C4

Hutcherson: 'God is Going to Really Turn Loose Judgment on us' over Gay Rights

Peter LaBarbera and John Kirkwood hosted fellow anti-gay activist Ken Hutcherson on Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Radio Hour to criticize Rick Warren over his interviews with Piers Morgan and Marc Lamont Hill. The three even agreed that Warren should not be giving money to organizations doing HIV/AIDS work that don’t condemn homosexuality because, according to Kirkwoood, it puts Warren “in fellowship with darkness.” They encouraged Warren to donate to ex-gay groups instead, but not Exodus International because they’re not anti-gay enough.

Kirkwood: Rick Warren went on to say how many millions of dollars he’s given to the cause of HIV/AIDS and how he’s worked closely with gay organizations on that. My comment on that is you could give millions of dollars for that cause without having to be unequally yoked and be in fellowship with darkness, without having to work with organizations that openly boast about their sexual perversion.

Hutcherson: There are so many organizations out there, Exodus International, I don’t know if they are continuing to hold on to their strong point but he could’ve given millions of dollars at the time to Exodus International.

LaBarbera: Well we wouldn’t support that now because they are starting to slide. John makes a good point, even a lot of AIDS groups, it’s like the point of faith, it’s not really faith of course, is pro-homosexuality.

Kirkwood: I think he was trying to establish his street cred with homosexuals because then he came out and said, ‘I have many, many homosexual friends.’ Marc Lamont Hill said, ‘I get the love part about AIDS but what about this’?

Hutcherson: I think the correct statement would be one that we make: we’re friends with many, many ex-homosexuals. That should be the statement because homosexuals are not going to stay around me if they don’t want to change.

Hutcherson said that if evangelical leaders like Warren and Americans do not begin to denounce homosexuality more fervently then God is going to get “sick and tired of America” and “really turn loose judgment on us.” LaBarbera added that Morgan is “obsessed” with homosexuality and that it is a religious “sacrament” to him, and Hutcherson explained that Morgan and others “promote homosexuality” and seek to “destroy God’s plan.”

Hutcherson: God does not have the same consequence for the same sin, bro. We’ve got to understand that as Christians and we better wake up soon because I think that one of the things God is showing us is that He’s getting a little sick and tired of America, he’s definitely having a holy throw up fest with his bride, we need to really stand back up and get this unity going or God is going to really turn loose judgment on us.



LaBarbera: You can tell what Piers Morgan’s religion is and one of the sacraments is homosexuality, I mean he is obsessed.

Hutcherson: Secularism. They know that if you really want to destroy God’s plan, promote homosexuality.

LaBarbera: Why is that?

Hutcherson: Because that is the sin that God says when you’ve turned a man over to his own lust, there is no hope.

Hutcherson warned that not only is God’s judgment coming but also that the Republic may collapse if the Republicans begin to abandon their anti-gay views, which Kirkwood likened to Republicans in the mid-1800s deserting their strong stance against slavery in order to win Southern votes.

Kirkwood: Ronald Reagan spoke about the three-legged stool and one of those legs was the social—pro-life, and back then it wasn’t even an issue the same-sex marriage thing—but if we abandon that leg of the stool we are no longer the Republican Party, we’d be the Whig Party again. The Republican Party was born on principle, the principle that all men are created equal. Yeah we could have picked up a lot more Southern votes if we didn’t believe that way when we were founded but if we start to believe that way now to prostitute ourselves for votes, they’re going to lose thirty percent of the Republican Party.

Hutcherson: What you’ve got to understand is it’s not just that we’re losing the Republican Party when you eliminate those legs, we’re losing America bro. If you cannot have a moral backing for our Republic, our Republic cannot stand.

WND Promotes Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Rick Santorum must be proud that his new employer, WorldNetDaily, is promoting pastor Scott Lively’s endorsement of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Lively helped craft the original bill, which called for the death penalty for gays and lesbians, but ultimately distanced himself from the legislation that made homosexuality a crime punishable by death. This week Lively, who has always supported the criminalization of homosexuality, came out in favor of a proposed version of the bill that swaps out the death penalty in favor of life in prison for gays and lesbians. It would also criminalize advocacy of equal rights. Lively argues that the bill would prevent the “homosexualization of Ugandan culture.”

First, the Bible has always defined homosexuality as a crime, and not just in the Mosaic Law. Homosexuality was condemned by God long before Moses declared it a capital crime (by God’s own instruction), and God’s condemnation of it was reaffirmed repeatedly in the New Testament. Preceding Moses, there is the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, and a somewhat similar account in Judges 19. According to Rabbinic tradition, even the Great Flood of Noah in Genesis 6-9 was precipitated by homosexual sin. In the New Testament, Chapter 1 of Romans not only condemns homosexuality as “depraved,” but reaffirms the death penalty for it as well (verses 18-32). I Corinthians 6:9-11, the “ex-gay” passage, both condemns homosexuality and reports that some of the Corinthians to whom the letter was written were themselves recovered homosexuals who had been healed and delivered by faith in Christ. These are just a few of the numerous Bible passages addressing homosexuality, all of which condemn it in unequivocal terms.



Second, in all the media-driven hysteria about the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill, one glaring fact has been consistently omitted (despite my having pointed it out to nearly every “journalist” who has interviewed me). The fact is, Ugandan law is typical of most African law in that it tends to be very harsh in the letter, but very lenient in the application. I doubt very much that anyone arrested under the new law (if it passes) will receive anything close to the jail terms allowed for in the bill.

Third, and most importantly, there is one easy, guaranteed method of protecting oneself from ever being subject to the anti-homosexuality law in Uganda: Don’t commit sodomy! We all seem to forget, in the dense propaganda haze of American popular opinion, that homosexuality is defined by voluntary sexual acts. Homosexuals are no more compelled to commit sodomy with each other than a married man is compelled to cheat on his wife.

In my opinion, the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill is still too harsh in the letter. I would prefer something closer to the approach several American states have taken toward marijuana: Criminalize it, but minimize the penalty and turn a blind eye toward discrete violations. Indeed, this would be my prescription for dealing with homosexuality (and all sex outside of marriage) in the United States. This would preserve basic freedom of choice for people who choose to inhabit various subcultures out of the mainstream, yet provide the larger, marriage-based society with the legal power to prevent sex activists from advocating their lifestyles to children in the public schools or to flaunt their sins in “pride” parades through the city streets.

However, since I didn’t write the Ugandan bill and have no power to redraft it on my own terms, and since the alternative to passing this bill is to allow the continuing, rapid, foreigner-driven homosexualization of Ugandan culture, I am giving the revised anti-homosexuality bill my support.

How Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers Helped Bring Us Michigan’s Anti-Labor Laws

Over the sound of thousands of people protesting – with voices chanting ‘shame on you!’ – Michigan’s proposed anti-labor bills were signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Rick Snyder. 

What was obvious to those gathered to speak out against the so-called “right to work” legislation was its damaging nature – its affront to workers’ ability to collectively bargain and its harm to middle-class families across the state. 

What may have been less obvious to some were the bills’ connections to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a one-stop shop for corporations looking to get special-interest legislation introduced.  Funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil and Charles Koch, ALEC promotes “model bills” for state legislatures on a number of issues.  As People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch explained in an “In Focus” report on ALEC:

ALEC propagates a wide range of “model legislation” that seeks to make it more difficult for people to hold corporations accountable in court; gut the rights and protections of workers and consumers; encumber health care reform; privatize and weaken the public education system; provide business tax cuts and corporate welfare; privatize and cut public services; erode regulations and environmental laws; create unnecessary voter ID requirements; endorse Citizens United; diminish campaign finance reform; and permit greater corporate influence in elections.

One type of “model legislation” ALEC puts forward is a model “Right to Work” Act.  And as the Center for Media and Democracy points out, Michigan’s bills included almost identical language to ALEC’s model bill. This is extremely troubling – not only for the many families in Michigan that will be affected, but also for our democratic process in general. 

Because as the same Right Wing Watch report notes:

Americans are increasingly recognizing and speaking out against the disproportionate power of corporations in shaping public policy and steering politicians, and ALEC is a prime example of how Corporate America is able to buy even more power and clout in government. Rather than serve the public interest, ALEC champions the agenda of corporations which are willing to pay for access to legislators and the opportunity to write their very own legislation…. ALEC represents an alarming risk to the credibility of the political process and threatens to greatly diminish the confidence and influence ordinary people have in government.

 

PFAW

Dobson Broadcasts Sermon on America's Imminent Destruction

James Dobson’s radio program Family Talk today aired a sermon by Pastor Laurence White, who has worked with conservative figures like Rick Perry, Glenn Beck, David Barton and Rick Scarborough as founder of the “Texas Restoration Project.” The Dobson-endorsed sermon blamed the Holocaust on the separation of church and state and warned of America’s imminent destruction mainly as a result of homosexuality and abortion, arguing that “God will destroy and God should destroy America” if the U.S. does not ban abortion. Despite White’s address, abortion rates are actually higher in countries where the procedure is banned.

Once again the nation is being led down the path to destruction and once again by and large God’s people are looking the other way. I don’t have to tell anyone in this room tonight how far that path to destruction we’ve already traveled. You see the evidence in families that are fractured and marriages that are broken; in young people that lose their way and often their lives in a maze of alcohol and drugs; in a culture that can no longer distinguish between lust and love; that is willing to tolerate the vilest perversion as an “alternative, acceptable lifestyle” while pestilence stalks the land; in public schools that have become facilitators for fornication and procurers for the abortionist knife; in a nation that has lost the moral will to distinguish between that which is right and that which is wrong: we know all too well how far down that road to destruction we have already gone.



We can win the next election or the next ten elections, we can balance the budget, we can reduce the deficit, we can bring down taxes and build the mightiest military machine on the face of the earth, but if we do no stop abortion then God will destroy and God should destroy America.

Brad Dacus: Overturning DOMA May Legalize Incest

Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus warned today that if the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) then the U.S. will likely legalize polygamy and incest “as society continues to slip down that slippery slope.” While speaking to Jim Schneider of VCY America’s radio show Crosstalk, Dacus also agreed with George Will’s assessment that “quite literally, opposition to gay marriage is dying,” alleging that teachers unions and Hollywood have spearheaded the “indoctrination” of youth.

Dacus: If the Supreme Court rules that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, then we’re basically going to have an open heyday for homosexual marriage as well as other kinds of “marriage” being introduced and being protected through this case law precedent, such as polygamy, perhaps adult incest and who knows what else will be attempted to be added on.



Schneider: This past Sunday syndicated columnist George Will appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and said that the opposition to same-sex marriage is “quite literally dying” he said because opponents tend to be older Americans. What are your thoughts on this?

Dacus: Unfortunately, I have to agree with George Will on this. The polls show and the stats show that older people are the number one supporters of traditional marriage, they are older people and they are literally dying. The people who are the biggest proponents of homosexual marriage, they’re young people, they’ve come out of our public schools, the teachers unions have been establishing this agenda and this indoctrination through our public schools for quite some time. So they’ve succeeded in this indoctrination process in many of our public schools across the country for a new way of thinking, a new perspective. Along with Hollywood, we have a whole new mindset and in fact young people are overwhelmingly, I think it is 2:1, in favor of legalization of homosexual marriage. Of course, that number could easily change to include other forms of marriage as society continues to slip down that slippery slope.

Barber: Gay Rights Advocates are 'Throwing Children Under the Bus'

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show this week to report on his group’s so far unsuccessful lawsuit against California’s new law prohibiting the use of ex-gay therapy on minors. Barber asserted that “anecdotal, unsubstantiated, politically motivated claims of suicidal thoughts” that frequently result from the unsafe and degrading therapy techniques “have nothing to do with science.” “Simply on the science alone they just don’t have a leg to stand on,” Barber said.

But as we’ve reported before, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers and American Psychiatric Association have all found that sexual orientation conversion therapy is a dangerous sham.

Barber, who just yesterday he claimed that nearly half of all gay people are victims of sexual abuse as children, doesn’t really care about the findings of the country’s leading medical organizations, he just cares about preserving extremely harmful practices under the pretense of defending children against the supposed gay menace.

“The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast” intent on “throwing children under the bus,” Barber claimed. He warned that gays are working to “turn our public schools into indoctrination centers” and “using these kids as pawns in a dangerous and selfish political game of chess.”

Barber: I know from personal experience dozens and dozens of former homosexuals, typically it’s through a relationship with Jesus Christ that they are able to come to a full and complete freedom from their unwanted same-sex attractions. We know the untold thousands of people who have left homosexuality, those results speak for themselves. You match that up against these anecdotal, unsubstantiated, politically motivated claims of suicidal thoughts and so forth, we see that this is clearly a political move; it has nothing to do with science or helping these children. They are using these kids as pawns in a dangerous and selfish political game of chess.



Barber: We’ve seen, as I mentioned before, thousands of people who have left homosexuality but they have to be able to establish that it’s fixed for legal purposes so that’s what it all boils down to, it’s all about the legality. We’re confident even the Ninth Circuit will hold that clearly this is an overreaching law that is politically motivated, intended to silence opposition to homosexuality and that simply on the science alone they just don’t have a leg to stand on.

Mefferd: You look at how the LGBT activists are operating in California and it just seems like there is no limit to what they want, it’s just one thing after another out there, they get one thing and then they move on to the next thing and they move on to the next thing and with great vigor.

Barber: That’s right. The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast, as I’ve often said before. They do want everything that we’ve said that they wanted and that is not just affirmation of homosexuality but celebration of homosexuality under penalty of law, they absolutely want to turn our public schools into indoctrination centers and the narrative that people can and do leave homosexuality does not align with their political, cultural and legal goals so they are throwing children under the bus here—in order to try ends justifies the means agenda here.

Eagle Forum: 'Non-Whites, Non-Christians and Non-Marrieds' will 'Tear Down Traditional American Culture'

After warning that a decline in the white birth rate will lead to the demise of American culture, Eagle Forum is now attacking racial and religious minorities for supposedly trying to “tear down traditional American culture” and “undermine Americanism.” As Kyle noted yesterday, Roger Schlafly (son of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly) is taking a page from Bill O’Reilly in blaming President Obama’s re-election on Democrats who have been “badmouthing traditional American values” and “increasing government dependence.” Schlafly, who earlier claimed that people should fear that “immigrants do not share American values” and “will not be voting Republican,” writes that Republicans and WASP culture are the last bastions of “traditional American values” against “non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds.”

America was founded by WASPs -- White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They had nuclear families, attended church, and believed in the Protestant work ethic. Republicans are seen as believing in traditional American values.

Democrats campaign largely by badmouthing traditional American values, and convincing various demographic groups that they are outside the Republican base, and hence better off voting Democrat. So non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds vote Democrat out of group identifications. That is, they see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture.

Democrats never persuade voters based on reason or logic. They gain voters by increasing government dependence and by promoting changes to immigration policy, family law, and schools that increase the population wanting to undermine Americanism.

We used to have independent voters who decided elections by voting for who they thought were the better candidates. This election has convinced everyone that now elections are determined msinly [sic] by demographics.

NOM Leader Warns of 'War on Women's Fertility'

Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage-affiliated Ruth Institute says there is not a “war on women” but a “war on women’s fertility” as a result of easily available contraception and women being encouraged to go into the workforce after college rather than getting married and having children:

"We are allowed to participate in a labor market, and in education, as long as we agree to chemically neuter ourselves during our peak child bearing years. When our children are the smallest and most vulnerable, we agree to place them in commercial care, that is if we're lucky to have any children. And if we're unable to conceive when we're finally ready, professionally and financially, we agree to submit our bodies to the trauma of artificial reproductive technology, including the over stimulation of our ovaries," Morse explained.

Alternatively, Morse described a potential career path designed for a female body this way: "Go to college for a liberal, not a vocational, education. Get married. Have your kids. Let your husband support you. It won't kill him, or you. Then go back to school, maybe, for an advanced degree after the kids are grown. Go to work. Then help support the kid's college in your joint retirement. And since we women live longer than men, we can be working longer than they are and let them relax a little bit."

Morse said she is not opposed to and finds nothing objectionable with women choosing not to have children. She also believes, though, that a pro-woman policy would insist that the education system and labor markets adapt to the needs of women who do not want to delay childbirth.

Morse provided several anecdotes, along with the empirical evidence, demonstrating that society views fertility as a problem to be solved rather than a gift to be embraced.

The Department of Health and Human Services' recent birth control mandate, requiring employers to provide birth control in their health plans, for instance, referred to birth control as "preventative care." The implication, Morse said, is that pregnancy is a disease or illness.

"I deeply resent the implication that the normal healthy functioning of my body is considered an illness," Morse implored. "The mandate itself is offensive and is evidence of a war against women's fertility."

Morse also complained that Medicaid, a government health insurance program for the poor, has many anti-fertility policies. Contraception is required, for instance, by program participants and made available to minors without parental consent.

Morse does "not accept that government has an interest in directing the fertility of poor people because there are too many." Indeed, Morse views the anti-fertility policies as an admission to the moral and fiscal failures of the welfare system.

"Change welfare policies to make them more sustainable and compassionate," Morse said, and "stop viewing the children of the poor as a problem for policy makers to solve by preventing their existence."

Morse also appealed to her Christian faith in defense of her position.

The typical secular feminist viewpoint, Morse said, replaced stability in marriage with stability in the workplace, and resents sex differences, "viewing them as some kind of cosmic injustice."

"Modern secularists insist that love, sex and reproduction be separated from each other for the sake of making men and women equal. But that view places men and women at odds with each other and encourages us to use one another – men using women for sex and women using men as combination sperm banks and wallets," Morse complained.

Six Months Since Last Circuit Court Confirmation, PFAW Urges Senate Action on All Nominees

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, six months after the last Senate confirmation vote on a federal circuit court nominee, People For the American Way urged Senate Republicans to agree to votes on all remaining federal judicial nominees.

“It is highly unusual to go six months without a vote on a single federal circuit court nominee, outside of a presidential transition,” said Marge Baker of People For the American Way. “And it’s even more unusual for these kinds of delays to be thrown at unquestionably qualified and uncontroversial nominees.”

There are currently 13 district court nominees and four circuit court nominees waiting for Senate votes. Circuit courts have a uniquely important role in our system of justice, and the four circuit court nominees have been blocked longer than any of the others. Tenth Circuit nominee Robert Bacharach of Oklahoma has been waiting six months for a confirmation vote; First Circuit nominee William Kayatta of Maine has been waiting roughly eight months, as has Federal Circuit nominee Richard Taranto. Third Circuit nominee Patty Shwartz of New Jersey has been waiting a full nine months for a simple up-or-down vote from the Senate. All have extraordinary qualifications and the support of their home-state senators, Democratic and Republican. In fact, if they are ever allowed a floor vote, most of the circuit court nominees can count on a unanimous or near-unanimous confirmation. Their only “flaw” is that Republicans oppose the president who nominated them.

“Under pressure, Senate Republicans have finally allowed some progress in recent days in the confirmation of a handful of consensus district court nominees who should have been confirmed months before the election,” continued Baker. “But there is no reason why every one of the nominees currently on the Senate calendar shouldn’t have an up-or-down vote before the end of the term. More than ten percent of all circuit court judgeships are vacant or soon to become vacant. Given this vacancy crisis, and with nominees like these four, it is inexcusable for Senate Republicans to allow half a year to go by without lifting their blanket blockade on all circuit court judges.”
 

###

Young Elected Official Stands Up to Michigan Anti-Labor Bill

Oakland County Commissioner Dave Woodward of Pontiac, Michigan – a member of our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network – stood up against Michigan’s new anti-labor law in a statement yesterday.  PFAW is proud of the work of young elected officials to protect workers’ rights and stand up for the middle class by speaking out against this damaging bill.

Woodward’s statement reads:

 

Oakland County Commissioner Dave Woodward, a member of People For the American Way Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network, states that the so-called “right to work” law would harm workers, unions, and everyday citizens across the state.  “You can't grow the middle class by weakening their very ability to earn a fair wage,” said Woodward.

“With their proposed  ‘Right to Work for Less’  Law, Governor Snyder and his anti-worker Republicans have signaled their new Jobs Plan---workers need to earn less,” Woodward continued. “This law will make it harder for workers to bargain for decent pay and benefits, making it harder, in turn, for them to support their families.”

PFAW

Kincaid: Republicans should take after the English Defence League

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media has some words of advice for the defeated GOP: follow the English Defence League. The EDL is a radical UK-based group strongly linked with violent actions and whose members terrorize Muslims and often espouse Nazism. But for Kincaid, they are a model for the Republican Party, which he fears is gradually becoming more supportive of gay rights and ignoring the increasing “persecution of social conservatives.”

As American conservatives contemplate the future of the Republican Party in the face of President Obama’s Marxist onslaught and reelection, the rapid deterioration of the British Conservative Party stands as proof that the situation could get far worse. British conservatives lead the British government as members of a coalition and are pushing legislation for what they euphemistically dub “Equal Civil Marriage”—gay marriage. They think this is the key to being politically relevant and winning elections.

Here in the U.S., former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal on November 21 to make the “conservative case” for backing gay marriage. But there can be no “conservative case” for gay marriage, unless the term “conservative” is redefined as the British Conservative leaders are trying to do.

Mehlman, a former lieutenant to Karl Rove, came out of the closet and announced that he was a homosexual in August of 2010. He has since launched a “Project Right Side” to make the “conservative” case for gay marriage. He points to Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger at The Washington Post, who has declared that social conservatives have “lost” the battle over gay marriage and should just “move on.” Rubin has also attacked conservative Senator Jim DeMint, who is resigning to take over the Heritage Foundation, in a column headlined, “Good riddance, Mr. DeMint.”

Another conservative in the liberal media, George Will, said on ABC’s “This Week” show, “the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s all old people.” He had previously endorsed gays in the military and had smeared supporters of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy as unintelligent.

The same “strategy” would also mandate that Republicans should “move on” by abandoning the pro-life cause and opposition to legalization of drugs. That would leave the GOP in the position of running purely on economic issues, in order to draw a contrast with the Democrats. Romney’s stunning defeat is an example of what happens when that strategy is followed.



According to this logic, American conservatives should applaud the fact that, on December 1, the first same-sex couple was “married” in the West Point Cadet Chapel of our nation’s military academy. This is a consequence of Obama’s gays-in-the-military policy.

The real lesson from what is happening in Britain is that if the Republicans go down this road, conservatives will revolt and the GOP will suffer an even more significant decline than we saw on November 6, when a number of social conservatives sat out the election. Surrender could also lead to more persecution of social conservatives.



This British Conservative Party has watered down traditional conservatism to such an extent that some conservatives have formed an alternative, the English Defense League (EDL), which has spawned the British Freedom Party.

This group has been strongly attacked in the media, here and abroad, as “far-right” or worse. But I had the opportunity to meet their leaders, Kevin Carroll and Tommy Robinson, at the 9/11 conference in New York City sponsored by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer which was designed in part to organize resistance to global Islam and safeguard our right of free speech against the advance of Sharia, or Islamic law. You can watch the speeches by Carroll and Robinson and draw your own conclusions. Carroll and Robinson want a patriotic alternative to the British Conservative Party that will promote traditional values.

American conservatives and their media should take a hard look at what is really happening in Britain. We had to turn to a relatively new conservative channel in Canada, Sun TV, for important news and information about how Carroll and Robinson and their supporters are being targeted by the “conservative” government there. Carroll was actually imprisoned for exercising his political rights. Robinson is still in prison on charges that he entered the United States illegally and has sent Pamela Geller a letter about his plight, which is published on her website.

MacArthur: Obama is 'Evidence of God's Judgment'

Pastor John MacArthur, who before Election Day warned that the Democrats are an “anti-God party” that has “made the sins of Romans 1 their agenda,” delivered a post-election sermon in which he declared that President Obama himself is a judgment of God. “We have the President, we have as a judgment from God, that is a judgment from God, he is an evidence of God’s judgment,” MacArthur said, and went on to doubt Obama's Christian faith and reiterate his claim that God is abandoning America to “sexual sin.”

We have the President we have as a judgment from God, that is a judgment from God, he is an evidence of God’s judgment. Because of Romans 1, God has given us over, ‘when those who know God glorify him not as God and do not like to retain God in their knowledge,’ which is what the Democratic platform said originally, get God out. By the way that’s a big change, four years ago McCain and Obama interviewed at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, both affirmed to be Christians, both affirmed to believe in Jesus Christ, that all went by the board and God was removed four years later because that wasn’t going to be popular this time around. So that kind of an accommodating religion has been unmasked. But the bottom line is Romans 1 says that if you do not retain God in your knowledge, if you do not glorify him, his wrath is unleashed. It’s talking about the cycle of history, Acts 14: God allows all the nations to go their own way. We’re going our own way; we’re going the way of our own choices. When the wrath of God is in motion, God gives them over—this is his wrath in motion—to sexual sin, that’s what we’ve got, sexual sin which is rampant. Over fifty percent of adult women are single and men as well, this kind of single life with promiscuous behavior everywhere is what this generation wants. That’s an evidence of wrath: the smashing and crushing of the family. Then the next one, verse 26, he gave them over to homosexuality. Now we are not only tolerant but advocates of that. Then he gave them over to a reprobate mind and that includes murder and all kinds of other crimes, which would include abortion.

He also argued that gay marriage and abortion rights will grow the size of government and persecute the church.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future there are less and less and less freedoms that people in America enjoy, right now they are willing to make that exchange for two reasons: they are willing to make it number one for the sake of money in their pocket and number two for the sake of immorality. If the government will let them have free sex, homosexual marriage and abortion, they are fine, they are okay with that. As we pointed out to you before the election when you have a platform of a party being remove God, affirm free sex and government provided contraception, homosexual marriage and abortion, when that’s the platform you know how far that nation has gone into immorality. And when the people vote it into power again, that either means they advocate that kind of life or they are indifferent to it as long as you keep giving them what they want. So there is a real tipping point I think that’s happened in our country. I don’t mind the darkness getting darker, I don’t mind the illusion of morality going away, I don’t mind the darker environment in the sense ‘that darker the night the brighter the light.’ But the church has to step up and be the church and proclaim the Gospel and confront the culture, that’s what we have to do. And when we do that what’s going to happen is persecution. They are already talking about hate speech and the categories of hate speech are going to escalate as the immoral country begins to try to defend itself and isolate itself and not face the reality of its immorality.

Bachmann: Obama wants to 'Lift up the Islamists' and Impose Sharia Law

Earlier this year, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that Muslim Brotherhood agents had penetrated the Obama administration, which she claimed was attempting to “enforce Islamic speech codes.” While Bachmann was roundly mocked and criticized for the baseless remarks, they were a hit in conspiratorial right-wing circles. Bachmann took her crusade against the supposed Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the government to Jan Markell’s radio show this weekend, where she again claimed that Obama is “aiding and abetting” radical Islamist groups.

Markell is an End Times broadcaster and a close ally of Bachmann, who attended her “Understanding the Times” conference this year. She has previously claimed that Mattel’s Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n Coo doll is promoting Islam to children, demanded the government begin monitoring mosques and in 2007 predicted a terrorist attack as a result of a Hindu prayer in the U.S. Senate. Markell has also suggested that a tornado in Minnesota was a “warning from God” meant to punish the Lutheran Church for affirming gay pastors and alleged that the deadly 2011 earthquake in Japan was divine judgment.

Markell charged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and Eric Barger said that the supposed rise of Sharia law in the U.S. is proof that the Antichrist is coming.

Markell: Hillary, she’s a woman from Arkansas who used to be an attorney and rose to the White House, why would somebody like Hillary Clinton let herself get embroiled in things that are so Islamic? I’ve done entire programs on her assistant Huma Abedin connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Why do you think someone like Hillary is getting so enmeshed in all things Muslim Brotherhood that this is absolutely a danger to the nation at this point because of the intricate nature of Muslim Brotherhood, Washington D.C., homeland security, national security, the State Department and the rabbit trails just keep going, and everybody is wondering who has looked into these kinds of issues, what is in the mind of somebody like Hillary Clinton that she is willing to sacrifice the safety of the nation by getting so embroiled in Muslim Brotherhood?

Barger: Jan, it is simply baffling to me. To be honest with you, I’ve thought about that so much and I’ve been living with this research now for several weeks that we’re using on the air. Somebody has her ear, obviously; maybe she is convinced that she can be a catalyst for world peace. You know, if you understand Islam at all you understand that the goal is not world peace, this is world domination, they have said it over and over; it’s in the Koran.



Barger: Can you imagine Sunday sermons across our land soon being scrutinized by a panel by religious examiners to see if the words used pass the left-wing litmus test or the Muslim litmus test or however it’s viewed, to see if they become hate crimes or to see who would be called a renegade preacher is really just inciting his people? That’s where we’re going and eventually that’s the case Antichrist will make against people who disagree with him and who would stand against him and stand against everything that he will stand for. The thought police have now moved to the mouth and I think we need to see that and understand it. How soon will our legal ability to witness and defend the faith and preach the unadulterated Gospel be hampered or stopped? This is the important question, you see.

During the interview, Bachmann warned that Israel and the American people are in grave danger due to President Obama’s purported support of radical Islamists: “President Obama, if you look at nearly every decision he has made about this issue, it is to lift up the Islamists and to take down Israel.”

She also claimed that the Obama administration’s supposed “Islamic speech codes” could be “deadly for the American people.”

Bachmann also told Barger that everyone who is not an Islamist will “lose their right of speech and expression” as there is “no tolerance for dissent or disagreeing in any way with the goals or the beliefs of the Islamists.”

Bachmann: Not just verbal speech, but written, a cartoon, a painting, whatever it is, if it is in any way construed as being against Islam that is where the confrontation comes from the Islamist world and they want to stop anyone in the world from saying anything negative about Islam. Which means there is only one free speech right and that would belong to the Islamists. Everyone else would lose their right of speech and expression.

The reason why this is important is because this is the whole game, it is game over if we who are in the non-Islamist world lose the right to criticize what the Islamist does, because the Islamist tries to advocate Islamic Sharia law and so anything that we would say in the future, once you criminalized anti-Islamic speech, anything that we would say that would be critical in any way of anything Islam does would be considered criminalized. That’s why I say it is game over; the Islamists will have won everything. That’s why they are willing to put ten years into achieving this objective of silencing any form of dissent to Islam.

Barger: That goes right along with the idea that in Islam you are either a member of the house of peace or the house of war, there is no live and let live or peaceful coexistence.

Bachmann: There is no tolerance. There is no tolerance for dissent or disagreeing in any way with the goals or the beliefs of the Islamists, there is only one way.



Bachmann: Once you take away people’s ability to be able to speak, this is not a small right, this is everything, it is game over because then all of the power and authority has been given over to the Islamist. The Islamist is the only one who gets to dictate what we can say and what we can do, and what we can print and what we not print, and who can assembly and how they can assemble, because at that point Sharia Islamic law in effect becomes the law of the land because the Islamist gets to have the authority, not anyone who opposes Islam. This is a very, very important issue.

She accused the Obama administration of supporting the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s advocacy of blasphemy laws, which the U.S. unambiguously opposed. Bachmann said that Americans must study Islamic materials in the same way people studied Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf during WWII and alleged that a letter from Muslim-American groups [PDF] regarding anti-Muslim instructional material is “proof positive” that the Obama administration wants to introduce Sharia law to the U.S.

Bachmann: That’s what I spent my whole year doing was talking about this issue of what the OIC was trying to do with their ten year plan and all of these efforts in the Obama administration. The only conclusion you could make is that they are embracing the ten year plan and are supporting it and that’s why this October 19 document is so important because that is proof positive that every piece that is put into place is leading to one direction, this isn’t deviating it’s leading to one direction, and that ultimate goal it seems to be is to allow for mandating, following, every demand of the Islamist and we know what their ultimate demand is.

Barger: Sharia law.

Bachmann: That’s right. That’s why we need to know what their belief system is; we need to know what they truly believe. That’s why the most important thing a person could do in WWII was to read the book that the leader of Germany wrote.

Barger: Mein Kampf.

Bachmann: Because he laid out very clearly what his intention was, he wasn’t hiding it, the Islamist does the same thing. They do not hide it, they lay it out very clearly. But what we’ve never seen before is the United States aiding and abetting that goal.

Bachmann concluded by making the absurd claim that Obama and Clinton are going to do away with people’s First Amendment rights and “take away the free speech rights of the American people.”

Barger: We know that our Constitution certainly doesn’t match what the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood want, nor what the United Nations seems to be doing with Resolution 16/18 and with some other things that are going on there. How much should we worry about executive orders and how they might become, instead of the legislation that should be passed through Congress, might become the law of the land that way?

Bachmann: We’ve already seen that President Obama has given himself a very free hand at writing any executive order that he wants because he said it himself that if the United States Congress won’t agree with him, he’ll just take matters into his own hand and he’ll become his own Congress and he’ll sign his own executive order and thereby put into practical effect a law that he wants to see passed. This is completely against our Constitution.

But even more importantly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton she helped to formulate and write and pass UN Resolution 16/18, which calls for the criminalization—anti-free speech measures. This is very concerning that she went down that road. It doesn’t specifically say Islam, it talks about religious speech, but let’s face it there is only one religion that the OIC—the Organization of Islamic Cooperative [sic]—cares about and that’s Islam. Hillary Clinton was involved from the very beginning in writing this resolution. She’s already signed this. While a UN resolution doesn’t bind United States law, how in the world could the President allow the Secretary of State to sign a resolution that indicates that we are willing to take away the free speech rights of the American people?

This is game over, as I’ve said before, because when you limit the right to dissent from the American people, the Founders made this the First Amendment because they understood this is our most sacred right, our right to speak, our right to practice our faith the way that we want to, the right to publish what we want to publish, the right to assemble and talk about whatever we want to talk about. That’s freedom, that’s the essence of freedom, that’s the First Amendment, and that is what UN Resolution 16/18 which Hillary Clinton signed, presumably with the affirmation of President Obama, and that’s the first step in a big step for taking away from you and me and all of your listeners our right of free speech and expression, religious practice, freedom of assembly, freedom of the printing press but even more importantly, it will empower the Islamist to use that against us.

Either Bachmann never read UN Resolution 16/18 or is simply misrepresenting it, as the resolution [PDF] actually defends the freedom of religion while at the same time expressing “deep concern” over religious intolerance, discrimination and violence.

Human Rights First also debunks the assertion that the resolution somehow curtails freedom of speech:

Myth 1: The U.N. resolution opens the door to limiting freedom of speech.

Wrong. The resolution acknowledges the language of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), notably that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” It calls on states to take measures “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.”

The United States has a reservation to that provision, to the extent that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so it is not bound by the obligation. In fact, the U.S. has the highest threshold of free speech in the world, and the U.S. government has expressed no intention of lowering those standards. However, that does not exempt all other states from their legal obligations to fight “incitement, hostility or violence” according to article 20 of the ICCPR. After all, that is what they signed up to, so they have an obligation by law to honor their commitment.

In all respects though, the implementation of Article 20 must not infringe Article 19, which reasserts everyone’s right to freedom of expression. Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations. The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

Justice Scalia’s 7 Worst Anti-Gay Statements

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two landmark cases on marriage equality. Yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded us again why gay rights advocates, to put it mildly, aren’t counting on his vote.

Scalia is the Supreme Court’s most outspoken opponent of gay rights. He led the dissent to the two major gay rights decisions of his tenure on the Court, the decisions to strike down Texas’ criminal sodomy law and to overturn Colorado’s ban on local anti-discrimination measures. And in his spare time, he minces no words about his uncompromising opposition to gay rights. Here are seven of his most egregious anti-gay statements:

  • Compares bans on homosexuality to bans on murder: Yesterday, Scalia asked a gay law student, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
  •  …and to bans on polygamy and animal cruelty: In his dissent to the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, Scalia wrote, “But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers.”
  • Defends employment and housing discrimination: In his dissent to Lawrence, the decision that overturned Texas’ criminal sodomy law, Scalia went even further, justifying all kinds of discrimination against gays and lesbians: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as ‘discrimination’ which it is the function of our judgments to deter.”
  • Says decision on “homosexual sodomy” was “easy” because it's justified by long history of anti-gay discrimination: In a talk at the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Scalia dismissed decisions on abortion, the death penalty and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy”: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
  • Says domestic partners have no more rights than “long time roommates”:  In his dissent in Romer, Scalia dismissed the idea that a law banning benefits for same-sex domestic partners would be discriminatory, saying the law “would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee.”
  • Says gay rights are a concern of “the elite”: In his Romer dissent, Scalia lashes out at the majority that has upheld gay rights: “This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that 'animosity' toward homosexuality is evil. “
  • Accuses those who disagree with him of supporting the “homosexual agenda”: Lifting a talking point straight from the far right, Scalia accused the majority in Lawrence of being in the thrall of the “homosexual agenda”: “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Cross-posted from PFAW Blog

Justice Scalia’s 7 Worst Anti-Gay Statements

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two landmark cases on marriage equality. Yesterday, Justice Antonin Scalia reminded us again why gay rights advocates, to put it mildly, aren’t counting on his vote.

Scalia is the Supreme Court’s most outspoken opponent of gay rights. He led the dissent to the two major gay rights decisions of his tenure on the Court, the decisions to strike down Texas’ criminal sodomy law and to overturn Colorado’s ban on local anti-discrimination measures. And in his spare time, he minces no words about his uncompromising opposition to gay rights. Here are seven of his most egregious anti-gay statements:

  • Compares bans on homosexuality to bans on murder: Yesterday, Scalia asked a gay law student, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
     
  •  …and to bans on polygamy and animal cruelty: In his dissent to the Colorado case, Romer v. Evans, Scalia wrote, “But I had thought that one could consider certain conduct reprehensible--murder, for example, or polygamy, or cruelty to animals--and could exhibit even 'animus' toward such conduct. Surely that is the only sort of ‘animus’ at issue here: moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, the same sort of moral disapproval that produced the centuries old criminal laws that we held constitutional in Bowers.”
     
  • Defends employment and housing discrimination: In his dissent to Lawrence, the decision that overturned Texas’ criminal sodomy law, Scalia went even further, justifying all kinds of discrimination against gays and lesbians: “Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as ‘discrimination’ which it is the function of our judgments to deter.”
     
  • Says decision on “homosexual sodomy” was “easy” because it's justified by long history of anti-gay discrimination: In a talk at the American Enterprise Institute earlier this year, Scalia dismissed decisions on abortion, the death penalty and “homosexual sodomy” as “easy”: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion,” he said. “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”
     
  • Says domestic partners have no more rights than “long time roommates”:  In his dissent in Romer, Scalia dismissed the idea that a law banning benefits for same-sex domestic partners would be discriminatory, saying the law “would prevent the State or any municipality from making death benefit payments to the ‘life partner’ of a homosexual when it does not make such payments to the long time roommate of a nonhomosexual employee.”
     
  • Says gay rights are a concern of “the elite”: In his Romer dissent, Scalia lashes out at the majority that has upheld gay rights: “This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected, pronouncing that "animosity" toward homosexuality is evil.“
     
  • Accuses those who disagree with him of supporting the “homosexual agenda”: Lifting a talking point straight from the far right, Scalia accused the majority in Lawrence of being in the thrall of the “homosexual agenda”: “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”
PFAW

Tell Senate Republicans: End the Obstruction!

Tell Senate Republicans: End the obstruction and procedural foot-dragging and confirm the president's judicial nominees!

PFAW: DOMA and Prop 8 Cases Offer Supreme Court Landmark Opportunities for Equality

People For the American Way President Michael Keegan released the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court’s announcement this afternoon that it will hear Windsor v. U.S., a case challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case challenging California’s Proposition 8:
 


“As we saw with last month’s state ballot measures affirming marriage equality, more and more Americans are coming to understand that laws preventing same-sex couples from getting married do real harm to our families, friends, and neighbors.  There’s also absolutely no legitimate reason for the federal government to recognize some legally married couples while refusing to recognize others. Laws like Proposition 8 and DOMA go against the central American ideal of equal justice under the law,” said Keegan. “We applauded the earlier court decisions that found both Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. There’s no question that the Constitution’s guarantee of equal justice under law applies to all people—gay or straight. The cases the court agreed to hear today are a landmark opportunity for our country to move towards making marriage equality the law of the land once and for all.”
 
“It is time to for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the side of equality and send a powerful message: our country will no longer selectively discriminate against loving, committed couples.”


###

 

Swanson and Ham: Young Earth Creationists at 'Omaha Beach in the War of the Worldviews'

Generations Radio’s Kevin Swanson spoke yesterday with Creation Museum president Ken Ham, who has written a book about how many Christian colleges “are going the way of Yale, Harvard and Princeton” and rejecting young earth creationism.

Ham recently lashed out at televangelist Pat Robertson after Right Wing Watch reported Robertson’s rejection of the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. In his interview with Swanson, Ham accused churches and Christian colleges of “open[ing] the door to allow the philosophy of naturalism, and evolution, millions of years, to permeate into God’s word,” warning, “If we don’t shut that door, we’re going to lose this culture, America will be the England and Europe of tomorrow.”

“As you write this book,” Swanson asked, “Do you get the sense that you are effectively very, very close to Omaha Beach in the war of the worldviews?”

Ham: Evolution, millions of years, he naturalistic philosophy that permeates our education system, that’s really the religion of this age to explain life without God. And much of our church, our church leaders, have adopted that religion, sadly, and compromised it with God’s word.

Swanson: Ken, as you write this book, ‘Already Compromised,’ do you get the sense that you are effectively very, very close to Omaha Beach in the war of the worldviews? I mean, you are right there, where the ideas are being formulated, where the minds and the lives of the next generation are being formed by the millions across this country, I mean this is an important battle.

Ham: It is, it’s an extremely important battle. Because, you know what, it only takes one generation to lose a culture. That’s all it takes. And if you can capture one generation, you’ll have the culture. And just as, you know, when the Israelites crossed the Jordan river and there were 12 stones to remind the next generation of what God did and what did we find? They weren’t reminded, the next generation, they lost it in one generation, we’re losing this culture before our very eyes today because the church opened the door to allow the philosophy of naturalism, and evolution, millions of years, to permeate into God’s word. We need to shut that door. If we don’t shut that door, that’s where the battle’s at right now, if we don’t shut that door, we’re going to lose this culture, America will be the England and Europe of tomorrow.

Eliason: Affirming Gay People like Encouraging Pyromaniacs

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk yesterday to discuss his so far unsuccessful legal challenge to California’s law banning ex-gay therapy practiced on minors, where host Vic Eliason commended his efforts and said that affirming a gay person’s sexual orientation is “like saying to the pyromaniac: go ahead and try it again.”

Staver: These clients who have a right to receive the kind of counseling that they want and is benefiting them, they will be told ‘no you can’t have that anymore.’ The only kind of counsel that you can get is that these confused feelings that you have and that you don’t want, don’t worry about them, just act on them, let’s change your religious and moral views instead.

Eliason: That’s like saying to the pyromaniac: go ahead and try it again. Inflaming emotions and passions….

Staver argued that the law will hurt survivors of child abuse because they will begin to “have feelings towards somebody of the same-sex because that’s how he was abused, that’s how he was dominated,” saying that gays are “abnormal” and have a “risky” lifestyle. He added that sometimes sexual orientation conversion therapy isn’t even needed because the orientation can “go away spontaneously” and “without any intervention at all.”

The likes of a Jerry Sandusky, the monster that he has been on the media and around the country, molest a young boy. That boy then begins to have anger and identity issues and it affects his relationship with his classmates and with his parents, then begins to act out or have feelings towards somebody of the same-sex because that’s how he was abused, that’s how he was dominated. That’s a normal response for someone going through something like this where they’ve been sexually dominated.



There are studies that show that some minors for example that might develop these same-sex sexual attractions, they go away spontaneously, they go away without any intervention at all, they just simply go away. Now, what happens if you have situations like that where someone just says, ‘hey it’s natural and normal, go ahead and act on it.’ Well no it’s not natural and normal, in fact it’s abnormal, it’s risky.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious