Brian Tashman's blog

Tennessee Republicans Copy John Birch Society Model Legislation on Agenda 21

The latest conspiracy theory sweeping the tea party movement is the fear that Agenda 21, a United Nations program focusing on sustainable development, is surreptitiously destroying the American way of life. Tennessee House Republicans recently passed a resolution, sponsored by Rep. Kevin Brooks, condemning the plan, using almost identical language from a John Birch Society model bill. The Tennessean reports:

Tennessee lawmakers passed a resolution Thursday condemning a United Nations environmental plan as a “destructive and insidious” effort to advance a communist agenda through the guise of community planning.

The state House of Representatives voted 72-23 in favor of House Joint Resolution 587, which denounces the nonbinding Agenda 21 plan adopted by a United Nations environmental conference two decades ago.

The plan called on members of the United Nations to adopt sustainable development principles to alleviate poverty and combat global warming. But the resolution approved by Tennessee lawmakers on Thursday depicts it as a plan for the “socialist/communist redistribution of wealth” through energy conservation policies, zoning restrictions and forced abortions.

“It reads well. It has nice words like sustainability and helping the poor,” said state Rep. Glen Casada, R-Franklin. “But what these people want to do is they want to cap the number of people this planet can have. … So ladies and gentlemen, if that doesn’t bother you, if those words don’t scare you, we’ve got to talk.”



Two other states, Georgia and New Hampshire, have considered anti-Agenda 21 measures this year. Brooks said the resolution had been promoted by the RNC.

But the measure matches up nearly word for word with a model posted on the website of the John Birch Society, a conservative group that Republicans have largely shunned since the 1960s, Turner said.

Indeed, the text of the Tennessee resolution and the John Birch Society model bill is practically identical, with slight differences not in content but in the structure:

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 587

By Brooks K

A RESOLUTION relative to United Nations Agenda 21.

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992; and

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) through local “sustainable development” policies such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other “Green” or “Alternative” projects; and

WHEREAS, this United Nations Agenda 21 plan of radical so-called “sustainable development” views the American way of life of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms all as destructive to the environment; and

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment which would be accomplished by socialist/communist redistribution of wealth; and

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; now, therefore,


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, THE SENATE CONCURRING, that the General Assembly recognizes the destructive and insidious nature of United Nations Agenda 21 and hereby exposes to the public and public policymakers the dangerous intent of the plan.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that neither the U.S. government nor any state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been endorsed by the U.S. Senate.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the federal government and state and local governments across the country be well informed of the underlying harmful implications of implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 destructive strategies for “sustainable development,” and we hereby endorse rejection of its radical policies and rejection of any grant monies attached to it.

From the John Birch Society:

A MODEL STOP AGENDA 21 BILL FOR STATE LEGISLATURES

AN ACT relative to the United Nations Agenda 21 and the non-governmental organization International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, also known as ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability.

WHEREAS, for the purposes of this act, a “political subdivision” means all state, county, incorporated city, unincorporated city, public local entity, public-private partnership, or any other public entity thereof; and

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992; and

WHEREAS, neither the U.S. government nor any state or local government is legally bound by the United Nations Agenda 21 treaty in that it has never been ratified by the U.S. Senate; and

WHEREAS, the United Nations Agenda 21 is being covertly pushed into local communities throughout the United States of America through the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), now calling itself “Local Governments for Sustainability,” through local "sustainable development" policies, such as Smart Growth, Wildlands Project, Resilient Cities, Regional Visioning Projects, and other "Green" or "Alternative" projects; and

WHEREAS, this plan of radical so-called "sustainable development" views the American way of life of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, and privately owned farms all as destructive to the environment; and

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people to benefit equally from the resources afforded by society and the environment which would be accomplished by a socialist/communist-style redistribution of wealth; and

WHEREAS, according to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, national sovereignty is deemed a social injustice; and


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the state of ___________ and all political subdivisions are prohibited from implementing programs of, expending any sum of money for, being a member of, receiving funding from, contracting services from, or giving financial or other forms of aid to ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability, or any other organization promoting the implementation of the United Nations Agenda 21, sustainable development, or smart growth.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body recognize the destructive and insidious nature of the United Nations Agenda 21, endorse rejection of its radical policies and of any grant monies attached to it, and recommend exposing to the public and public policymakers across the country the dangerous intent of the plan.

Santorum: 'The Obama Department of Justice Seems to Favor Pornographers over Children and Families'

Rick Santorum’s campaign repeated the right-wing myth that the Obama administration refuses to prosecute “obscene” pornography. He announced his support of efforts by groups including the Family Research Council, Morality in Media, the American Family Association and Concerned Women for America to increase obscenity prosecutions, and lamented that the Justice Department “refused to enforce obscenity laws.”

For many decades, the American public has actively petitioned the United States Congress for laws prohibiting distribution of hard-core adult pornography.

Congress has responded. Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.

I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced. That coalition is composed of 120 national, state, and local groups, including Morality in Media, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Cornerstone Family Council of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a host of other groups. Together we will prevail.

However, the Department of Justice just this month prosecuted an obscenity case in Los Angeles. Furthermore, the DOJ continuously prosecutes child pornography and exploitation cases. But for Santorum and his Religious Right allies, the evidence never seems to get in the way of their anti-Obama smears.

Conservative Media Critic Blames 'Evil Forces' for Films like 'The Lorax'

As expected, conservatives have not taken kindly to the new movie The Lorax, based on the Dr. Seuss book on how avarice can harm the environment. The Media Research Center warned it will turn children into “little eco-warriors” and Lou Dobbs of Fox News blasted the film for “trying to indoctrinate our children” by “demonizing the so-called 1% and espousing the virtue of green energy policies.” The conservative group Movieguide said that while there is no obscene language, violence, sex or nudity in The Lorax, it still “warrants strong caution” because of its “strong politically correct environmentalist content that’s also anti-capitalist.” Cal Beisner even said that the Environmental Protection Agency’s promotion of the film represents an unconstitutional “violation of the separation of church and state.”

Yesterday on The Steve Deace Show, Deace hosted WorldNetDaily’s Drew Zahn to discuss his review of The Lorax.

The two agreed that The Lorax is indeed left-wing “propaganda” and believe conservatives should have not only a political but also a spiritual response. Zahn claimed that the entertainment industry has been “co-opted” by “truly evil forces” and “forces of darkness,” which leads to the production of films like The Lorax. He said that people need to reclaim the field of the arts from the evil forces and return it to its godly foundations.

Deace: Now you’ve seen the movie Lorax?

Zahn: Yes.

Deace: I haven’t seen it yet, it looks to me however like pure, liberal, environmental propaganda, is it?

Zahn: If you read the book you’ll recognize that right off the bat and the movie follows that theme word for word. Yes, it is anti-capitalist, it is ‘big business is bad, the hunt for money is bad, it destroys the trees and by all means someone must stand up for speak for the trees, will you too please’?



Deace: So Drew, why don’t we just take these tactics of the left that they use in pop culture, why don’t we just do the exact same thing to create good entertainment that does the same thing with our message that they do with there’s, why not just do that?

Zahn: You know what, I’m glad you gave me the chance to think about that over the commercial break because I’m going to reject the premise of your question altogether. Your question assumes that the left—or I’m going to say that truly evil forces in the world have created this and shouldn’t we co-opt it? I’m going to say no it’s the other way around. God created the arts, the creative spirit, and it is the forces of darkness that have co-opted it and what we need to do is take it back.

Deace: We got to reclaim it, not co-opt it, we got to reclaim it.

Zahn: Exactly.

Mississippi Republicans Push to Mandate Transvaginal Ultrasounds, Renew Personhood Amendment Fight

The Mississippi House passed a bill that would require doctors to detect fetal heartbeats, which in many cases would require a transvaginal ultrasound, on women seeking an abortion and without exceptions for survivors of rape or incest. An amendment that would ban men from having vasectomies failed to pass. The group Personhood Mississippi praised the bill’s passage, and said they will begin collecting signatures to put another personhood amendment on the ballot in 2013 despite its failure last November.

The bill appears to be based on Janet Porter’s Heartbeat Bill, which passed the Ohio State House and bans all abortions after a detectable heartbeat, that has been springing up in other states including Kansas and Nebraska.

During the debate over the legislation, a Republican lawmaker responded to claims that the medically-unnecessary procedure is “state-sanctioned rape” by arguing that women “allow ourselves to be vulnerable to a pregnancy”:

The Mississippi House approved a bill that would require women seeking abortions to acknowledge when unborn children have detectable heartbeats, in some cases necessitating invasive transvaginal ultrasounds.

There is no provision in the House Bill 1196 exempting women who have been victims of rape or incest from the transvaginal ultrasound.



Rep. Rita Martinson, R-Madison, rebutted Wooten's statement, specifically addressing her description of the instrument.

"What do we think is used when an abortion is performed?" she asked. "What kind of device goes in and snatches a person from the womb, tears it out, and takes that beating heartbeat and kills it?"

While Hines and Wooten said the bill holds women responsible for an unwanted pregnancy while letting men off the hook, Martinson stressed it should be the woman's responsibility.

"Sometimes it's rape, but most of the time, it's not," she said. "We're the ones who remove our pants, are we not?

"We are the ones who allow ourselves to be vulnerable to a pregnancy," she said.

Robertson Calls Non-Christians a 'Virus'

Televangelist Pat Robertson, who famously referred to non-Christians as “termites,” on the 700 Club today likened people who aren’t Christians to a “virus.” Following a report on the growing Muslim population in Europe, Robertson said “the antibody to these false religions have been vibrant Christianity,” lamenting that “our elites have turned against the founding principles that gave us our freedom, why? Because they don’t want to be Christian.”

Watch:

Robertson: It’s like a virus, if you have, we have, all of us have, antibodies in our system and if our system is healthy we can repel viruses, but once those antibodies breakdown then the viruses take over. The antibody to these false religions have been vibrant Christianity, it doesn’t exist any longer in Belgium, it doesn’t exist in Europe any longer.

Meeuwsen: It seems as though we are so busy enjoying the benefits and the blessings that God has given us that it’s like we’ve gone to sleep.

Robertson: We’ve not only gone to sleep, we’ve actively attacked it. We’ve attacked the founding principle of our civilization and no one can do that and survive, but that’s what happened. Our elites have turned against the founding principles that gave us our freedom. Why? Because they don’t want be Christian, they don’t want to acknowledge that they are sinners, they don’t want to come and say they need a Savior, that’s humbling, they want to be proud and in their pride they are going to lose everything.

Kevin McCullough Claims that Nobody is Gay

After calling GLAAD a tool of the Devil, talk show host Kevin McCullough defended previous statements, listed by GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project, that gay couples “despise” marriage and are “seeking to destroy” it. McCullough said that they are indeed trying to “destroy” marriage, but took issue with GLAAD’s use of the term “gay,” because according to McCullough, “I don’t believe that you can be gay.” He said that being gay is a choice and warned that “homosexual behaviors can end up killing you” because “homosexual behaviors when acted upon in the teenage years greatly increases the likelihood if you’re male that you will try to commit suicide.” McCullough is correct in arguing that gay youth do have a higher risk of suicide, but seems to ignore the fact that anti-gay prejudice and bias in society plays a large role in why there is the higher suicide rate.

Watch:

They also said that ‘Kevin once said that gay couples both despise marriage and are seeking to destroy it.’ How is that not true? If homosexuals who want to engage in homosexual behavior therefore sexually couple just like themselves, if they are wanting to change the definition of marriage then they are wanting to destroy what current marriage is, that’s just a factual statement that I made. They don’t like the fact that men and women complete one another. They don’t like the fact that that union is so perfect that it sometimes brings children out of it, they don’t like the fact that that is the ability of what a natural marriage relationship brings. So I said they “despise,” they do, “they don’t like normal marriage and they’re seeking to destroy it,” yeah, “by redefining it,” that’s what they are seeking to do, they are seeking to undo what it’s always been. Yeah, I said that, I still believe it. It’s still true.



I don’t believe that you can be gay. I believe that people engage in homosexual behavior, and I believe that homosexual behaviors can end up killing you, and I think that homosexual behaviors when acted upon in the teenage years greatly increases the likelihood if you’re male that you will try to commit suicide. But that’s what the data says, that’s not what the Kevin McCullough says, that’s what the studies show, that’s what the secular humanist studies indicate about homosexual behavior. I don’t—they are grossly misrepresenting me—they are saying that I said that being gay kills people, no, because I don’t believe that people are gay, I think they behave in homosexual ways but I don’t buy that ‘gay’ is a state of being, I think it’s a series of choices.

Kevin McCullough Warns that GLAAD is a Pawn of the Devil; 'They Want Me Dead'

Right-wing talk show host Kevin McCullough, standing in for Bryan Fischer on Focal Point yesterday, warned that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation is a pawn of the Devil. McCullough said he is being “targeted by the Enemy, and I mean the Evil One, I don’t mean human beings but I mean by His forces,” and said that he and the other commentators named in GLAAD’s Commentator Accountability Project, which is meant to shine light on the anti-LGBT statements of “frequent anti-gay interviewees” and includes McCullough and Fischer, have been “targeted by the most radical of activists that are seeking to basically blackball our voice from being allowed to be put into the public arena.” But McCullough later in the show warned that GLAAD isn’t just trying to get him “blackballed off media,” but that GLAAD and other activists “want me dead.”

I got to tell you, when you get targeted by the Enemy, and I mean the Evil One, I don’t mean human beings but I mean by His forces, it can be rather earthshaking and then it can be rather deliberatively motivating. And so I would ask friends as you have just heard, I just told you about this list that GLAAD has put out, Tim Wildmon, Bryan Fischer, both on the list, Kevin McCullough is on the list, Tony Perkins is on the list, David Barton, brother Don [Wildmon] is also listed, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, Jim Daly, the head of Focus on the Family, all on this list, about thirty people that have been targeted by the most radical of activists that are seeking to basically blackball our voice from being allowed to be put into the public arena.



Someone asked me before I went on the show today, what do you think their end goal in developing this list is? Is it just to get you blackballed off media? I said, no, they want me dead. They are not going to be happy until my voice goes dark.

Tony Perkins Defends Minnesota School District with Rampant Anti-Gay Bullying

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Tuesday defended the Parents Action League, a Minnesota group that fiercely lobbied the Anoka-Hennepin school district against implementing anti-bullying policies they believe will make the kids targets of “homosexual propaganda” and result in them being “indoctrinated in homosexuality.” The Parents Action League, a division of the Minnesota Family Council, claims the school district has an “outstanding policy” regarding sexual orientation and gloats that they helped craft it. But the group has come under fire from legal organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and even the Justice Department after a string of teen suicides, so naturally Perkins is standing by the school district’s anti-gay activists:

Perkins: Out of Minnesota where the school board had adopted a neutral policy on homosexuality, where teachers couldn’t be for it or against it and there were a few suicides that took place, which is really kind of tragically a rash, there’s been a rash of suicides, actually it’s been almost growing for a number of years in high schools across the country. Well there may be some cases where these young people are bullied, which is wrong, shouldn’t happen. The Southern Poverty Law Center, teaming up with local homosexual groups, immediately claimed that all these were related to homosexual students being bullied, as it turned out it was not but the damage had already been done. The Southern Poverty Law Center came in threatening a law suit, then brought the Justice Department in—the federal government, going into a local school district—and then in the process a parents organization kind of grew up, the Parents Action League, which was defending the neutral policy, they weren’t against homosexuality, they weren’t for it, but they didn’t want their kids taught something that countered what they were taught at home. Well the Southern Poverty Law Center, an advocate in the process for homosexual special rights and special status for homosexuals, labeled the opposing group a hate group for trying to marginalize and stigmatize them in that local debate. Then the Justice Department went forward with consent decree which is onerous, we’ll get into that on Thursday, but it just shows how the other side wants to shut down the debate so they can have their way and push their radical agenda through.

However, as Rolling Stone reported, at least four of the students who committed suicide were bullied for being gay or perceived to be gay:

There was another common thread: Four of the nine dead were either gay or perceived as such by other kids, and were reportedly bullied. The tragedies come at a national moment when bullying is on everyone's lips, and a devastating number of gay teens across the country are in the news for killing themselves. Suicide rates among gay and lesbian kids are frighteningly high, with attempt rates four times that of their straight counterparts; studies show that one-third of all gay youth have attempted suicide at some point (versus 13 percent of hetero kids), and that internalized homophobia contributes to suicide risk.

...

The Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a lawsuit on behalf of five students, alleging the school district's policies on gays are not only discriminatory, but also foster an environment of unchecked anti-gay bullying. The Department of Justice has begun a civil rights investigation as well.

Stephanie Mencimer notes that along with the nine suicides, at least seven other students “have been hospitalized for attempting or threatening suicide.” She goes on to write:

There's no sure way of knowing why any of the kids took their own lives, but gay rights activists quickly honed in on one factor they saw as contributing to an unhealthy climate for at-risk kids. Anoka-Hennepin has a policy on the books known colloquially as "no homo promo," which dates in back to the mid-1990s. Back then, after several emotional school board meetings, the district essentially wiped gay people out of the school health curriculum. There could be no discussion of homosexuality, even with regard to HIV and AIDS, and the school board adopted a formal policy that stated school employees could not teach that homosexuality was a "normal, valid lifestyle."

Later the policy was changed to require school staff to remain neutral on issues of homosexuality if they should come up in class, a change that critics said fostered confusion among teachers and contributed to their inability to address bullying and harassment, or to even ask reasonable questions about some of the issues the kids were struggling with, like sexual orientation. Both policies were put into place at the behest of conservative religious activists who have been among Bachmann's biggest supporters in the district. They include the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), and its local affiliate, the Parents Action League, which has lobbied to put discredited "reparative therapy" materials in schools.

But Perkins tells a much different story.

First, he claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center “immediately claimed that all these were related to homosexual students being bullied,” adding, “as it turned out it was not.” However, the SPLC never claimed that all of the suicides were by “homosexual students,” but did argue that anti-gay bullying was “at least in part the result of a gag policy that prevented teachers from discussing issues related to lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) people.” Perkins also claimed that the Parents Action League emerged as a result of the SPLC lawsuit, which isn’t true as PAL has been active in the school district for years prior to the SPLC’s involvement. He even claimed that PAL’s members “weren’t against homosexuality,” which is difficult to believe since the organization wants schools to teach reparative therapy, warned that gays and lesbians  have “targeted” students and called homosexuality “one of the most hazardous behaviors that kids could get into.”

But of course, no one should be surprised that Perkins twists the facts in order to promote his anti-gay views, and after misrepresenting the controversy he attacked the SPLC for advocating “special status for homosexuals” and pushing a “radical agenda.”

Ted Cruz joins Tony Perkins for a Planned Parenthood Lie-A-Thon

Right-wing activists have always had a difficult relationship with the truth, especially when it comes to Planned Parenthood. The lies they have told about the women’s health organization have been disgraceful and even comical. They continued today as Ted Cruz, the former Solicitor General of Texas and a candidate for US Senate, spoke to Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Today’s Issues about his state’s move to defund Planned Parenthood, which treats nearly half the patients in the state’s Women’s Health Program.

Under Medicaid’s rules, states cannot prohibit qualified health care providers from participating in the program, and Texas officials knew that defunding Planned Parenthood would lead the federal government to withdraw its funding for the program, representing 90 percent of the program’s total funding.

Unfortunately, 130,000 women will now lose access to health care because of Texas’ decision, and will lead to millions of dollars in new state spending due to the drastic cut to preventative health care.

But Texas went ahead and defunded Planned Parenthood, to the satisfaction of the Religious Right, and now are shocked—shocked!—that Medicaid is enforcing its longstanding rules.

Perkins claimed that “Planned Parenthood as a result of losing this funding was closing twelve of its abortion clinics.”

This is false.

In fact, none of the affected clinics provided abortion services. Planned Parenthood clinics that do offer abortions receive neither federal nor state funds and are therefore not impacted by the state’s decision.

Perkins and Cruz also attempted to hold Parent Parenthood and the Obama administration responsible for the deleterious impact on women’s health care by twisting and ignoring the facts throughout the interview. Perkins called it “blackmail” and blamed the administration for “cutting off funds to some of the most needy people in the state of Texas.” Cruz said that the Obama administration wants to send taxpayer dollars to “the abortion industry,” which he called “typical of the assault on our liberties that is proceeding relentlessly everyday under the Obama administration.”

They seem to find no fault at all in Texas’ unilateral and deliberate decision to break Medicaid’s rules and defund an organization that provided nearly half of the health services to low-income women under the state’s program.

Perkins: Let me get your first impressions, the Governor who you know well and the legislature whom you’ve worked with, they said, ‘We’re not going to be part of funding Planned Parenthood.’ They took the steps, that’s rightfully theirs, and so now I can’t explain it as anything other than blackmail from the Obama administration cutting off funds to some of the most needy people in the state of Texas.

Cruz: Tony you’re exactly right. The Obama administration has been the most radical administration this country has ever seen, he is the most radical president this country has ever seen. On this issue, his concern is quite simply political, it is ensuring that the money flow continues to Planned Parenthood and to the abortion industry, and he is willing to hold 130,000 low income Texas women hostage in order to make sure that Planned Parenthood makes their money. It’s cynical, it’s partisan and it’s wrong.



Perkins: I wonder if the timing here, it seems very suspect to me, but after Texas decided to stop this funding of Planned Parenthood, I think it was a week before last the story came out of Texas that Planned Parenthood as a result of losing this funding was closing about twelve of their abortion clinics in Texas. That was a story that was beginning to get traction around the country, giving other legislatures encouragement to take steps like Texas. Is this an effort to cut that off at the pass and try to say ‘hey, you better slow down or else we’re going to come after funding in other areas’?

Cruz: I think it was exactly that. The disturbing thing Tony is you and I and every American are involuntarily the largest funders of Planned Parenthood in this country because the federal government and the Obama administration is fighting tooth and nail to send millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood. You and I are both strongly pro-life, have been fighting to defend the right to life for many years, the idea that we are facing an administration that is so radical that they will do anything they can to defend and expand the taxpayer money to pay for Planned Parenthood and to fund the abortion industry, that is really dismaying and it is typical of the assault on our liberties that is proceeding relentlessly everyday under the Obama administration.

WORLD Magazine Defends Anti-Gay Material Against 'The Armies of Homosexual Advocacy'

Joel Belz, the founder of WORLD Magazine, responded to an inquiry about “homophobic” content in his magazine by defending the anti-gay material and claiming that the “homosexual agenda” is “an extreme in-your-face challenge to God’s order.” Belz defended WORLD, which named ex-gay activist Alan Chambers the “2011 Daniel of the Year” and derided supporters of marriage equality as “forces of anarchy” who are “undefining the family,” for standing up to “the armies of homosexual advocacy,” which he claims now “have nothing left to conquer but the kindergarten class down the street” as the “battles” in the literature, entertainment, media, education and mainline churches “are long since over.” “If heterosexual immorality is like driving 85 mph in a 35 mph zone,” Belz writes, “then homosexual immorality is like going 85 mph the wrong way on a one-way street.”

Eric, from Ohio, is very upset with WORLD in general and me in particular. "I've been a reader for 12 years or more," he says, "and now I get the distinct impression that you are becoming more, not less, homophobic with every issue. Does gay-bashing really give you that much satisfaction?"



Yet saying all that, we dare not lose sight of two other facts about the contemporary homosexual agenda. The first is that it is an extreme in-your-face challenge to God's order. We learn that both from the Bible and from common sense. As we've noted here before, if heterosexual immorality is like driving 85 mph in a 35 mph zone, then homosexual immorality is like going 85 mph the wrong way on a one-way street. Never mind what prompts you to drive the wrong way; just doing it is dangerous. We're no more judgmental saying that than we are when we encourage folks to avoid any behavior that is demonstrably destructive—spiritually, emotionally, or physically.

The other important aspect of the current homosexual agenda is its zeal to establish itself as normal. It's bad enough when wrongdoers work hard to keep their wrongdoing secret. When instead they flaunt what they do, and pull out all the stops to make it public, then society has problems of a different order.

For decades now, we've witnessed an all-out effort to portray homosexual behavior as typical and mainstream. It's pointless to worry about battles being waged in literature, the library systems, the entertainment industries, the information media, fashion, higher education, and most of the liberal churches—for the battles in those venues are long since over. When the armies of homosexual advocacy have nothing left to conquer but the kindergarten class down the street, you know you're almost certainly too late on the scene.

Homophobic gay-bashers? Not really, Eric. But realistic about what's happening all around us? Indeed, yes. And I hope we say that these days with a tear—and never anything you might mistake for a leer.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious