The discredited “researcher” Paul Cameron, chairman of the anti-gay Family Research Institute, frequently claims that gay people want to rape children. Or, as he once put it, “The long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try.”
Cameron, whose “research” has been used by numerous Religious Right groups and was cited recently in an essay promoted by RNC committeeman and Michigan Republican lawmaker Dave Agema, told the National Press Club today that around one in four gay men have sex with children “as part of their sexual repertoire.”
He asserted that “parents are very leery about having their children sleep over or have homosexuals’ children sleep over with their children, they just don’t know what’s going to happen.”
Cameron also claimed that the adults in his study “who had reported [having] a homosexual parent…seemed to account for a disproportionate number of those who reported sex with their parents and sex with friends of their parents
Cameron’s bases his new report on a review of gay peoples’ obituaries, that is, those that have one; Cameron writes that “many gays are anonymous—having sex without ever exchanging names—so their obituaries are ‘missing.’ Lesbians are anomalous—seldom being given an obituary.”
Cameron goes on to say that gays and lesbians are “more frequently involved in criminality” and “are more apt to smoke, use drugs, drive recklessly and get infected by their sexual activities with a host of dangerous germs and experience various organ failures.”
He adds that a reference to pets in a gay person’s obituary is a sign of his or her “estrangement from humanity,” adding that 20% of gay men “reported having had sex with an animal.”
According to the crackpot study, it is even more likely that gay men have sex with children:
“Not only do GLBT fail to generate their replacements, their influence on the demographic is negative when the ~25% of gays who admit sex with boys and thereby influence many to adopt homosexuality is factored in,” Cameron writes, arguing that gays and lesbians “make a negative contribution to the demographic by inducing many boys to adopt homosexuality (and seriously harming many [especially boys’] lives).”
Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute appeared at the National Press Club today to unveil his new report, which claims that gays and lesbians who are married or in civil unions actually die younger than their uncoupled peers.
“The Supreme Court ought not to harm homosexuals by legitimating homosexual coupling,” Cameron said, “and the psychiatric community ought to pay attention to this enormous deficit of lifespan and reopen the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a mental disability or a disorder.”
He argued that homosexuality is a “mental pathology” much like drug abuse or cigarette smoking, because it “shortens lives” and “harms its participants and harms the demographic.”
Pennsylvania members of People For the American Way (PFAW) will canvass in the district of state Sen. Lloyd Smucker on Saturday, urging him to reject a plan to rig the way the state apportions its presidential electoral votes. Smucker, who represents Lancaster and York counties, is the chairman of the Senate State Government Committee, which will be the first to review a bill that would split the state’s electoral votes in order to benefit Republican presidential candidates.
This weekend’s canvass will be the latest in People For the American Way’s grassroots effort to defeat Pennsylvania Republicans’ election-rigging plan. Over the past two weekends, PFAW Pennsylvania volunteers knocked on more than 2,700 doors in the districts of state Sen. Dominic Pileggi, the sponsor of the election-rigging bill, and of bill co-sponsor Sen. Stewart Greenleaf.
A People For the American Way petition calling on legislators in Pennsylvania and elsewhere to drop such election-rigging plans has garnered over 100,000 signatures nationally.
“Pennsylvanians see this election-rigging plan for what it is: a cynical attempt to undermine Pennsylvania voters in the hopes of short-term partisan gain,” said Jodi Hirsh, Pennsylvania Coordinator for People For the American Way. “This plan would dilute the power of Pennsylvanians’ votes in presidential elections and it would deal a blow to the state’s economy. It’s simply a bad idea, and Pennsylvanians know that. We’re standing up to Sen. Pileggi, Sen. Smucker and their allies to tell them they can’t get away with rigging our elections.”
People For the American Way is dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American: Equality. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. The right to seek justice in a court of law. The right to cast a vote that counts. The American way. www.pfaw.org.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday hosted Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) who immediately started spreading conspiracy theories about the United Nations.
Fleming insisted that the recently approved global UN Arms Trade Treaty, which will restrict the sale of arms to countries and groups that commit war crimes and other atrocities and has been the subject of several discredited right-wing attacks, is an attempt by the left to weaken and ultimately “repeal” the Second Amendment.
The Republican congressman concluded by speculating that the UN may make it illegal for parents to spank their children.
Fleming: In the case of the UN small arms treaty what that means is that if we enter into a treaty with one or more nations that in some way controls firearms, protective arms, handguns, something like that, if it’s ratified by the Senate then that has the same effect as an amendment to the Constitution. So that would be a way that liberals could literally change the Second Amendment. I think as you well know, although it’s not going to have a full effect as part of the ‘votorama’ the other day the Senate had in their vote for their budget, a vote on an up-or-down on the acceptance of, or voting against in effect in their opinion, at least a resolution if you will, on the the acceptance of such a treaty, and Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana actually voted that we should move forward on such a small arms treaty. This is a dangerous thing when it comes to the Second Amendment. People need to understand that there is an end-run around the Second Amendment that is available to the Senate and I do think President Obama and others do support this.
Perkins: We’re talking here for just a moment about the UN’s Small Arms Treaty and as he pointed out, an end-run around Congress on the Second Amendment through the Congress. This is a very real possibility in my opinion congressman because it looks like the efforts to get legislation through Congress, especially through the House, that would severely restrict gun ownership and attack the Second Amendment is unlikely to happen, so what’s the next best thing for the Obama administration? Pursuing a treaty like this.
Fleming: Well if for instance through the UN and with an agreement with other countries, we all come together and we say, you know what we as a group of countries, both inside and outside of our borders, are going to control the handling the use and access to handguns, for instance, then if we sign onto that treaty and it’s ratified by the Senate—the House doesn’t even have to vote on it—it’s ratified by the Senate and signed onto by the President, it is firm law. A simple passage of a law or a repeal of law by Congress itself can’t undo that is my understanding. So we wouldn’t have to have a repeal of the Second Amendment, we could just simply alter it or put into effect what is essentially a repeal of it. That is not the only thing. There’s another issue just to show you how broad scope this is on how we deal with our children and what control we have of our children as parents and how we may define child abuse and the responsibility of the state. That could potentially be up for a ratification of a treaty with other nations. So that if you for instance spanked your child, you could be in violation of a UN treaty and a law created as such.
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is currently out on bail while appealing his three year prison sentence in his corruption case, took the time to join Rick Scarborough on a March 7th Tea Party Unity conference call where he criticized the Violence Against Women Act.
He attacked the law because it “includes homosexuality, transgender; setting up all kinds of different classes of sexual deviance,” and later called it “unconstitutional.”
While they were having a meeting with the Values Action Team, which is reaching out to those values organizations, in the same week they passed the Senate’s Violence Against Women Act that includes homosexuality, transgender; setting up all kinds of different classes of sexual deviance. It’s just absolutely amazing that they did that. They fashioned a rule so it would be easier to pass the Senate bill, which is a wacko leftist bill. We as groups need to understand that that’s happening and reach out to the members of the House and the Senate and tell them enough is enough.
This is how we took over the House for the first time in forty years in 1994’s election is that for five years we spent five years providing alternatives to everything the Democrats were doing: alternative bills, alternative amendments, alternative press releases. We expressed ourselves by always having an alternative. The same here, if there is a Violence Against Women Act there should be a conservative alternative. First and foremost, they should point out the fact the whole act itself is unconstitutional.
DeLay insisted that conservatives need to “rebuild our infrastructure” in order to win elections again, by establishing new groups to “hold the media accountable” and creating “an outside organization that is focused on taking over our schools.”
We are desperate for a media operation to hold the media accountable. We need an outside group, formal group that reflects the left’s Media Matters, that’s a group that takes their message and drives it through the media, we desperately need something like that. We need an outside organization that is focused on taking over our schools. The left has our school systems and our universities and we’re doing nothing to take our schools back.
We need an infrastructure, a conservative infrastructure that fills the voids in politics, that holds the media accountable, that holds our schools accountable, that holds our churches accountable, we have Vision America that is trying to do that and other groups that are trying to do that, we desperately need that infrastructure if we’re going to win this. The other side has an infrastructure, that’s why they’re winning right now and we desperately need to rebuild the conservative movement and rebuild our infrastructure.
U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull, who was investigated for misconduct by a judicial committee, will retire May 3rd. This represents a sudden, unexpected, and publicly unexplained change from his decision to continue hearing cases as a senior judge, which went into effect just two weeks ago. In response, People For the American Way president Michael Keegan released the following statement:
“After many months of investigation, Judge Cebull’s actions seem to have finally caught up with him. Cebull apparently hoped to avoid sanction by taking senior status before the misconduct investigation concluded. Fortunately, his gambit to avoid accountability was ultimately unsuccessful.
“Retirement was the only appropriate action for Cebull to take. He used his official email account to send an incredibly disgusting and racist email. When asked why, he said he sent it because he opposes the president.
“Americans expect the courts to be fair, impartial, and open to all. Cebull clearly demonstrated that he does not have the temperament to serve as a federal judge. His retirement, and the thorough investigation by the Ninth Circuit that precipitated it, are encouraging signs of a commitment to fairness and impartiality in the federal judiciary.”
WorldNetDaily must be pleased with this “scoop”: former GOP congressman and third party presidential candidate Virgil Goode has joined Alabama Republican activist Hugh McInnish in filing a lawsuit arguing that President Obama is not eligible to be president.
But the story gets better: the attorney representing them is Larry Klayman.
And the story gets even better: the judge hearing the case is none other than Roy Moore.
Moore, who was recently returned to office as chief justice of Alabama’s state Supreme Court after he was removed from the post in 2003 for refusing to obey a court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument, is no fan of Obama.
WND also notes that Moore has defended birther hero Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who said he won’t follow deployment orders because he deemed any order from Obama to be illegitimate, and the increasingly unstable Klayman has praised Moore’s “integrity and legal acumen.”
Now, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are asking the state’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.
Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C.-watch dog Judicial Watch and now head of Freedom Watch, filed the appeal Tuesday with the Alabama Supreme Court, asking for oral arguments.
“We are hopeful that Chief Justice Moore and the rest of the jurists on the Alabama Supreme Court will follow the law,” Klayman told WND.
Klayman says he and his team “have great respect for Chief Justice Moore and his integrity and legal acumen.”
“He is one courageous and brave man. There are few in this country.”
The case is an appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court.
In his brief, Klayman says “credible evidence and information from an official source” was presented to Chapman before the election indicating Obama might not have been qualified for Oval Office.
The complaint argues Chapman failed her constitutional duty as secretary of state to verify the eligibility of candidates.
Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.
In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.
Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.
Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”
“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.
Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions, to protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”
As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that office has been elected.”
The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”
“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State is the official to cause that to happen.”
McInnish is a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee and also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee.
Citing the investigation of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, Klayman says Chapman “gained knowledge from an official source that there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying qualification.”
The appeal brief notes McInnish visited the secretary of state’s office Feb. 2, 2012, and spoke with the deputy secretary of state, Emily Thompson, in Chapman’s absence.
Moore told WND in an interview after his election last November that the country must return to a standard in which the rule of law prevails over politics.
He said Obama violated the Constitution when he bombed Libya, because the Constitution stipulates only Congress shall declare war.
“No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power,” Moore said.
“The Constitution is the rule of law, and [my job is] to uphold the rule of law.” Government’s job, Moore said, is to secure and protect those rights.
“There is little regard for the Constitution in the courts today, even the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Florida Family Policy Council head and anti-gay activist John Stemberger has created a new group, On My Honor, to oppose the “hyper-sexualization” of the Boy Scouts of America that he fears will take place if the group lifts its ban on gay members.
During an interview with Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd, Stemberger argued that if the BSA lifts the gay ban, the organization will experience a rise in “boy-on-boy” assaults and “emotional, sexual, psychological and physical abuse.”
He told Mefferd that kids these days all want to be gay and will then join the Boy Scouts to molest each other.
“It’s hip, it’s edgy to be gay and so they’re all saying they’re gay—they have no idea,” Stemberger said. “Well if scouting sends the message, ‘we’re open for gays,’ you’re going to have so much nonsense going on between older boys and younger boys.”
Mefferd: Now I know you are raising awareness as well about the dangers that open homosexuality within the scouting organization would present, what do you believe the biggest dangers would be if this policy were reversed and open homosexuality would be permitted in the Boy Scouts?
Stemberger: My personal opinion based upon my experience and talking to leaders all over the country and other scoutmasters, it is not going to be primarily adult gay men. Scouting has a very strict child protection program that requires two-deep leadership, that means that no adult can be alone with any child except with their own child at any time, they are extremely strict with it. So I don’t think the primary threat, although it could potentially be a threat, is going to be adults.
I think it is going to be boy-on-boy. My sister is a middle school teacher in Florida and she said, ‘John, everybody in the whole class is talking about ‘are you gay,’ ‘I’m gay,’ ‘I’m gender confused, what are you?’ It’s just like they don’t even know what they’re talking about. It’s hip, it’s edgy to be gay and so they’re all saying they’re gay—they have no idea. Well if scouting sends the message, ‘we’re open for gays,’ you’re going to have so much nonsense going on between older boys and younger boys, it’s just going to create a myriad of problems that really is going to result in further scandal, further disgrace to the scouts, not to mention just the tragedy of the emotional, sexual, psychological and physical abuse that will occur in the program. If even two children, even one child is going to be molested by another boy in the program, that is enough compelling in my judgment to say no, we are not going to do this, there is no reason for it whatsoever.
According to Stemberger, there really isn’t a ban on gays because you can still join as long as you are in the closet.
Later, Stemberger argued that the BSA should fear the example set by the Girl Scouts, which he claims is “being run by lesbians” and has “been really politicized and sexualized in a way that is inappropriate for children.”
Stemberger: Here’s an important point I want to make: currently there are people in scouting who are probably homosexual, there’s no litmus test, there’s no witch hunt to find out who they are; they’re discreet, they’re appropriate, they’re personal, they’re private, they’re not loud and proud, they’re not out there waving the rainbow flag and trying to make a big deal about it and trying to promote gay marriage and all this business. There’s no application question on what your sexual orientation is when you join scouting, the problem is what they’re allowing is open homosexuality. That’s a very different thing; that is promoting the gay agenda, that is promoting politics and it is just inappropriate. When it comes to children we think that sex and politics should stay out of the Boy Scouts, it should have no place in it whatsoever.
Stemberger: We have about two months to really make sure that this timeless institution is not transformed into something politicized thing like the Girl Scouts have, unfortunately where it is being run by lesbians and promoting Planned Parenthood, it’s just been really politicized and sexualized in a way that is inappropriate for children.
Mefferd: Yes, absolutely right.
He argues that according to the Declaration of Independence, America’s sovereignty relies on respecting God’s law, including the “rights of the God-endowed natural family.” Consequently, if the US doesn’t submit to divine authority, then the country will forfeit its sovereignty and be no more.
Keyes reasons that if the Supreme Court decides “to promote specious rights intended to supplant ‘the laws of nature and of nature’s God’ invoked in the Declaration of Independence” and “deny and disparage the natural rights of the God-endowed family” by approving of same-sex marriage, it would represent an “assault on the very root and source of our claim to decent liberty.”
Now, proponents of the Defense of Marriage law insist that the present occupant of the White House must simply "obey the law," even if he has reached the conclusion that it violates a constitutional right he is obliged by oath to respect. But their insistence violates the logic that substantiates the Constitution's constraining effect on the use of the U.S. government's powers. In the first instance, each branch has the duty to keep within the boundaries of the Constitution. The issue involved in Obama's refusal to defend DOMA is not, therefore, necessarily about his obligation to "obey the law." It is about whether or not, in this particular instance, his view that the law is unconstitutional is correct.
Because the elitist faction aims to overthrow constitutional government of, by, and for the people, they work to obscure or tacitly deny this fact. They want Americans to accept the notion that those who happen to wield the power of government at any given moment may decide, amongst themselves and without recourse to the people, what is constitutional and what is not. If and when the American people foolishly acquiesce in this oligarchic lie, they will thereby surrender their status as a free people.
As I recently pointed out, we learn the source and nature of these unenumerated rights from another "fundamental law" of the United States – the Declaration of Independence, which ascribes them to the Creator's endowment of all humanity. Most self-evident among them are the rights of the God-endowed natural family "rooted in obligations antecedent to any and all humanly instituted law or government." From this endowment, the people of the United States derive the sovereign authority to establish and maintain their self-government. Unless they are willing to subvert their own sovereignty, they are obliged, in their actions and decisions, to respect the source of authority that validates it.
In the weeks to come, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide to promote specious rights intended to supplant "the laws of nature and of nature's God" invoked in the Declaration of Independence. They may decide, in contravention of the Ninth Amendment, to deny and disparage the natural rights of the God-endowed family. It will then be for us, the people, to decide how to respond to their assault on the very root and source of our claim to decent liberty. If we respect the logic that reasonably, morally, and constitutionally justifies what their decision seeks to destroy, we will be able confidently to appeal, as America's founders did in the Declaration, "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." Then, whatever we face, we will have the courage to defend the institution that God made to be the living archetype of all the rest of our belongings.
Like Rep. Louie Gohmert, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage also participated in pastor Rick Scarborough’s Tea Party Unity conference calls back in March, where he made the “libertarian” argument against legalizing same-sex marriage.
Brown commended his anti-gay organization for having been able to “motivate a lot of the Tea Party groups” along with “African American and Hispanic folks” around their shared fear that gay marriage will undermine the Constitution and jeopardize “the future of Western civilization.”
After discussing how NOM is “working with leaders like Senator [Marco] Rubio or Ted Cruz,” he warned that marriage equality will grow the size and scope of government. If the state recognizes same-sex unions, Brown claimed, then public officials will “use the power of the state to punish, repress and marginalize” anti-gay activists.
He said that NOM’s opposition to marriage equality rests on the “libertarian argument” that if the state refuses to “recognize the truth that marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman” then “you’re giving the power to the state to call black white and white black, to put a falsehood into the law and a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.”
This is an issue where we can get new blood to support the Constitution, I mean that’s what’s at stake, Constitutionalism. When you have African American and Hispanic folks stepping up and saying that we will stand up for traditional marriage, we can make inroads there. I think the local Tea Party groups that have helped us with marches, helped us in any way they can, they’ve understood that this is about marriage, this is about the future of Western civilization, but this is also about our Constitution and whether judges can willy nilly create law out of thin air and I think that that has helped motivate a lot of the Tea Party groups.
We need leaders and we’re working with leaders like Senator [Marco] Rubio or Ted Cruz, or whoever they may be, who understand what’s at stake and will really lead the party and sort of counter some of these arguments. The second part of this is this false libertarian argument that somehow the state should just get out of marriage altogether. That is not going to happen. There is really one or two outcomes that’s going to happen in this: either we’re going to have the state embrace this new definition of marriage and use the power of the state to punish, repress and marginalize those of us that know that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, or we’re going to have the state recognize the truth about marriage.
Ours is actually a libertarian argument. We’re not arguing that the state create marriage, the state does not create marriage, but the state has to recognize the truth that marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman. When it abandons that truth, you’re giving the power to the state to call black white and white black, to put a falsehood into the law and a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.
Brown also fielded a question from notorious ant-gay activist Brian Camenker of MassResistance, who asked why NOM is not taking “a hard stance” against same-sex relationships and openly calling homosexuality “perverse” and “unnatural.”
Brown said that NOM tries to avoid making those arguments outright simply for tactical reasons as they are trying to sway Justice Anthony Kennedy and “it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.”
However, Brown said that other groups should continue “taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality.”
“Different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing,” Brown explained. “So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.”
Camenker: It’s concerning to a lot of people that the arguments being used in the various court cases concede that homosexual relationships are legitimate and not a perversion or what have you, we just don’t like them, and we wonder if there was more of a hard stance that they are not legitimate, that it is perverse, unnatural and what have you, that we might have some better success in some of the cases.
The second part of the question is I understand that you’re at CPAC, what is it like being virtually the only pro-family, pro-marriage guy there? I’m very disturbed at the way CPAC is being run this year.
Brown: Whenever I’m asked about what I think about homosexuality, I’m very clear, I believe and as a Catholic I believe in the traditional teaching of our church. I think that sex is reserved for marriage, period. As far as the legal arguments go we may differ. I think a lot of the legal arguments have been made in the Prop 8 case especially have been made to speak to [Justice] Kennedy and Kennedy has already found in the Lawrence case, for example, that states can’t ban sodomy. So it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.
I know some people think we need to focus more on homosexuality. All I’ll say is that when asked I state what I believe and many of the religious supporters that we’ll have at the march clearly will stand up and proclaim biblical truth on marriage, but I’m not sure whether legally that is the best strategy. Also, different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing. So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.
Yesterday, Gary Bauer told members of his organization the Campaign for Working Families that conservative activist Ben Carson is the victim of a “leftist lynching.”
Bauer said that “the left-wing coalition of socialists and radical secularists” and its “political killing machine” have targeted Carson just as they have attacked “Clarence Thomas, Allen West and other people of color who have defended conservatism.”
He especially took issue with criticism of Carson’s comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, warning that the campaign for marriage equality is “a battering ram to destroy your religious liberty and freedom of speech.”
The Leftist "Lynching" Of Ben Carson Begins
Dr. Ben Carson burst onto the scene after his bold speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February. His remarks were a breath of fresh air for millions of Americans who want to take the country back from the left-wing coalition of socialists and radical secularists. I have known about Dr. Carson for years, and I agree that he seems to have the character many would like to see in our leaders. BUT. . .
It is a vain hope to think that simply having a good heart and a remarkable story of success and achievement will somehow inoculate that individual from the political killing machine that the left has developed in recent years.
MSNBC's Toure Neblett recently said that Dr. Carson is nothing more than the conservative movement's "new black friend" who is "helpful in assuaging their guilt." He also said that Dr. Carson, a neurosurgeon, is "unserious." This is what the left has done to Clarence Thomas, Allen West and other people of color who have defended conservatism.
Now comes the latest attack against Dr. Carson. The left is creating a narrative that he is a bigot. Asked on Sean Hannity's show what he thought about the marriage debate, Dr. Carson responded:
"Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group -- be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are -- they don't get to change the definition."
Dr. Carson was immediately excoriated for his remarks, and he quickly apologized if he offended anyone. (Note to Dr. Carson: Don't run for president if you are going to start apologizing for offending liberals. They are offended by your very existence.)
Now students at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine have launched a petition to prevent Dr. Carson from speaking at this year's commencement ceremony because his values are "deeply offensive to a large proportion our student body." (Note to pastors and young Christians: The same-sex marriage debate is not about "fairness for everyone." Wake up! This is a battering ram to destroy your religious liberty and freedom of speech.)
In contrast, liberals see a black conservative doctor with a wonderful personality and incredible achievements and no matter how popular he is, their first instinct is to take him down. That is what the radical left has done to our politics. They have turned it into a "blood sport," and right now it is Dr. Ben Carson being sliced up.
Larry Pratt, the extremist and conspiratorial leader of Gun Owners of America, last week gave a speech to We the People Tea Party of Northwest Louisiana where he mused that liberals should not be allowed to own guns.
After saying that President Obama held a shotgun “girly like” while skeet shooting, the Shreveport Times reports that Pratt told the group that Democrats like Obama “almost got me convinced to modify my purist Second Amendment position: there are people that shouldn’t have guns, angry liberals should not have guns.”
After host, Steve Davis, claimed that just because they “oppose homosexual marriage or homosexual adoptions, it doesn’t mean that we’re homophobes,” Solomon insisted that he is indeed a homophobe.
“Speak for yourself,” Solomon said, “I can’t stand the thought, the idea, the concept of homosexuality.”
“I don’t think I’m showing love for anyone if I encourage them or enable them or stand silently while they do something that’s going to kill them; the average homosexual lives half the adult life of the average heterosexual, fact,” Solomon maintained, as he went on to comparing homosexuality to drug abuse, drunk driving and swimming with sharks.
Keyes, who kicked his daughter out of his house after she came out of the closet, agreed with Solomon’s anti-gay statements.
Later, Keyes attacked Sen. Rob Portman’s for endorsing marriage equality after learning that his son is gay: “If you go down a road that satisfies your personal predilections and relationships and sacrifices the common good of the country, including the elementary institution by which civilization is sustained, then you’re not only derelict in your public duty, you are abandoning your obligation as a human being.”
“Frankly, people throw around words like ‘crime against humanity,’ I think that kind of disregard for the God-endowed natural rights of human being is the archetype of all crimes against humanity,” Keyes concluded, “and I think we have an entire elite faction that is now committed to committing such a crime against the American people.”
Religious Right groups have been promoting a boycott against Starbucks ever since the company announced its support for a marriage equality law in its home state of Washington. Now an ex-gay activist is warning the company to prepare for a divine reckoning after Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz rebuffed the head of the Corporate Morality Action Center, which opposes gay rights.
In an interview with the Chrisitan News Network, ex-gay preacher Robert Breaud, who is best known for his hit song “It’s Not OK To Be Gay,” said that Schultz has taken a “Christ-hating position” and is “helping to destroy young people’s lives.”
“God will not bless your business in the long run if you consistently thumb your nose at Him and support things He calls sinful,” Breaud said. An ex-homosexual who now serves as an evangelist states that he has decided to join the boycott against the coffee king Starbucks following recent remarks made by CEO Howard Schultz regarding the company’s support of homosexual “marriage.”
“It’s an unGodly, Christ-hating position,” he said of Schultz’s comments. Robert Breaud of Wisconsin told Christian News Network that he had been involved in the homosexual lifestyle until his 30′s, but has served Christ now for nearly 20 years.
“I basically got my fill of the emptiness of sin,” he said. “I was never happy, never filled, never satisfied with male-to-male relationships.”
He said that if he could sit down with Schultz, he would urge him to do what is right.
“[I would tell him,] if you want God to bless your business, run it in accordance with His law … with His revealed will in Scripture,” Breaud stated. “You’re promoting sin. You’re helping to destroy young people’s lives. … God will not bless your business in the long run if you consistently thumb your nose at Him and support things He calls sinful.”
Breaud urged others to join the boycott as well.
“There’s really no good reason not to join the boycott,” he said. “There’s only excuses.”
“Who do you love more, Christ or your coffee?”
Conservative talk show host Steve Deace is not happy with Bill O’Reilly’s seeming reversal on marriage equality, telling Religious Right activist Bob Vander Plaats that O’Reilly is “betraying” his own viewers and is essentially a “charlatan” and a “fraud.”
While discussing the Supreme Court’s handling of the marriage cases with Vander Plaats, who warned that the court could “set off a constitutional crisis,” Deace said that O’Reilly is a traitor to his conservative base: “you stab them in the back, throw them under the bus and use the enemy’s own language against them. To me that’s a hanging offense; that is a hanging offense.”
Vander Plaats: If you usurp the will of the people—we saw it in Iowa, you usurp the will of the people, three justices get removed, there’s a credibility gap with the three justices that continue to serve— if you usurp the vote of the people of California you will set off a constitutional crisis against these United States and it should be a constitutional crisis. People like you and me and others, we’d help do our part to set off a constitutional crisis if that is in fact what they came back with.
Deace: I’ve got a bee in my bonnet big time and it’s Bill O’Reilly at Fox News. I don’t like charlatans, I don’t like frauds; give me Rachel Maddow, at least she’s honest. But when you are trying to profit off of the very people you are betraying and you have tried to condescend them and patronize them for years and then at the moment they probably need you to return the favor of all the money they made you over the last fifteen years the most, you stab them in the back, throw them under the bus and use the enemy’s own language against them. To me that’s a hanging offense; that is a hanging offense.
Deace said there are no good arguments for same-sex marriage, and gay rights activists are just throwing “a hissy-fit.” He even said it is pointless to note that homosexuality is found in other species besides humans since “there’s also the licking of one’s own genitals, the flinging of one’s own feces and the eating of live prey and then puking it up to feed your offspring in nature too.”
With this issue there are no good arguments for it because the argument essentially boils down to, ‘because I want it.’ It’s essentially a tantrum; it’s policy by desire. ‘Because I want it.’ It’s a child throwing a hissy-fit, tantrum in Wal-Mart because mom bought me the regular sized M&Ms and not the king-sized that I demanded. As Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation pointed out on CNN this week that just drove the reporter into a meltdown, ‘no one is in jail for having consensual homosexual sex with another adult, what you’re trying to do is impose your narrow definition of what this means and therefore what it means for free speech and religious liberty on everybody else.’ So they throw out all these clichés and they are so easy to debunk. One of my favorites is, ‘well there’s homosexuality in nature.’ There’s also the licking of one’s own genitals, the flinging of one’s own feces and the eating of live prey and then puking it up to feed your offspring in nature too.