C3

Fischer: Obama Is a Tyrant Who Would Launch Drone Strikes Against the Tea Party

Yesterday, as Sen. Rand Paul was conducting a filibuster over the Obama administration's assertion that there could possibly be hypothetical "extraordinary circumstance" under which it would be necessary for the President to authorize the use of military force or drone strike against US citizens within the United States, Bryan Fischer dedicated a segment of his program to praising Paul for his stance.

In Fischer's view, Paul's filibuster was important because President Obama is a tyrant who does not want to allow anyone who disagrees with him to express their views and so, "based on the way the administration is crafting their policy here about the use of drones, you've got to be concerned that something you might say at a Tea Party would be used as an excuse" to launched a drone strike against your house:

Glenn Beck Is Under Attack From the Forces of Darkness

On his radio program today, Glenn Beck declared that we have witnessed "the death knell of the American Constitution" because Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Sen. Rand Paul saying that there could possibly be hypothetical "extraordinary circumstance" under which it would be necessary for the President to authorize the use of military force within the United States, perhaps to stop attacks like Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

That somehow morphed into a revelation by Beck that he and his inner circle have recently come under spiritual and physical attack by the forces of darkness, which made him realize that "we're not fighting man" and "that something is on the horizon." 

"We are headed for a great depression," he went on to declare, "and we are headed for civil unrest, and we are headed for things that you never thought was possible in your country."

"Remember the Japanese internment," he continued, because "progressives and collective thinking always - hear me - always goes wrong":

Glenn Beck At His Finest

It doesn't even seem possible, but every day Glenn Beck manages to go further and further off the deep end and there appears to be no end in sight.  For example, last night he grew increasingly overwhelmed by his fear that "collectivism" is taking over this nation; so much so that he eventually ended up on his knees on the floor of his studio, providing imaginary medical aid with an American flag blanket to a mortally wounded Lady Liberty in a desperate attempt to save America ... before begging his viewers to remove their children from public schools because "they're indoctrination camps":

Robertson Lashes Out at 'Doctrinaire' Environmentalist 'Fanatics'

Televangelist Pat Robertson is joining other conservatives in attacking Gina McCarthy, President Obama’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. After criticizing climate change scientists as “nutty” and “true believer” ideologues last month, Robertson once again engaged in projection today on the 700 Club as he warned that environmentalist “crazies” are “unreasonable” religious “fanatics” who are too “doctrinaire.”

Watch:

Fischer: Liberal 'Secular Fundamentalists' Are The 'American Taliban'

As we have noted several times before, Bryan Fischer may be a lot of things, but self-aware is not one of them.

Just last week, Fischer declared, utterly without irony, that liberals are the modern-day Pharisees,  And yesterday he followed that up with a declaration that not only are "secular fundamentalists" modern-day Pharisees, but they are also "the American Taliban":

Farah: Evolution and Environmentalism to blame for Increase in Suicide Rate

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah cites a new study which found that “suicide has overtaken traffic accidents as the leading cause of injury deaths in the U.S.” and blames it on the fact that public schools teach evolution, environmental science and comprehensive sex-education.

He argued that the suicide rate has increased as a result of schools teaching children “promiscuous sex,” “that human beings are merely the result of billions of years of evolution” and that the earth “would be better off without us.”

Farah also seems to imply that it is no coincidence that the rise in the suicide rate occurred in Obama’s first year in office. However, the study noted that “the suicide rate rose 15 percent over the past decade,” well before Obama took office.

Guns don’t kill people. People kill themselves.

That’s the story from the American Journal of Public Health, which reports that since Barack Obama was sworn in as president in 2009, the leading cause of death in America has been suicide.



I believe the trend reflects a deep and growing spiritual emptiness in a culture that is more depraved and sinful than at any time in its history.

Too many people just don’t find any meaning in life.

Think about it.

We are told from the youngest age in state-run schools that human beings are merely the result of billions of years of evolution from lower life forms and random mutations. There is no Creator God who loves us and to whom we are accountable. There are no laws higher than those government imposes on us – no sin, no ultimate, objective moral code. In fact, human beings are a blight on the planet. It would be better off without us – or at least with a lot fewer of us polluting the air with carbon dioxide and overheating the Earth.

Do I have that about right?

Furthermore, in those same government schools, prayer and Bible reading are prohibited, but explicit instructions on how to have promiscuous sex without consequences is mandated.

Abortion is subsidized, while adoption is prohibitively expensive – in the unlikely event you can find a child to adopt.

Increasingly, the state is sticking its nose into what we eat, what we say, how we raise our children – even our thoughts.

Government is fine with pornography. But purity and abstinence are discouraged.

In other words, right is wrong, up is down, black is white and left is right.

And we sit here and wonder why people are killing themselves.

Beck: Gun Control Is an Effort to Impose Slavery

Last night's Glenn Beck Program kicked off with twenty five minutes of paranoid raving from Beck about how the federal government is stockpiling armored vehicles and billions of rounds of ammunition because "they know something we don't know," by which he presumably meant that President Obama is preparing to foment a civil war.

In fact, according to Beck, these developments are part of the administration's effort to impose gun control on the nation by buying up all of the ammunition to make it impossible for American citizens to obtain any, which is itself apparently part of an even larger conspiracy to re-institute slavery:

Klayman: 'Obama and His White Slaves' Are Inciting Race War

Larry Klayman is out with another column calling President Obama an anti-Semitic Muslim dictator, this time warning that President Obama is deliberately inciting a race war. He argues that Obama sees tax increases on top earners as an effort to “make whitey pay his fair share of ‘reparations’ to blacks” as “Obama's constant derogatory references to the "rich" are mostly just a "politically correct" euphemism for ‘whitey.’”

Klayman claims “Obama and his ‘white slaves’ in The White House, like his embarrassing boy press secretary Jay Carney” have pushed “attacks on whites” and “provoked this burgeoning race war.”

“Put Obama's Muslim identification, his anti-Semitism and his pounding of rich whites together and you have a certified, and highly dangerous Black Muslim in The White House – ala (pun intended) Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan,” he said.

In earlier columns, the Judicial Watch founder maintained that Obama wants to make conservatives “become the ‘new niggers’” and promoted armed resistance.

But Obama's scorn goes far wider than just the religion and ethnicity of Jews and Christians. Particularly apparent since his last fraudulent election to the Office of the President in 2012, it has also become crystal clear that he simply hates people of the white race, even though he is one half white himself.

During the campaign he constantly berated Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as the nominee of the rich, vowing to make the rich pay their fair share in taxes and other socio-economic forms of "reparations" during his second term. And, in just the last few months since his reelection, Obama and his Democrat enablers and lackeys in Congress have moved arrogantly and aggressively to make good on his promise – and he has done so with a vengeance. Obama's constant derogatory references to the "rich" are mostly just a "politically correct" euphemism for "whitey," just as attacks by anti-Semites, of which Obama is also one, frequently are leveled against Israel, in order to mask their hatred of the true target, Jews themselves. In short, making "whitey" pay his "fair share" has become a constant drum beat of Obama and his "white slaves" in The White House, like his embarrassing boy press secretary Jay Carney.

Put Obama's Muslim identification, his anti-Semitism and his pounding of rich whites together and you have a certified, and highly dangerous Black Muslim in The White House – ala (pun intended) Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan.

That whites have come to believe that Obama truly hates them is becoming apparent even in the mainstream media. During a recent broadcast of Fox News' "The Five," former President George W. Bush's press secretary Dana Perino, a Washington establishment figure if their ever was one (she was appointed to the Board of Directors of government owned Voice of America), stated clearly that she believes that Obama does not like people like her. Bill O'Reilly has expressed similar sentiments of late, referring to Obama's dislike of "traditional Americans." While O'Reilly's comment was also racist and offensive (since what qualifies as a "traditional American" other than a white person?), it underscores how Obama is increasing stoking and provoking anger among whites with his attacks on them, economically and socially. But this media backlash against Obama's attacks on whites has not stopped with political commentators on Fox News, but has now extended to even the likes of the well respected liberal investigative journalist Bob Woodward.



This explains why Woodward has been among the first of liberal journalists to call it like it is and "out" Obama and his White House for threatening him over his reporting of the on-going "sequester" crisis – which Woodward revealed was the brainchild of the president. Other white journalists on the left then followed suit and revealed that they too had been threatened over even their infrequent criticism of Obama. While one can argue that this backlash against Obama was "on the merits" of the looming sequester disaster, the very fact that the left is now coming forward to challenge Obama, shows that much more in play here. Like Dana Perino, I believe that even these liberal reporters have come to see that Obama does not like them and fear his latent racism toward whites, which they likely have come to deeply resent. As has been Obama's mantra, the sequester debate has been couched by the president and his minions as an economic disaster that would hurt his lower and middle income persons many of whom are black or of mixed race, at the expense of the rich. This is why Obama now wants to use his presidential leverage to negotiate a deal with Republicans to again raise taxes on the rich – in effect to again make whitey pay his fair share of "reparations" to blacks.

It is very sad and frightening that Obama has provoked this burgeoning race war. The nation, divided unlike any time since the Civil War, is about to explode in anger – primarily pitting black against white and vice versa.

PFAWF’s African American Ministers Leadership Council Submits Amicus Briefs in Marriage Equality Cases

Last week the Equal Justice Task Force of the African American Ministers Leadership Council, a program of People For the American Way Foundation, joined with a broad coalition of organizations in filing amicus briefs for the marriage equality cases being considered by the Supreme Court.  These cases – Hollingsworth v. Perry, which challenges California’s Proposition 8, and Windsor v. U.S., which challenges Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – represent landmark opportunities for our nation to move toward making marriage equality a reality for all Americans. 

“As African American faith leaders, we feel it is our responsibility to question hatred and discrimination wherever it happens – and especially in our laws,” said Minister Leslie Watson Malachi, Director of the African American Ministers Leadership Council. “Laws singling out and preventing same-sex couples from getting married are blatantly discriminatory and they hurt our communities. These amicus briefs voice our support for equal rights and equal justice for all of God’s children.”

The amicus brief for the Hollingsworth case, a continuation of the 2010 brief PFAW Foundation submitted when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case, exposes the discriminatory nature of the supposedly “moral” rationales for Proposition 8:

This Court has refused for three-quarters of a century to uphold laws disfavoring minority groups based on religious or moral disapproval alone—with the one, now-discredited exception of Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). And for good reason: Time and again throughout our nation’s history, laws that disadvantaged or degraded particular groups have been justified by resort to morality and religion. And time and again, our society has come to see those laws as repugnant, and the religious and moral disapproval justifying them as little more than a means to enshrine the status quo.


Likewise, the amicus brief for the Windsor case points out:

This Court has long implicitly acknowledged the connection between religious justifications and the Equal Protection guarantee. The Court’s decision overturning Virginia’s law forbidding marriage between persons of different races is illustrative. In Loving v. Virginia, the Court dismissed the Virginia trial judge’s proffered religious-based rationale, which cited God’s hand in creating different races, recognizing instead that “[t]here is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.” 388 U.S. 1, 11 (1967). Ultimately, the Court recognized that the anti-miscegenation law served no secular purpose, and was based on nothing more than racial discrimination—even if disguised as a moral or religious belief.


As these briefs highlight, discrimination – even if cloaked in the language of religious or moral beliefs – is still discrimination.

PFAW Foundation

Barber: 'This Transgender Notion Is Absolute Absurdity'

The Religious Right has been predictably outraged over a new transgender-inclusive policy in Massachusetts that is designed to prevent gender identity-discrimination in schools and so it was only a matter of time before Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber weighed in, which he did on a recent radio program where he compared being transgender to a Caucasian child deciding that he is really an Asian child or a person deciding that they are a horse and wanting to run in the Kentucky Derby.

"The [LGBT] chain is only as strong as the weakest link," Barber declared, and "this transgender notion is absolute absurdity.  It's a weak chain to begin with, but it's the weakest link in this LGBT alphabet soup of nonsense":

Is this really the sort of bigoted rhetoric with which Tim Tebow wishes to associate himself?

Tim Tebow Scheduled to Address another Anti-Gay Venue: Liberty University

Recently, New York Jets backup quarterback Tim Tebow pulled out of a scheduled appearance at Robert Jeffress’ megachurch “due to new information” he received regarding Jeffress' view. While he never specified what the “new information” was, Tebow was almost certainly referring to Jeffress’ virulent attacks on gays and lesbians, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam and President Obama.

Yet just weeks after withdrawing from speaking at Jeffress's church, Tebow is now set to address Liberty University later this month at a conference geared towards men’s issues in a speech that is closed to the public.

The school was founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell — it is now run by his son — who has blamed gays and liberals for the September 11 attacks, supported racist laws in the U.S. and abroad and attacked the Teletubbies for “modeling the gay life style.”

Liberty University bans gay students and shut down its College Democrats chapter over the party’s views on gay rights. The university has hosted multiple anti-gay conferences and their law school is being sued over its alleged role in helping Lisa Miller disobey a court order and kidnap her daughter to Central America in order to avoid transferring custody to the girl's other mother, her former partner.

Liberty University’s Vice President and law school dean Mathew Staver has defended the criminalization of homosexuality in Malawi, promoted the dangerous ex-gay therapy and warned that President Obama supports “forced homosexuality.” Furthermore, Staver has claimed that gay rights laws are part of an Antichrist spirit that lead to crime, child molestation and death, along with the destruction of America.

Staver’s fellow Liberty University dean Matt Barber has defended a Nigerian law outlawing homosexual relationships, described the gay rights movement as “Satanic,” claimed that gay youth who committed suicide took their own lives because they “know what they are doing is unnatural,” accused gay rights advocates of supporting pedophilia (along with fascism and Communism) and defined homosexuality as “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” He has also maintained that liberals are like Baal worshippers who hate God and are working with Islamists to destroy Christianity and that Obama should be impeached for backing same-sex domestic partner benefits.

Another professor, Rena Lindevaldsen, has claimed that Satan makes people gay and is behind the LGBT rights movement .

If Jeffress’ anti-gay remarks were too extreme for Tebow, they pale in comparison to the things regularly said by representatives of Liberty University.

Perhaps it is time for Tebow to take another look at some of this “new information” about Liberty.

False Inconsistency: Jerry Boykin, VAWA, and Women in Combat

The Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin was the guest on "WallBuilders Live" today for a discussion of the Pentagon's recent decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat.  Not surprisingly, Boykin opposes the idea, wondering why the Obama Administration would approve this change even as Congress was working to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, claiming "there is such an inconsistency here":

The Congress, the Senate at least, passed the Violence Against Women Act which was designed to protect our women. Now it had some flaws in it, so we don't support it ... but it's violence against women, protect our women.

Now with this decision by Leon Panetta and the President, what we're doing is we're saying 'now you ladies, fix your bayonets, we're going to send you right into hand-to-hand combat with these men that are physically more capable than you in most cases and they're going to try to kill you.'  There is such an inconsistency here.

Fischer: African Americans Should Oppose Immigration Reform 'If They Are Thinking Logically, Clearly, and Rationally'

On Friday's radio program, Bryan Fischer attempted to make that case that African Americans ought to be opposed to any effort to reform the nation's immigration laws and grant a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally.

In Fischer's view, immigrants take the low-wage, low-skill jobs that African Americans need "to get their foot on the bottom rung of the ladder of success" and so "if they are thinking logically, clearly, and rationally, they should be the most adamant that we need to secure our borders, that we cannot provide these people a pathway to citizenship, it's just rewarding the breaking of the law, because it is damaging, it is harming the African American community":

Perkins: LGBT-Inclusive Schools Will Have 'Teenage Boys Invading Girls' Locker Rooms'

Conservative activists are in an uproar over a new transgender-inclusive policy in Massachusetts [PDF] designed to prevent gender identity-discrimination in schools. Today, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council added his voice, arguing that Massachusetts schools will soon see “teenage boys invading girls’ locker rooms.” He blamed the new policy on the 2004 legalization of same-sex marriage in the state, which he said led to “the fundamental altering of society,” and called on parents “to protect your kids from a fate like Massachusetts’s” by opposing marriage equality.

If there's one subject giving Massachusetts schools trouble, it's anatomy! Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. In kindergarten classes, learning about genders won't be the problem--but ignoring them might be! Under a new statewide directive, Massachusetts officials are rolling out the welcome mat to cross-dressing students by banning everything from gender-based sports teams to sex-specific bathrooms. And anyone who doesn't like it had better keep quiet--or else. If a student so much as refers to a peer by their biological sex, it's "grounds for discipline." And people wonder why families are pulling their children out of public school! Maybe, you've fallen for the lie that same-sex marriage won't affect you. Well, it may take teenage boys invading girls' locker rooms to prove it. Redefining marriage is about a lot more than two people who love each other. This is about the fundamental altering of society. If you want to protect your kids from a fate like Massachusetts's, it starts by defending marriage now.

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/1/13

  • For all you thespians out there, Tea Party Patriots wants you to star in their latest movie as someone either standing “in line at the Food Distribution Center to receive your ration of food” or witnessing “SWAT team arrests some member of the resistance who are protesting the big government control.”
  • Rick Scarborough of Vision America is angry that “we’ve got an administration that has progressed at lightning speed to an all-out militant assault on marriage.” 
  • Family Research Council is thrilled that Rick Perry and Texas Republican lawmakers have called on the Boy Scouts of America not to lift its ban on gays.
  • Jeffrey Kuhner of the Washington Times argues that Obama is a weak president who is “asleep at the wheel” while at the same time a powerful “socialist autocrat.”
  • Alan Keyes warns American elites will not be satisfied “until all are burning in the lake of fire, nourished with bitter ashes.”  

Fischer: Impeach Obama over DOMA; Government Should Campaign Against Homosexuality

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is out with a column today arguing that President Obama “committed an impeachable offense” in his handling of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and that homosexuality is “self-destructive.”

Fischer also recycled his usual claims that gays should be treated like cigarette smokers and intravenous drug users, arguing that “We should no more normalize homosexual conduct, let alone homosexual marriage, than to normalize shooting up with needles.”

He even envisioned a government campaign against homosexuality based on smoking-prevention efforts: “We have spent billions of dollars urging children not to take up cigarette smoking because of its harm to human health. We should be making the same effort persuading children and adults not to start engaging in homosexual conduct, and if they have started, helping them to stop.”

The case against same-sex marriage is simple and straightforward: it’s contrary to the laws of nature and nature’s God, it’s enormously destructive to human health, and it’s bad for kids.

The president is now openly pledged to fight against natural marriage in court, by arguing against California’s Proposition 8. He has also committed an impeachable offense by refusing to defend DOMA in court, even though it is one of the laws of the land he took an oath to “execute faithfully.”

Since the president himself has abandoned his moral and constitutional duty and thrown his considerable weight behind counterfeit marriage based on the infamous crime against nature, it’s important for the American people to think clearly about marriage and be able to defend it in conversation and in the public square.



Second, homosexual conduct is contrary to the “laws of Nature,” to use the Founders’ phrasing, and is devastating to human health. Whether you believe in evolution or in creation, as I do, homosexual behavior puts the human body to sexual uses for which it clearly was not designed.

Homosexual sex is not behavior that any rational society should endorse, promote, normalize, or protect in law. Calling relationships “marriages” that are based on the act of sodomy, which was a felony everywhere in America for the first 255 years of our existence, gives society’s ultimate stamp of approval to behavior that is self-destructive, destroys human health, and shortens life. This is obviously short-sighted and callous public policy.

The CDC informs us that over 90% of all men who have ever been diagnosed with HIV-AIDS contracted it through having sex with other men (61%), intravenous drug abuse (21%), or both (9%). Homosexual conduct thus is even more of a risk to human health than intravenous drug injection. We should no more normalize homosexual conduct, let alone homosexual marriage, than to normalize shooting up with needles.

We have spent billions of dollars urging children not to take up cigarette smoking because of its harm to human health. We should be making the same effort persuading children and adults not to start engaging in homosexual conduct, and if they have started, helping them to stop.

CWA: Marriage Equality 'Will Mean the Destruction of Freedom and Liberty'

Mario Diaz of Concerned Women for America promoted the upcoming Marriage March by warning that gay rights advocates seek to “silence” opponents and that marriage equality “will mean the destruction of freedom and liberty.”

We want people who love God and His principles and who are aware of what the attack on traditional marriage will do to come out and stand up for marriage and for God’s principles and to send a message to the Supreme Court and to other people that we will not be silenced because that is the intent and the strategy of the other side to silence those of us who stand up for the traditional view of marriage.



With truth on our side we most definitely can make sure that our children’s future is protected, God can do it. I know that conventional wisdom says out there that we are losing this fight and there is no use in fighting anymore but we don’t have that luxury. We believe that the destruction of this institution established by God will mean the destruction of freedom and liberty. We must stand and we will on March 26, we hope you can be here with us.

Robertson: Liberals Use Schools like Gulags to 'Indoctrinate' Youth

Pat Robertson reacted to the news that Chicago public schools will teach kindergarteners “the basics about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety” by claiming it is “one more of the liberal initiatives to force their point of view” on others.

“You see we believe in America, in freedom, in free choice, free enterprise, freedom; but the liberals, the progressives so-called, they want to enforce their point of view and have people in lockstep accepting what they want,” Robertson said.

He then went on to say that liberals are using public schools just like Communists in Russia and China used prison camps: “If people won’t accept it, the Russians were willing to put them in gulags; the Chinese have been willing to put them in prisons. Here in America, the liberals think they’ve got them in school and they want to indoctrinate them and force them into a mindset that is contrary to what their parents believe.”

Watch:

Turek: Ban Gay Marriage Because We Can't All Be Police Officers

The fervently anti-gay writer Frank Turek takes to Townhall today to present an interesting analogy. Turke argues that when gays and lesbians advocate for marriage equality, they are being just as unreasonable as someone who “can’t qualify to become a police officer” protesting “when the government pays other people to be police officers.” He goes on to say that gays and lesbians can “simply marry someone of the opposite sex” and that the legalization of same-sex marriage will harm children and cause Americans to “lose the freedom of speech.”

Of course, the argument that gays and lesbians already have marriage equality because they could just marry a person of a different gender was the same claim made by supporters of anti-miscegenation laws who asserted that interracial marriage was unnatural and that people already have the same right to marry someone of their race.

Here’s why promoting natural marriage exclusively does not deny anyone equal rights.

First, everyone has the same equal right to marry a qualified person of the opposite sex. That law treats every man and woman equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. Same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn’t. Promoting one behavior does not deny rights to people who don’t engage in that behavior.

An analogy may help clarify this point. Like marriage, the government promotes police work by paying people to become police officers because police do much good for society. But if you can’t qualify to become a police officer, or if you choose another vocation, your rights are not being violated when the government pays other people to be police officers. All people, regardless of their vocation, experience the benefits of police, just like all people, regardless of their marriage status, experience the benefits of natural marriage.



Some will ignore those biological realities and object, “But men and women are the same so there’s no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships!” If that were true, no one would be arguing for same-sex marriage. The very fact people demand same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different. If men and women were the same, no one would be spending time and energy trying to get same-sex marriage approved. They would simply marry someone of the opposite sex—which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex—and be done with it.



Now, I am not suggesting that a law would fully achieve either, but only to point out that natural and same-sex marriage should not be legally or culturally equated. The truth is homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. We hurt everyone, especially children, by pretending otherwise.

Finally, as jurisdictions with same-sex marriage show us, people lose their freedoms of speech, association, religion and even parenting due to the imposition of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, for example, parents now have no right to even know when their kids as young as kindergarten are being taught about homosexuality, much less opt out of it; business owners must now provide benefits to same-sex couples, and they can be fined for declining to provide services at homosexual weddings; Catholic charities were forced to close and leave Massachusetts and Washington D.C. because both governments mandated that all adoption agencies had to provide children to homosexuals. So much for freedom of religion! And in Canada, same-sex marriage has led to such a chilling restriction on speech, that my speech here today could get me fined or jailed if given there.

To sum up, the government already permits homosexual relationships, but promoting them by equating them with married heterosexual relationships ignores the facts of nature, the needs of children and the health of society. While people with different sexual attractions are equal, not all behaviors are equally beneficial. True equality treats equal behaviors equally. It doesn’t demand that different behaviors be treated the same.

One Death Is Too Many: Why We Need Gun Violence Prevention Reforms

By Jamira Burley

Alumna, PFAW Foundation's Young People For Program

Eight years ago, in 2005, I was just a normal high school student. I faced my share of adversity, but nothing I thought I couldn't handle -- even after the repeat incarcerations of both my parents and all 10 of my older brothers. That is, until I received a phone call that changed not only the way I viewed the world, but also my place within it.

My 20-year-old brother Andre was shot and killed one month before his 21st birthday. His death devastated my family and still continues to hold a dark shadow over our lives today.

What continues to surprise and sadden me to this day is the fact that my brother isn't the first or the last. Why? Every single day in America, news stories flash snapshots of lives that once were. Years of a young person's life are funneled down to less than two paragraphs in the back pages of a newspaper. Burial plots are assigned and soon the names are forgotten in the media. Those lives are only remembered by the ones that loved them most and the heavy tombstone, bearing witness to the lives they once lived.

Stories like these are happening every single day in America, where young people are dying before they are even old enough to vote; where the price of leaving your home may mean death.

We lose more Americans to violence on our own city streets than on the battlegrounds of war. We have made kid soldiers out of our youth, criminals out of the disadvantaged, and funeral attendees out of us all.

Guns are becoming more accessible than textbooks and supermarkets. Yet we continue to serve them up to the unfit and unqualified, which is resulting in mass murders and mass shootings.

This begs the question: what can and must be done?

Young people, especially black men and boys, are being killed in our classrooms and city streets. The selling of fire arms to criminals is placing our family members, neighbors, classmates and coworkers at risk. In some states anyone can walk in to a gun show without an ID and purchase a firearm. That means a criminal or an unfit person could have access to a gun with 10 rounds or 100.

In addition to closing the private sale loophole, the following measures must be put in place if we want to stop one more person from falling victim to a bullet:

• Fix the gun check system in a way that will allow enforcement agencies to upload and share current and accurate information.
• Require ID and background checks for all gun purchases.
• Make gun trafficking a federal crime.
• Create common-sense laws that address what type of guns should be in the hands of average Americans.
• Address the high rate of crime in urban communities.
• Increase positive mental health accessibility without stigmatizing those who need and want it.
• Recognize that in urban communities, violence is related to a lack of economic opportunities and a hopelessness mentality among youth that needs to be addressed.

No one is saying that guns have to be eliminated, but like most other potentially dangerous things in America, restrictions need to be put in place for the sake of safety. Many of us agree that background checks and ID requirements are needed, and Americans are united in the belief that support for the Second Amendment goes hand in hand with keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

My brother Andre and many others have been killed because of the lack of safeguards in place to protect their fundamental right to live. As an alumna of Young People For and a member of the Roosevelt Institution Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, both programs that empower young leaders to create lasting change in our communities, I know that inaction is not the answer. We can no longer sit on the side lines and allow gun lobbyists to place band aids on gunshot wounds. We need and must demand common-sense gun violence prevention measures.

The probability of another death increases every second we hesitate.

This post originally appeared at the Huffington Post.

PFAW Foundation
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious