C3

Allen West At CPAC: Civil War, Nazism, and President Obama

Former Rep. Allen West was one of the first speakers scheduled to kick off CPAC 2013 and he wasted no time firing up the conservative crowd by proclaiming that "there is nothing on this green earth that a liberal progressive fears more than a black American who wants a better life and a smaller government."

Later, West ran through a litany of obstacles over which this nation has triumphed, including the American Revolution,  the Civil War, the Great Depression, the battle against Nazism in World War II  ... and the presidency of Barack Obama, declaring that just as this nation overcame these previous threats, "when Barack Obama packs his bags and beats a hasty retreat back to Chicago, we will persevere":

Jeffress: Homosexuality Like Plugging a TV into the Wrong Outlet and Blowing It to Smithereens

Televangelist Robert Jeffress appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s flagship program Praise the Lord last week to discuss the opening of his new $130 million megachurch campus and the controversy surrounding Tim Tebow’s scheduled but since cancelled appearance. Jeffress, who has a history of using virulently anti-gay rhetoric, argued that homosexuality violates God’s design for sex.

“Think about this one time in heaven God was sitting up there with his sketch pad and he said, ‘you know I’m going to design human beings and would it be fun of they started doing this together with one another,’” Jeffress explained. “God dreamed up sex, He thought it up for our enjoyment, He gave us the equipment to enjoy it with.”

He went on to claim that homosexuality is like plugging a TV into a 220-volt power outlet rather than the recommended 120 outlet “because those are antiquated instructions” and “it’s my TV and I can do whatever I want to with it.”

“Well it is my TV to do what I want to with it but I’m going to blow that TV into smithereens if I put it in a 220 outlet,” Jeffress said.

Watch:

Beck: John Wilkes Booth, Adolf Hitler, & Michael Bloomberg

Last night, Glenn Beck kicked off his program by showing off a couple of historical artifacts that he has acquired, including a handwritten copy of a speech delivered by John Wilkes Booth and an early edition of "Mein Kampf" signed by Adolf Hitler ... which he then tied to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's effort to ban the sale of sodas over sixteen ounces.

According to Beck, just as Booth and Hitler believed that they knew the proper solutions to the "crisis" they believed their nations faced, so too Bloomberg believes he is doing the right thing in trying solve the "crisis" of obesity.

"A lot of people have come in the past and said 'there's a crisis,'" Beck said, pointing to the Booth and Hitler documents, "We have to do something.  We have to do something. That always leads you to bad places":

David Barton Continues to Peddle Falsehoods

It has become pretty obvious by this point that David Barton simply does not care that various claims he makes as part of his standard presentation are demonstrably false; he will simply continue to repeat them as fact because they are useful in promoting his right-wing political agenda.

As we have noted five times already, Barton repeatedly insists that the Constitution is filled with multiple "direct quotations" out of the Bible, insisting that anyone who doesn't see them is simply "biblically illiterate;" an assertion he made again while speaking at Fellowship Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan over the weekend:

And if you know the Bible and you know and read the Constitution, you will see Bible verses and Bible phrases all over the Constitution.  It quotes Bible phrases everywhere.  People today say 'oh, it's a godless Constitution, it's a secular document.' If somebody tells me it's a secular document, I know that they're biblically illiterate. They don't recognize a Bible verse when they see one because the Constitution is loaded up with direct quotations out of the Bible.

Of course, the only person who is illiterate here is Barton himself, as he is apparently unable to comprehend what the phrase "direct quoation" since none of the evidence he provides represent, in any way, "direct quotations."

But Barton wasn't done spreading falsehoods in this presentation, as he also repeated the claim that the Supreme Court ended mandatory Bible reading in public schools because it was causing brain damage to students:

[In 1963] the Supreme Court said no more Bible in schools. Now why would they do that?  We have 320 years, literally, of the Bible in school; the Supreme Court itself said this is without any historical precedent.  There is no historical precedent in our history for not having the Bible in schools, but it's time to take it out.  Why would they take it out?

Well, the Court explained why they would take it out.  As a matter of fact, they called on the testimony of a psychologist - they didn't have any historical precedent, they didn't have any legal precedent, but Dr. Solomon Grayzel told them what was going to happen if kids read the Bible in schools and they said 'that's what we thought.' And so here's the quote the Supreme Court pointed out in its decision on why we took the Bible out of schools; they said 'if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child.'

We've now discovered the Bible causes brain damage; we can't let you kids suffer brain damage, we've got to stop the brain damage.  That's the reason given by the Supreme Court on why the Bible went out of schools; it was psychological harm to children.

As we pointed out before, if you actually read the ruling in the case, you will find that the Supreme Court did not cite this as the reason for ending mandatory Bible reading in schools, rather the Court was merely describing the road the case had taken through the court system, noting that Dr. Grayzel's testimony had been heard during the initial trial.

Beyond that, Barton intentionally misrepresents the point of Grayzel's testimony itself, which was to note that forced Bible reading from a Christian perspective in public schools was potentially damaging to Jewish students:

Expert testimony was introduced by both appellants and appellees at the first trial, which testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:

Dr. Solomon Grayzel testified that there were marked differences between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian Holy Bible, the most obvious of which was the absence of the New Testament in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Dr. Grayzel testified that portions of the New Testament were offensive to Jewish tradition, and that, from the standpoint of Jewish faith, the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was "practically blasphemous." He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child, and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.

In both of these cases, it has been demonstrated time and again that the claims Barton is making are irrefutably false, but he simply does not care and continues to repeat them as truth as he delivers his pseudo-historical presentations to conservative audiences all across the country.

FRC: No Right to Have Sex Outside of Marriage, Society Should 'Punish It'

Family Research Council senior fellow Pat Fagan appeared alongside Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his article which claims that Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 case that overturned a Massachusetts law banning the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, may rank “as the single most destructive decision in the history of the Court.”

Fagan argued that the Supreme Court decision was wrong because it effectively meant that “single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.” “Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever,” Fagan said.

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have.



It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

Klayman: Obama Doesn't Like Jews, the Rich, People of Faith, or White People

Larry Klayman has been anything but shy about warning that violent resistance might be necessary to stop President Obama's "mission to enslave the nation." So last night, Alan Colmes invited Klayman onto his radio program to discuss his worries that black helicopters have been firing practice rounds on American cities, during which he asserted that he believes that Obama does not like Jews, the wealthy, people of faith, or white people ... or, for that matter, that Obama was even born in this country:

Klayman: I'm frightened for this country.  I really [am.] I don't feel that he represents the majority of Americans.  I have a Jewish background, Alan, like you do and what I've seen in the last four years is someone who has a disdain, I believe, for Jewish people and Israel.

Colmes:  Why did he have a Jewish Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel? Why does he have so many Jewish advisers?  It doesn't make any sense.

Klayman: This is a bad analogy and I'll take it a little too far.  Many times throughout history, Jewish people have been their own worst enemy.  I mean, we had Karl Marx.  We had people who were in and around Adolf Hitler even ... The fact that these people are around him, they are just simply cover.

...

The references to rich people, the constant 'we've got to pay our fair share,' it's kind of like we're talking about reparations.  It does lead one to think - and we should be allowed to talk about it too; you know, white people should be able to raise these issues just like black people legitimately raised them over the years in terms of racism - is I believe this guy has a tinge of racism towards whites and he wants to pay reparations. I don't believe that he likes Jewish people ... I don't think he likes people of faith.

Colmes: What have you seen that has you so scared?

Klayman: What I have seen is, and I never thought it was even imaginable when I was fighting [Bill] Clinton, I do believe that it is possible now.  I think that Obama knows that at some point a significant portion of this country is going to rise up and possibly become violent and I hope and pray that that does not happen.

Colmes: What are you basing this on?

Klayman: Well, what I've seen in recent weeks are black helicopters over the streets in Miami and Chicago and Houston, firing practice rounds ...

Colmes: Whose helicopters are these?

Klayman: They are government helicopters that have been doing that.

Colmes: Why has this not been widely reported?

Klayman: It is starting to become widely publicized.

Colmes: Where can I get documentation of it?

Klayman: Take a look at WorldNetDaily.com.

Colmes: Oh, WoldNetDaily; you mean the people who think that he wasn't born here?

Klayman: Well, I don't think he was born here either.

Harvey Denounces Girl Scouts for Supporting 'Homosexual Lifestyles' and 'Suspicion Toward Males'

It’s that time of year again when Girl Scouts sell cookies… and right-wing activists attack the Girl Scouts. Today, Linda Harvey of Mission America took offense that the Scouts support “radical feminists” and “homosexual lifestyles” and “feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials.” She alleged that they dismiss “authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood” and “sexual self-restraint” while at the same time promoting “an attitude of suspicion toward males.”

This is not at all the way the organization started, but Girl Scout materials and programs support role models like radical feminists Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, they support homosexual lifestyles and feature prominent female homosexuals in some of their materials. At the same time virtually absent is respect for authentic morality, Christianity, conservative viewpoints and just plain old motherhood. It’s one more way that girls are being taught that unless you have an attitude of suspicion toward males in general, unless you bring home a paycheck and unless you have a worldview based on self-indulgence with never a notion of sacrifice, you as a woman are really diminished in worth, sexual self-restraint or restraint of just your own female pride should be avoided at all costs.

Beck: Sen. Paul's Filibuster Is the Birth of 'a Historic Movement'

It is no secret that Glenn Beck fancies himself as some sort of historical soothsayer capable of seeing parallels between the past and what is happening today in order to make predictions about the future.  

On last night's program, Beck proclaimed that Sen. Rand Paul's filibuster last week the modern day equivalent of Sen. Charles Sumner's 1856 "Crime against Kansas" speech, which resulted in him nearly being beaten to death on the Senate floor. Likening the criticism Paul received from Senators like Lindsey Graham and John McCain to the savage beating Sumner received, Beck went on to declare that just as the Republican Party went from nonexistence in 1854 to capturing control of Congress and the White House by 1860, Paul's filibuster would one day be seen by future historians as a watershed moment and predicting that they "will look back in a hundred years and say 'this speech ignited a global freedom movement'" that eventually won the White House.

"You were here to hear the heartbeat when the Tea Party started," Beck declared. "And last week, you witnessed the birth":

Fischer: Marriage Equality Is Really 'Inequality Under the Law'

Bryan Fischer is a big fan of the line of argumentation that gays already have full marriage equality because they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.

He reiterated this argument on his radio program today, adding that gay marriage is really "inequality under the law" because it grants to gay couples "a special carve-out for themselves that is not available to pedophiles and polygamists" and others who "engage in sexually abnormal behavior":

Focus Guest: Gays Needs to Be Told That 'Marriage is Not in the Cards for You'

Just last week, the New York Times ran a profile of a new 'kinder and gentler' Focus on the Family under current president Jim Daly who purports to be trying to change the tone of the debates over contentious issues like abortion and marriage equality while defending his conservative Christian positions on such issues.

Daly operates under the impression that so long as he approaches these debates in a gentle, thoughtful, and prayerful manner, he can open others up to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, make converts, and ultimately win people over to his side of the argument.

Today, on Focus on the Family's radio program, Daly and co-host John Fuller welcomed George Mason University Law School professor Helen Alvare onto the program to discuss "The Erosion of Marriage in America," which Alavre blamed on everything from no-fault divorce to the practice of in vitro fertilization.

And while Daly, Fuller, and Alvare were all very careful to continually insist that they were speaking out of love and respect, when it gets down to it, Alvare said, it is ridiculous to think that the Constitution contains any sort of right to marriage equality and so the state simply needs to tell gay couples that "marriage is not in the cards for you":

I don't think that the Supreme Court wants to live through another forty years of post-bad decision making like they did with Roe v. Wade. There is no question that Constitution does not textually have a right to same-sex marriage.  There is no question that it has been banned - you know, we only have a few states allowing it now.  To say that it's a constitutional right would be ridiculous and I don't think they want to be fighting over it for the next forty years.

There is a reason why, pre-Christianity as well as today, the community of citizens has always understood that there is something different about what a man and a woman do when they are romantically interested together and that naturally leads them to say I want you for my whole life.  The fact that this natural connection, older than Christianity, leads to children; the fact that children seem to need, empirically speaking, a mother and a father is why whatever the state wants to say to gay and lesbian citizens - and hopefully they say we love you and we're not going to discriminate against you - they cannot say what you do and what opposite sex couples do has the same intrinsic outcomes and therefore interest of the state.  It simply is not commensurate.

We can also say one final thing, which is when the state is tempted to say this, what you do, opposite sex couple, and what a same-sex couple does, which they can talk about a long-term emotional commitment  that we have seen if we reduce marriage to people's emotional feelings, we get more divorce, we get less marriage, we get more children outside of marriage and the poor pay more.  We don't have to speculate about this any more, we have seen it.  There has been a horrid natural experiment in our country; we know what we are talking about.

We love you.  We won't discriminate against you as gay and lesbian persons, God willing, in the future. But marriage is not in the cards for you.

This seems to pretty well sum up the new approach from Focus on the Family, which is to insist that gays are loved and respected and should not be discriminated against ... but that they just shouldn't ever be allowed to get married.

Pat Robertson's Million Dollar Prayer Totally Worked!

We’re sorry to report that unless you are a certain Texas businessman, you are not the winner of the million dollar gift from God that Pat Robertson spoke into existence last month on the 700 Club. Robertson reported today that he “talked to a businessman a couple of days ago” who got a million-dollar check from BP shortly after Robertson announced that God would “supply a million dollars” to a 700 Club viewer. “His income went down at a particular point of time in the Gulf and they were paying off everybody who had a dip in income, just gave him a check,” Robertson explained.

But this mystery check from BP that Robertson prophesied just may be related to the fact that BP is handing out checks to businesses near the Gulf of Mexico as part of the compensation deal the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Watch:

Harvey: Church Must Fight Against Homosexuality Like Slavery

On her daily radio bulletin today, Mission America’s Linda Harvey argued that “homosexuality is ripping apart people’s lives and families” and must be challenged in the same way people like William Wilberforce and other abolitionists fought against slavery. She warns that too many churches are avoiding topics like homosexuality and urges them to hear stories about “the destructive effects of homosexual behavior.”

Many of us watch in dismay as younger and younger children are told that homosexuality is a right for some people. Our church youth groups are busy with paintball and trips to amusement parks but doing relatively little to equip our children to apply the word of God to this current debate. How corrupted do children have to get before adults will cry out and say: no more. I hear people saying, ‘well we don’t want to get into politics.’ Strangely that objection is only raised when the subject is abortion or homosexuality, yet there is nothing wrong with Christians and even churches getting involved in a political issue, people of conviction do it all the time. Hundreds of the more liberal churches are very outspoken about how to use government dollars for entitlement programs, for instance. Abolishing slavery, wasn’t that politics? Didn’t Christians like William Wilberforce rise up and fight in the political realm two centuries ago to do what was right? They were called extremists then too. But actually no, this is not only about politics. Homosexuality is ripping apart people’s lives and families. I can’t tell you how many sad tales I’ve heard from people who’ve seen the destructive effects of homosexual behavior in the life of a son, a daughter, a brother or a sister. The first battleground of ideas is one’s own mind. We need to equip our kids to stand firm in their convictions and know how to defend them.

Fischer: 'This Is How Tyranny Comes'

The American Family Association's radio programs have been a repository of conspiracy theories about how the Obama Administration is supposedly plotting to wage war against the American population.  And that trend continued last Friday as Bryan Fischer warned that the United States was headed into tyranny because "we're not that far away from having an armed federal military-style presence in the streets of our cities" as the Department of Homeland Security stockpiles weapons, vehicles, and ammunition to be used again any who dare to resist this military force:

How Cindy Jacobs' Prayers May Have Saved David Barton's Life

We already know that Cindy Jacobs' prayers have stopped terrorism and saved the global economy, but on the latest episode of "God Knows" she revealed how her prayers may have saved David Barton's life.

Apparently, several years ago Barton and his family were driving to Florida when Jacobs received a dream from God ordering her to start praying that the wheels on the Barton's van would not fall off.  She immediately did so and when the Bartons arrived at their destination, she told them of her dream and David and Cindy's husband Mike took the van to a local mechanic who told them that the bearings were completely worn away and "there is absolutely no reason why your wheel should not have come off the axle."

As Cindy explained, "God had given a word for David" that he was going to use him to rewrite school curriculum standards throughout the nation, but "Satan was trying to resist him," but her intercessory prayers prevented that from happening:

FRC's Peter Sprigg Suggests Kidnapping Laws Shouldn't Protect Gay Parents

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins hosted senior fellow Peter Sprigg on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss the sentencing of pastor Kenneth Miller for aiding Lisa Miller (no relation), who kidnapped her daughter, Isabella Miller-Jenkins. Perkins recently praised Kenneth Miller’s “courage” in aiding the kidnapping scheme.

Lisa Miller disobeyed a court decision that gave Isabella’s other mother, her former partner Janet Jenkins, visitation rights and, as a result, the courts eventually transferred custody to Jenkins. Miller then fled the country with Isabella to a Mennonite compound in Central America.

Sprigg told Perkins that Jenkins, who was in a civil union with Miller at the time of Isabella’s birth, should not be considered Isabella’s parent because she is not biologically related and therefore shouldn’t be protected by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. According to Sprigg, paternity and kidnapping laws should only apply to heterosexual couples.

In normal marriage between a man and a woman the presumption of paternity was a presumption of something that is almost always true. But the Vermont court, which has allowed these civil unions, granted them all the legal rights of marriage, has converted that into a presumption of parentage whereby you are presuming something that cannot be true, something that is biologically impossible. That just shows how in the same-sex marriage debate we are flipping logic on its head.

And another aspect of this is that the law that Lisa ran afoul of and that Kenneth Miller, this pastor, ran afoul of is something called the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. It was designed again normally for the context of heterosexual marriages that break up, where there is a divorce and perhaps a custody battle between two parents who are both the biological parents — the biological mother and the biological father — who have divorced each other and it’s designed to prevent someone from taking a child and crossing state lines to another jurisdiction in order to get a more favorable court ruling. So the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act was designed to protect the rights of a biological parent so that they cannot have their rights violated by the other biological parent. But here you have the rights of the biological parent being violated by someone who is not the biological parent at all. So again, the original purposes of these laws are being turned on their head in this case.

Erik Rush: There Is a 50% Chance Obama Will Cancel the 2016 Elections and Become a Dictator

Over the last several months, conservative commentator Erik Rush has been warning that President Obama is intent on becoming a dictator who will unleash a Gestapo-like force on the nation while sparking civil unrest so he can cancel future elections.

Last night, Alan Colmes invited Rush onto his radio program to defend his paranoid conspiracy theories, which Rush did with gusto, telling Colmes that he truly believes that America is on the verge of becoming a Nazi-like state where citizens are rounded-up and forced into cattle cars and that there is a fifty percent chance that Obama will seek to foment some sort of cataclysm so he can implement martial law, cancel the 2016 election, and stay in power indefinitely:

You can watch Colmes' entire conversation with Rush below:

Charisma: Laws Protecting Gays from Domestic Violence Part of Anti-God Agenda

Charisma news editor Jennifer LeClaire, who has warned about the perils of gay demon rape and superheroes, today is upset that the reauthorized version of the Violence Against Women Act included LGBT protections.

She claims that President Obama “will stop at nothing to push the gay agenda down our throats,” urging people to ask God to “help us push back the wickedness that’s pushing against His kingdom on earth.”

Women everywhere celebrated when President Barack Obama reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act on Thursday. The landmark 1994 law aims to curb domestic abuse. But Obama snuck the gay agenda into the mix.

“All persons must be protected from violence, but codifying the classifications ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ as contained in S. 47 is problematic,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote. “These two classifications are unnecessary to establish the just protections due to all persons. They undermine the meaning and importance of sexual difference.”



President Obama is proving that in his second term he will stop at nothing to push the gay agenda down our throats despite a family-friendly stance during his first presidential campaign. Now, President Bill Clinton is helping him, writing a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court suggesting the anti-gay marriage bill he signed into law in 1996 is unconstitutional and should be overturned.

You might expect politicians to waffle on issues where new research becomes available to enlighten us. Even preachers get new revelation on old truths that changes the way they look at Scripture. But it’s troubling when a president’s core values change in a matter of a few years from standing against gay marriage to doing everything in his political power to force the minority view on the majority who stand for traditional values, even going so far as to piggyback the agenda on an issue with widespread support (violence against women).

Continue to pray for our president. The Bible says a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways (see James 1:8). Some may say that our president isn’t double-minded at all, that he always planned to push the gay agenda during his second term. Only God knows. And only God can help us push back the wickedness that’s pushing against His kingdom on earth. Don’t stop praying. And don’t stop speaking out. Amen.

Wiles: 'Gay Rights Fanatics' Are 'Going to Get Us All Killed'

A few weeks ago, we started listening to Rick Wiles' "Trunews" radio program because we discovered that he regularly interviews a variety of Religious Right activists that we monitor here.  But since then, we've begun listening just because his show - "the only newscast reporting the countdown to the second coming of Jesus Christ" - is also a cavalcade of insanity.

And yesterday's program was no exception, as Wiles' grew increasingly worked up about North Korea's latest threat against the United States, which he blamed on "gay rights fanatics":

Let me remind the gay rights fanatics, North Korea plans to send a nuclear warhead our way.  There's a terrible price to pay for outright rebellion against the Holy God of Israel and your sins are going to get us all killed.

Elsewhere in the program, Wiles declared that the "Fast and the Furious" scandal is part of an effort by the Obama administration to arm Mexican gangs who will then wage war on Texas and Arizona while the administration stockpiles ammunition to supply "Obama's commie army":

The violent El Salvador street gang MS-13, they've gotten their hands on rocket-propelled grenade launchers, light anti-tank weapons, and AK-47s.  MS-13 has also linked up with Mexico's drug cartel The Zetas.

So why do you think that Barry Soetoro, that communist who goes by the name Barack Obama and his sidekick Eric Holder, were shipping thousands of weapons to Mexico in the Operation Fast and Furious scandal?  I've said all along this was about arming revolutionary gangs in Mexico to wage war in Texas and Arizona.  When the full communist revolution gets underway, why do you think Homeland Security is stockpiling billions of rounds of hollow point ammo? It's not to protect you and me.  They're setting up ammo depots for Obama's commie army.

LaBarbera: 'How Do Two Guys Consummate Their Marriage? Yuck.'

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality president Peter LaBarbera appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to discuss the prospects of the Illinois marriage equality bill, or as he called it, “homosexual so-called marriage.” LaBarbera argued that same-sex couples cannot truly be married because they can never consummate the marriage: “If you want to just think of how wrong homosexual so-called marriage is just ask yourself: how do two guys consummate their marriage? Yuck.”

Later, he lamented that soon gay and lesbian teachers may be able to talk about their marriages in school just as a “normal heterosexual married person could.”

LaBarbera: If you want to just think of how wrong homosexual so-called marriage is just ask yourself: how do two guys consummate their marriage? Yuck.

Mefferd: I’m sure they don’t like that question, Peter.

LaBarbera: Yes, they don’t like it and it’s because it’s absurd. The whole concept is absurd. It’s not marriage. You know one angle that I’m going to be writing about Janet is if you’ve got homosexual so-called marriage legalized you’re going to end up teaching gay sex-ed, there is no way around it.



LaBarbera: I believe it was on NPR in Boston after homosexual so-called marriage was legalized there, or forced by the courts, one I believe it was a teacher who said she was emboldened to talk more frankly about homosexuality in the schools in Massachusetts. Think about it, if a teacher is so-called married, say a guy, a male teacher is married to another man, so-called because of course it’s not really marriage, he gets to talk about that marriage in the classroom just as a normal heterosexual married person could talk about — you know a man could talk about his wife.

Fischer: Just Like Judas, Liberals and Obama Don't Care About the Poor

As he normally does, Bryan Fischer began his program today with a reading and discussion from the Bible; in this case the story of Jesus being anointed at Bethany in Matthew 26:

Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.”

But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

Even though the passage says "the disciples" were indignant, Fischer asserted that is was really only Judas who was upset because he was greedy and didn't care about the poor ... just like President Obama and liberals today:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious