Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., when it was revealed his male roommate ran an underage gay prostitution ring out of their own house. After a few headlines, the story disappeared.

Democrats all.

Given how gay-friendly Democrats are, it's difficult to know just what has them so incensed. Is it that a Republican is gay? Is it that a gay was ousted? Is it that the government didn't protect young male students from a gay predator? Is it that e-mails were used to conduct the seduction?

Or is it all an act and politics as usual?

Tell me again how liberals and Democrats are open-minded and tolerant.

Tell me again how homosexual males don't lust after young boys.

Tell me a story.

Related special offer:

"Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party"