American Family Association

Is Satan Behind the Campaign to Let Gays Join the Boy Scouts?

With the Boy Scouts of America board planning to vote Wednesday on whether to allow local troops to accept gay members, Religious Right activists are ramping up their efforts to keep the ban in place. And Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel believes that Satan is the real culprit behind the potential shift in policy.

Barber blamed “spiritual pressure” from Satan — “the Prince of the Earth” — for the potential decision of the BSA board and claimed that Jerry Sandusky may soon “join the jamboree.”

The Prince of the Earth seeks to corrupt and ultimately destroy all that is righteous, honorable and good. It’s little wonder, then, that for years the Boy Scouts have faced a malicious and unrelenting assault at the hands of those “who call evil good and good evil.”



If the BSA, with its proud tradition of teaching millions of young boys how to become honorable young men, gives in on this, the organization is toast. Oh, it might limp along as something else – something entirely different, worldly and weak – but its long history as an upright, ethical and God-honoring safe-haven for boys will come to a disgraceful close.



Still, under immense socio-political – indeed spiritual pressure, the Boy Scouts appear poised to play a very dangerous, self-deluded game of “the Scoutmaster wears no clothes.” They’re flirting with the queer idea of an about turn – of betraying both absolute truth and the very boys they serve.

Instead of teaching young men to stand up to the bully, they would model surrender – teach them that, when you reach an adversarial fork in the road, take the primrose path of least resistance.

But it’s much worse than all that. We mustn’t ignore the pink elephant in the room; the Penn State factor. Should the BSA cave beneath the weight of sexual anarchist intimidation, Scoutmaster Sandusky joins the jamboree.

Liberty Counsel joined the Liberty Institute and Alliance Defending Freedom in a letter to the BSA insisting that any change in policy will undermine their “religious liberty and First Amendment rights.” Meanwhile, the American Family Association said that “the homosexual machine will continue to attack” the BSA until no troops have bans on gay members.

Liberty Counsel’s posted a graphic on its Facebook page that says that Boy Scouts will compromise their ability to “participate in healthy activities without fear of predation or moral confusion.”

The Iowa-based Family Leader warned of “sexual abuse” in the Boy Scouts if the ban is lifted:

The Boy Scouts of America, under intense financial pressure from homosexual activists, are considering changing their 100-year old policy of not allowing openly homosexual Scout leaders and Scouts. This pressure tactic is an attack on religious liberty, would teach our youth the wrong lessons, and should put every God-fearing individual on alert.

The Scout oath includes promises to keep oneself “morally straight,” and to be courageous. If the Boy Scouts’ leaders compromise on moral principles under political and financial pressure, it will only teach boys cowardice, not courage.

The current policy is also designed to protect Scouts from sexual abuse. How will parents be able to entrust their children to the Boy Scouts if they trade the well-being of the boys for corporate dollars?

Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action also argued that the Boy Scouts will “put boys at risk” in her radio alert:

Will the Scouts put boys at risk by inviting homosexual activists to become the scoutmasters at their campouts in the woods?

While the Boy Scouts of America have for many years taken a protective stand against homosexual scoutmasters, they are inviting public opinion on whether to put impressionable boys at risk by changing their policy.

They are “discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation.”

We need to call before their board meets and likely decides this week at 972-580-2000. Urge them to stand firm in the best interest of the boys in their care, rather than the interests of homosexual activists. Then, ask others to call at 972-580-2000.

The AFA’s Randy Sharp told the group’s leader Tim Wildmon that including gay Boy Scouts is “a very dangerous and unhealthy thing.”

Wildmon: Who is putting pressure on them?

Sharp: Mostly it’s the homosexual lobby in America, the Human Rights Campaign, groups like these that are trying to pressure the Boy Scouts into opening up their membership to open homosexuals to serve not only as leaders and mentors but also to boys who may be questioning their sexuality or have claimed to be openly gay. The Boy Scouts find that when you’ve got the homosexual leaders it’s a very dangerous and unhealthy thing.

Wildmon: That’s the reason they’ve always had the policy. That’s the Boy Scout pledge, isn’t it, “morally straight”?

Sharp: Absolutely, it’s in the oath.

Wildmon: That means “morally straight” sexually too and being homosexual would not be being straight.

Sharp: It’s not being very moral either.

Wildmon: Exactly.

Buster Wilson of the AFA last week went on a tirade against the Human Rights Campaign and maintained that “there is a day of reckoning that will come” to them for creating the “Boy Scouts of Gay America.”

Folks, in any other avenue in American life that would be called extortion. In any other venue of American existence that would be seen as villainous and as extortion. The Human Rights campaign, for all humans except those that are not gay, it’s a joke. They ought to be ashamed and there is a day of reckoning that will come.



If the Boy Scouts cave to the extortion-demands of the Human Rights Campaign through all of the corporate sponsors they’ve threatened then we will lose this venerable group for good. It will be a trophy on the wall of Big Gay and their agenda and we will see one more portion of moral American life gone.



If they wilt under the pressure of the Human Rights Campaign and they fold like a cheap tent they will cease to exist. Let me tell you what the Boy Scouts of America will become, if they change their ruling and they give into the pressure and the extortion of the Human Rights Campaign this is what’s going to happen: the Boy Scouts of America will falter and fall and become nothing in the end but the ‘Boy Scouts of Gay America’ because that’s the only folks that’ll support them.

Fischer: Gay Boy Scouts Will Create 'Sexual Tension' on Camping Trips

Bryan Fischer has not been shy about voicing his opposition to consideration by the Boy Scouts to drop the policy banning gay scouts and scout leaders and he returned to the topic again today, warning that allowing openly gay scouts would create too much dangerous "sexual tension" during camping trips:

Fischer Cites Todd Akin in Making the Case that the GOP is not 'the Stupid Party'

Last week, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal spoke at a Republican National Committee meeting where he declared that the GOP has got to "stop being the stupid party" and that is not sitting well with Bryan Fischer, who got fired-up over it on today's "Focal Point" broadcast on the grounds that  Jindal was buying into Democratic attacks and helping them brand the GOP in this manner.

And the GOP is not the stupid party, Fischer insisted, because "conservative ideas are not stupid; they are wise, they work, they are strategic, every one of them; conservatism works every single solitary time it is tried, we don't have to apologize for a single solitary conservative idea."

Fischer recognized that sometimes conservatives might "misspeak" on occasion, as Todd Akin did with his infamous "legitimate rape" remark ... but that just proves Fischer's point because Akin was "completely accurate about that," thus demonstrating that "our ideas are not stupid and the people who advocate them are not stupid": 

Sandy Rios Warns Gay Rights Lead to 'Fascism' and a 'Lack of Freedom'

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios today warned listeners that gay rights advocates are promoting a form of “fascism” and that gay equality will result in a “lack of freedom.” 

Rios: We all watched the inauguration recently of the President and we saw on the platform where things lie. We know that if you think that homosexuality is a problem you will not be allowed into public service hardly in any way. If you think that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt, if you have a problem with that, then you are out of the adoption business. I think it is fascism personally; I would go to that extreme and say that, it’s a lack of freedom.

Her guest Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union also criticized gay rights supporters and argued that any shift in the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay membership “would destroy the Boy Scouts,” and later called for a “new board of directors” who would not “entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals.”

Knight: What they are saying is they are going to leave it up to parents and local councils and Scout troops on whether to allow homosexual leaders and members in. This would destroy the Boy Scouts, let’s cut to the chase, what parent would put their young boy under the authority of men who are attracted to males and take them camping and swimming, etcetera. It’s not designed to make the scouts fairer it’s designed to destroy the Boy Scouts as we know them.



Rios: There’s really no pressure in the courts and the financial pressures they were facing earlier had subsided so this is like a new assault on them, isn’t it? Now they are coming out because of the corporate angle.

Knight: Yeah and I think what people have to do is say the Boy Scouts need a new board of directors if they are going to entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals. This is about getting corporate money so they can keep their fat headquarters in Texas. Think about it, Scout troops raise money locally they can survive just fine without corporate donations, but not the people at the top, they are the ones who ought to be replaced.

Fischer: 'Big Gay' Will Cause Your Daughters 'To Be Sent Into Combat to Die'

As we noted earlier today, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has  claimed that both the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the end of the ban on women serving in combat positions will deter so many volunteers that the military will be forced to reinstate the draft.

On Focal Point today, Fischer drew a direct line between “Big Gay” and women in combat. “Malicious” and “sinister” gay rights activists, he claims, are “trying to destroy the military,” which will ultimately mean “they’re going to have a tough time filling their ranks with qualified soldiers. So they’re going to have to go to the draft, and that means your daughters are going to be pulled into the draft and they could be sent into combat to die, whether they want to do it or not, because of Big Gay.”

Watch:

Buster Wilson Claims Gays in the Boy Scouts Will Lead to Abuse, Death and the Destruction of America

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson is a B-list version of Bryan Fischer, but he does a good impersonation in his latest rant against the Boy Scouts of America for considering a change in their ban on gay members. Wilson claims that gay men sometimes have “as many as a hundred or more partners” and will put Boy Scouts in “compromising” situations. He even argues that a ban on gay scouts is a good thing because excluding them will prevent them from being bullied and contemplating suicide:

There is no mistaking the fact that homosexuals are known, by their own admission, to have multiple sexual partners, sometimes as many as a hundred or more partners. Shocking, I know! But you see we make a dreadful mistake when we think of the homosexual relationship in the same vein as we would think of the average heterosexual relationship. They are not the same and they do not function the same.

I know that all homosexuals are not pedophiles. But, are you willing to take a chance with the life of your son that a homosexual that has been placed in the position of a Scout Leader, will not, will never put your son in a compromising situation? Really? If you do, you’ve redefined “faith” in a whole new way for me. The Scout oath requires a Scout to commit to “God and Country” to be “morally straight.” I don’t see how a Scout could ever make an oath before God to be morally straight when he has submitted himself to be led, trained, educated and modeled after one whom God has already described as immoral.

The gay community is very concerned about gay children being bullied and wrestling with suicide. I am dreadfully worried about those issues as well. No one, including me wants a child to be bullied and certainly we would never want a child to wrestle with much less choose suicide. But what could happen when you place a gay kid in a group of straight kids in a closed environment such as Scouting: is there not an increased worry of bullying and rejection that might cause a child to think of suicide?

Wilson makes it quite clear that he believes gay Scout leaders will molest children:

Imagine with me a troop of young boys, ranging in ages from 12-16. These young boys are going to be out in the woods, away from their parents. Not just away from their parents but away from any contact with their parents. Back in my day, there were no cell phones. And today, most camps sites are out cell range.

They would be out in the woods for 2-4 days, nights, depending on what time of the year it was. They will sleep in pairs or threes, in sleeping bags, in tents or out in the open. They will shower and wash in the creeks or lakes that outline their camp site. It would be nothing for boys to wonder about with their shirts off, or sometimes just in their underwear or swim suit because they had just been to the latrine or to the swimming hole. These will all be under the direction of the Scout leader who led them there.

Now, you could say that I am setting up a scenario that is just my own. That there are no reports of the kind of activities that my evil mind is conjuring up, that our homosexual friends want nothing more than to lead these young men to maturity and personal growth and I’m evil for believing that such horrible thoughts could actually become reality. But then, I would refer you again, to my friend Bryan Fischer’s latest article where he reminds us all of the Jerry Sandusky story.

Seeing that Sandusky is married to a woman, he would not have been barred by the BSA’s current ban on gays.

He goes on to argue that children will be “challenged” and “compromised” by gay Scouts as they will not “be safe in that environment.” After smearing gays as child molesters, Wilson naturally accuses gay people of trying to “denigrate” and “smear” others.

There will be multiple occasions for them to be out in the woods alone—without you mommy and dad, without any way to get a hold of you mom and dad—and you’re going to send them out there in the woods with a man who is an avowed homosexual? You really have safe that they are not going to be challenged or compromised? Then I say you have a faith that redefines the whole issue of faith as far as I’m concerned. How you would ever believe that your child would be safe in that environment. And why the Boy Scouts are doing this? I can tell you why they’re doing it. They’re doing it for the same reason that every other organization or area of American life would succumb to the demands of the homosexual lobby: they’re doing it because of political correctness and they’re doing it because of the Alinsky-style opposition that is in place, if you oppose homosexuality they will mock you, they will denigrate you. They will belittle you, they will smear you and talk about you being intolerant and unloving and un-Christ-like. If you are a Christian organization they will call you a hate group.

Wilson even warns that if the U.S. continues to “succumb to the pressure of political correctness from the forces on the side of the homosexual agenda,” then God may “rain down destruction” on America as he did to Sodom:

There’s also this level of understanding this as a bad decision spiritually. I’m a Bible-believer, I’m a Christian and I think many people who listen to this program are and in our Bible we see God rain down destruction on an entire city and people group because of the wickedness of homosexuality. I don’t want to continue to see every area of life in America succumb to the pressure of political correctness from the forces on the side of the homosexual agenda. I am worried about what God will do with this nation if we are not careful.

Bryan Fischer Explodes: 'Not One Loving Father' Should Entrust Son to the Boy Scouts if Gays Are Included

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said that a change in the Boy Scouts’ ban on gay members would be a “suicide mission” and lead to pedophilia. While speaking to AFA news director Fred Jackson yesterday on Focal Point, Fischer said that gay men are “ten times” more likely than heterosexuals to molest children, and it would be “insanity” to have them “bunking down with your kid at jamboree.”

“To me it’s just suicidal, they are finished, they are done,” Fischer told Jackson, “There is not one loving father in America that ever, ever, ever ought to entrust his son to the Boy Scouts of America.”

Watch:

Religious Right Activists Warn of Pedophilia if Boy Scouts Open Doors to Gay Members

After news reports came out today that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may drop its national policy banning openly gay members in favor of “passing any decisions on gay membership to the local level,” outrage among Religious Right activists has just begun.

For example, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer suggested the move would allow Jerry Sandusky-like pedophiles to become troop leaders:

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd followed suit.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which launched a boycott of UPS after the company stopped donating to the BSA for failing to meet its non-discrimination guidelines, said that the inclusion of openly gay members undermines “the well-being of the boys under their care”:

"The Boy Scouts of America board would be making a serious mistake to bow to the strong-arm tactics of LGBT activists and open the organization to homosexuality. What has changed in terms of the Boy Scouts' concern for the well-being of the boys under their care? Or is this not about the well-being of the Scouts, but the funding for the organization?

"The Boy Scouts has for decades been a force for moral integrity and leadership in the United States. Sadly, their principled stances have marked them as a target for harassment by homosexual activists and corporations such as UPS which are working to pressure the Boy Scouts into abandoning their historic values.

"The mission of the Boy Scouts is 'to instill values in young people' and 'prepare them to make ethical choices,' and the Scout's oath includes a pledge 'to do my duty to God' and keep himself 'morally straight.' It is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual for those passages to be interpreted as requiring abstinence from homosexual conduct.

"If the board capitulates to the bullying of homosexual activists, the Boy Scouts' legacy of producing great leaders will become yet another casualty of moral compromise. The Boy Scouts should stand firm in their timeless values and respect the right of parents to discuss these sexual topics with their children," concluded Perkins.

In an email to members, Perkins claimed that any policy change would have “devastating” consequences:

A departure from their long-held policies would be devastating to an organization that has prided itself on the development of character in boys. In fact, according to a recent Gallup survey, only 42 percent of Americans support changing the policy to allow homosexual scout leaders.

As the BSA board meets next week, it is crucial that they hear from those who stand with them and their current policy regarding homosexuality. Please call the Boy Scouts of America at 972-580-2000 and tell them that you want to see the organization stand firm in its moral values and respect the right of parents to discuss these sexual topics with their children.

The Christian Post, whose editor Richard Land leads the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, interviewed a top Southern Baptist who said the potential shift in policy “boggles the mind.”

A source who has knowledge of the situation told The Christian Post last week that the BSA's top executives had met with top leaders at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, among others, over the last few weeks to inform them of the possibility of this policy shift.



"It boggles my mind to think the BSA would make such a move," said an executive in the Southern Baptist Convention who asked not to be identified. "If they have counted the cost of this decision in terms of relationships and numbers, then I believe they have miscalculated that cost."

Fischer Warns of a 'Complete Sexual Meltdown' and the 'Reinstatement of the Draft' over Women in Combat Policy

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is now recycling the exact same talking points against allowing women the opportunity to serve in combat that he used opposing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT).

While none of the dire predictions Fischer warned about regarding the end of DADT ever materialized, Fischer made similar warnings while speaking yesterday with Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Like with the DADT’s repeal, Fischer predicted that the policy will undermine readiness, cohesion, security and performance, possibly leading “to a reinstatement of the draft.”

While Donnelly avoided Fischer’s question about reinstating the draft, she claimed that women will now have to register in the selective service system and said the policy will “harm women, men, infantry battalions and the national security of the United States.”

Donnelly said that sexual assaults may increase because male soldiers will resent the easier “double standards” for women, warning that now the whole military will “fall apart.”

Fischer: There’s also the issue of sexual tension and sexual misconduct, the potential for that is going to be introduced.

Donnelly: If you want to make that even worse than what we’re seeing now, and the rates keep going up and up it’s getting worse and worse, put women into direct combat units, adjust the standards to make it work and then just sit back and watch everything fall apart because double standards are so corrosive to morale. It increases resentment, resentment leads to sexual harassment, assaults or worse, this is a poisonous kind of atmosphere.

Later, Fischer warned of a “complete sexual meltdown” occurring due to “predatory women” trying to sleep with officers, citing CIA head David Petraeus’s affair with a reporter.

But a caller insisted that maybe the Obama administration decided to end prohibitions on women and openly gay service members so they can share foxholes together, an idea Fischer loved: “Just put your predatory females in the same foxhole with a flaming homosexual and nothing is going to happen.”

Fischer: I just think having women in uniform is just a bad idea and here we are seeing one of the reasons. You have got subordinates serving powerful supervisors, you’ve got predatory women, it’s just a recipe for complete sexual meltdown and that’s why we are seeing General Petreaus being a key example of that.

Let’s go to Lee, Bluefield, Virginia.

Caller: I’m gonna have to do something I thought I would never do. I am going to have to give President Obama credit for having a long-range strategy because I just realized why he wanted soldiers to be able to serve in the military and be openly gay, because when it comes time to share a foxhole he will put the openly gay soldiers in the foxhole with the women and that way they’ll both be safe.

Fischer: So Lee’s saying this is a brilliant strategy on the part of President Obama to eliminate sexual tension in the military. Just put your predatory females in the same foxhole with a flaming homosexual and nothing is going to happen. There won’t be any sexual misconduct. That’s President Obama thinking outside the box.

Religious Right Angry over 'Dangerous' Decision to End Ban on Women in Combat

While the Religious Right reacted with apoplectic rage following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the lifting of the ban on women in combat has brought dejected but relatively subdued responses from conservatives.

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer, who in December spoke out in favor of the ban by lying about the Israeli military’s policy on women in combat, tweeted that the decision was part of Obama’s plan to “feminize and weaken the U.S. military.”

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said that “lives could be lost unnecessarily” by the new policy, which “will harm men and the mission of the infantry as a whole.” “The administration has a pattern of irresponsible actions like this using the military to advance a social agenda,” she said, “This kind of a social experiment is a dangerous one.”

Faith and Freedom Coalition head Ralph Reed maintained that the Obama administration is “putting women in combat situations is the latest in a series of moves where political correctness and liberal social policy have trumped sound military practice.”

Richard Viguerie’s group claimed that “Obama’s plan to introduce women into frontline combat roles in the U.S. military is a dangerous and irresponsible social experiment, not an opportunity for women to serve their country and advance in their chosen profession.”

Radio talk show host Janet Mefferd on her Facebook page wrote that the move is further proof that the Obama administration is “intent upon undoing this great country” and will “stop at nothing to achieve it.”

Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin, who was reprimanded by President Bush after he made anti-Muslim and political speeches while in uniform, called the decision “another social experiment”:

The people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment, and they have never lived nor fought with an infantry or Special Forces unit. These units have the mission of closing with and destroying the enemy, sometimes in close hand-to-hand combat. They are often in sustained operations for extended periods, during which they have no base of operations nor facilities. Their living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions. Commanders are burdened with a very heavy responsibility for succeeding in their mission and for protecting their troops.

This decision to integrate the genders in these units places additional and unnecessary burdens on leaders at all levels. While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations. Is the social experiment worth placing this burden on small unit leaders? I think not.

Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America said that the “majority of women” don’t care about the ban or want its elimination:

News of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's intent to lift the long-standing ban on women serving in direct combat is further proof that this administration simply does not care about the issues about which the majority of women care. Once again, their interest on women issues is driven by special interest groups. The point of the military is to protect our country. Anything that distracts from that is detrimental. Our military cannot continue to choose social experimentation and political correctness over combat readiness. While this decision is not unexpected from this administration, it is still disappointing. Concerned Women for America (CWA) and its more than half-a-million members around the country will continue to do all we can to see that our men and women in uniform are governed with the respect and resources needed to do the hard task of fighting for and protecting our freedoms.

“God help us,” lamented Denny Burk of the Southern Baptist Convention, who seemed to suggest that women shouldn’t be in the armed forces at all:

Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war? Is there a father in America who would under any circumstance risk having his daughter shot or killed in battle? Is there a single husband in this country who thinks it okay for his wife to risk being captured by our enemies? To risk becoming a prisoner of war? Is this the kind of people we want to be? Perhaps this is the kind of people we already are. I would sooner cut off my arm than allow such a thing with my own wife and daughters. Why would I ever support allowing someone else’s to do the same? Why would anyone?

What kind of a society puts its women on the front lines to risk what only men should be called on to risk? In countries ravaged by war, we consider it a tragedy when the battle comes to the backyards of women and children. Why would we thrust our own wives and daughters into that horror? My own instinct is to keep them as far from it as possible. Perhaps this move makes sense with an all volunteer force, but what if the draft is ever reinstituted? Are we really going to be the kind of people who press our wives and daughters to fight in combat?



Everyone in America ought to be scandalized by this news, but I’m wondering if it will even register on the radar of anyone’s conscience. To the extent that it doesn’t, we reveal just how far gone we are as a people. God help us.

Aaron Ahlert of FrontPageMag said the move is “sure to have deadly consequences” and represents the Obama administration “forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat.”

It didn’t take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military’s ban on women serving in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism has been shoved down the nation’s throat through executive fiat — and this one is sure to have deadly consequences.

...

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension, regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.

...

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America’s interests. Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome, irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless other Americans, it is anything but. “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman,” she contends.

Fischer: Abortion Rights Will Lead to Terrorist Attacks

Yesterday on Focal Point, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade by predicting that America “will have to pay” for legal abortion: “It could be through civil war, it could be through anarchy, it could be through Muslim fundamentalists and terrorists attacks on the United States, but one way or another we cannot escape God’s justice.”

He went on to argue that Planned Parenthood clinics are no different from Nazi death camps. “You see a Planned Parenthood clinic, just think Birkenau, just think Auschwitz, just think Bergen-Belsen,” Fischer said, “because that’s what you are looking at, you are looking at an equivalent of a Nazi gas chamber.”

Watch:

Later, he repeated the false charge that Planned Parenthood promotes domestic abuse to its members.

Just like other conservative leaders, Fischer never found time to watch the video he is so angry about. If he did he would learn that it’s a British anti-violence video that uses an intentionally misleading title to deliver the real message: “Don’t cover it up.”

Wilson: Obama's Mention of Stonewall 'Sent Shivers Down the Spines of a Lot of People'

The good folks over at the American Family Association were none-too-pleased with President Obama's inaugural address on Monday, in particular his inclusion of non-Christians and gays, and Buster Wilson was likewise outraged by the speech, especially Obama's mention of Stonewall which "sent shivers down the spines of a lot of people and for good reason":

Obama's Inaugural Address Sends Fischer Off on Another Anti-Gay Rant

It has been awhile since Bryan Fischer went off on a good ol' fashioned anti-gay rant on his radio program, but yesterday's inaugural address by President Obama seems to have set him off.

In his remarks, Obama declared that "our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well" and that did not sit well with Fischer, who proclaimed that "homosexuals do not have a constitutional right to engage in sodomy" any more than people have a right to engage in pedophilia, incest, and bestiality ... and that fact that Obama does not realize this only demonstrates that he is appallingly ignorant of the truth about homosexuality and, as such, is embarrassing himself in front of the entire world:

Sandy Rios Mourns Obama's Inauguration and Equality for Non-Christians

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios yesterday spoke to Religious Right historian Bill Federer on her show where she criticized President Obama for mentioning nonbelievers and non-Christians as having “equal standing” with Christians in the U.S.

“When he lists all these denominations and atheists and Buddhists and Muslims it’s like we’re all equal, of equal proportion, and we are not,” Rios said, once again revealing that the AFA does indeed believe that people who do not subscribe to its version of Christianity are inferior and minority rights should be dictated by the whims of the majority.

Federer agreed and said it was part of Obama’s “intentional denigration of the contributions of Judeo-Christian faith in America’s history” and went on to say that “Obama’s been using the bully pulpit to advance Islam.”

Later, Rios mourned that African-American Christians support Obama even though he is working to “usher in a time of godlessness” and is “radically transforming this country” by including an openly gay poet and a gay band contingent in inaugural festivities. She naturally ended by doubting Obama’s Christian faith and patriotism: “Something is terribly wrong and it’s terribly wrong to see this man swear allegiance to the country on the bibles of men who went before him who were men who understood faith and who God was.”

We are radically transforming this country and it is happening by the first black president, which brings me to another point: today is Martin Luther King’s birthday and that’s something to really celebrate and I think about my black brothers and sisters, especially in Christ, and I think about the irony that the first black president that they are so excited about, and rightfully so, should usher in a time of godlessness. It’s just amazing to me. Isn’t that ironic? I mean that is really one of the most twisted things. The black community has to choose between rejoicing that there’s an African American president for the first time in the nation’s history while understanding in their deep conscience that he’s ushering in things that they live their lives are the opposite of, their passions are the opposite of. It’s a dilemma.



I think ironies of today are just not escaping any of us; it’s very hard, I would be lying if I said otherwise, to celebrate today. But I think it’s very good for us to remember our history, what our founding fathers stood for and there is nothing wrong with reminding each other and fighting to retain it because today does not example that when we have homosexual poet laureates and we have an evangelical pastor who has said that homosexuality was a sin banned from the platform and we have gay bands performing. Something is terribly wrong and it’s terribly wrong to see this man swear allegiance to the country on the bibles of men who went before him who were men who understood faith and who God was, it’s really ironic.

Fischer: 'It Was Evangelical Christians Like You and Me' Who Ended Slavery

On today's "Focal Point" broadcast, Bryan Fischer made a passing reference to the PBS series "The Abolitionists," citing it as evidence that Christians did not support slavery and, in fact, it was conservative "evangelical Christians like you and me" that lead the fight to abolish it:

Fischer: Obama is Trying to Make Gun Owners Seem Crazy

When President Obama unveiled his list of recommendations for combating gun violence earlier this week, a few of the items involved efforts to improve mental health services ... which Bryan Fischer claims is part of an effort to portray supporters of the Second Amendment as crazy:

Wilson Tells Caller who Threatened the President His Conspiracy Theory on Government Ammunition Hoarding

Buster Wilson of the American Family Association routinely uses his radio show to push bizarre and false claims that the government is fomenting violence against its citizens and building concentration camps while also promoting quasi-birther allegations.

So it was no surprise that a caller on his show seemingly threatened President Obama’s life, telling Wilson that “we need to take him out, one way or the other.”

While Wilson made sure to reject and distance himself from the caller’s threat, he went on to tell her about his latest conspiracy theory, one endorsed by fellow AFA radio host Bryan Fischer, about how the government is seeking to make ammunition unavailable to gun owners. The next caller told Wilson that they might soon be sharing a jail cell.

Wilson: Cynthia, thanks for calling from Palestine, Texas, glad to have you on.

Caller: Thank you sir, I just want to say nobody is bringing up the fact that that Muslim shot up Fort Hood and they knew he was on the move to do that, and Benghazi you bet and the Border Patrol, where’s the bullets for them? But you want to come out here and you want to take everything we’ve got and set up the Muslim Brotherhood just clearly shows it’s like a zero dart right into the center. Also talking about holding us hostage to get his ceiling, the checks won’t come, you know, this guy. America, we need to take him out, one way or the other.

Wilson: Okay Cynthia, thanks for calling. Well I want to be careful on saying things like that we don’t want anybody to think we’re talking about—we don’t support any kind of concept of taking the President out. We had an opportunity to vote him out and the country didn’t take it so he is rightfully our president, he was voted by the majority so there you go, he’s in. but you did sort of sum it all up in one sentence everything from Benghazi to Fort Hood to Fast and Furious to the Border Patrol.

You know something else that a lot of people are not mentioning, I called my dealership that I trade with on a regular basis today to ask about the purchasing of another gun and they didn’t have any. They couldn’t tell me when they were going to have any in, they couldn’t tell me when they were coming, they didn’t know if there were going to be any more coming. She said “until we have the dust settled on all this stuff from yesterday” she couldn’t tell me if there were going to be any more guns coming in stock.

Ammunition, same thing, can’t find ammunition. You can find a few guns but you can’t find ammunition. Somebody asked me last night and I thought it was a perfect question to ask, almost a billion and a half rounds of ammunition purchased last year by the Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol and even the armed services of the Postal Service ordered a large cache of ammunition. Why is the government ordering these huge, I mean the numbers are unbelievable, almost a billion and a half rounds by Homeland Security alone, why is the government ordering such large amounts of ammunition and you and I, Mr. Average Joe America, can’t find any ammunition? Is it just the supply and demand thing or is there something else going on? I don’t know, I don’t want to be the conspiracy theory guy, but it is a question somebody needs to answer. Let’s talk to John from Alabama.

Caller: Long time no hear Buster. Maybe one day we can get to share a jail cell and praise the Lord together.

Wilson: I hope not but I’m ready to go if need be.

After the caller warned that Obama is implementing the planks of the Communist Manifesto and creating a Nazi-like state, Wilson moved from his standard ‘I’m just asking the question’ excuse to plainly arguing that the government is planning to make ammunition unavailable to gun owners in order to “make our guns obsolete.”

Wilson: I’ve said this before, what they’re going to do in the place of confiscating the weapons that they know will cause too much civil unrest, they’re going to go after the ammunition. As I mentioned earlier, right now I can’t find anywhere where I live to buy the ammunition I want, it’s not out there. I believe whether it’s through taxation or whether it’s through demands on the corporations that are the manufacturers, they are going to do something that will stop the flow of ammunition and that’s how they will make our guns obsolete. It’s a Second Amendment right, that’s why we look at it. I just shared with you two stories today about how they are attacking the First Amendment right. The First and Second Amendments, our government, this government today, seems to be in all-out war against.

Buster Wilson Warns Obama Might Confiscate Guns of Anti-Gay Activists

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson has been warning for the last few weeks that President Obama is getting ready to confiscate guns en masse. When Obama announced his twenty-three executive actions yesterday, gun groups largely shrugged them off, but not Wilson. In his latest effort to stoke fear, he’s warning that the Obama administration may take guns away from pastors and radio talk show hosts like himself who denounce homosexuality:

Wilson: What if the Attorney General, and listen the reason I say this might happen is because if you remember the first report put out by the Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, when the President became President of the United States, she put out a paper talking about the people who are the categories of people who might be homegrown terrorists. In that list she put people who believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ, people who believe in pro-life issues, people who don’t believe in having illegal aliens here, they put a lot of good, decent categories of people in that paper. Well here’s what number four says, the Attorney General can put who he wants to on the list of people who are too dangerous to get guns. What if he decides radio talk show hosts who don’t believe in gay marriage, they’re dangerous, so they shouldn’t get guns; what about pastors who preach against abortion and homosexuality, they’re too dangerous get guns; that could happen.

Contrary to what Wilson said, the fourth executive action simply directs the Attorney General to make sure that people who are already prohibited from owning a firearm do not do so, not to come up with any new categories:

Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

Not only did Wilson clearly distort the plain wording of the executive actions, but he also grossly misrepresented the DHS report on right-wing terrorism.

He said that the DHS report tacked “good, decent” people “who believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ, people who believe in pro-life issues, people who don’t believe in having illegal aliens here.”

Not so.

The 2009 report [PDF], which concentrates on racist and anti-government militias, only mentions abortion in a single footnote as an example of how violent actions can be driven by a single issue, such as the bombings of clinics or the murder of abortion doctors. The only references to the Second Coming or Christianity are to the racist, anti-Semitic Christian Identity movement – whose members have engaged in violence – and a note about how End Times and doomsday prophesies have in the past radicalized certain individuals or groups.

As for immigration, the DHS only addresses the connection between anti-immigrant militarism and hate crimes against Hispanics, like violent border vigilantes, not political activism on illegal immigration.

The author of the report, Daryl Johnson, is actually an anti-choice, Mormon gun owner and a Republican. His warnings were prescient – right-wing extremists recently committed a massacre in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and a shooting at the Holocaust Museum.

But to Wilson, completely twisting Obama’s gun orders and the DHS report on right-wing extremism are all par for the course of a job of an AFA spokesman.

Lapin: God Does Not Want You to Ever Retire

Rabbi Daniel Lapin appeared on AFA's "Today's Issues" this morning where he made the case that people are never supposed to retire because the word "retirement" does not appear in the Bible.  In fact, it is because people retire that their health often deteriorates because they are basically saying to God that they are done serving people, and since that is the case, well "then who needs you"?

Rand Paul's Travels with Birthers

While preparing up for the 2016 presidential election, Rand Paul visited Israel in a trip that “was arranged by the American Family Association and included 53 prominent evangelicals and conservative activists.”

This wouldn’t be the first time the far-right AFA worked closely with a potential Republican presidential candidate, as the group also put together Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s “The Response” prayer rally that he used as a springboard into the presidential race.

Guests included top Religious Right organizer David Lane, anti-gay activist Tamara Scott of Concerned Women for America and birther leader Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. Farah praised Paul in his column today and saluted his opposition to foreign aid and marriage equality.

Farah’s participation is not surprising as the American Family Association also peddles similar conspiracies.

Farah and AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer have blamed the Sandy Hook shooting on the lack of school prayer, endorsed birther conspiracies, likened gays to terrorists and the Taliban, seek to restrict Muslim immigration and predicted that the Obama administration will use special security forces to persecute political opponents.

Of course, Rand Paul certainly won’t be the only potential GOP presidential candidate to court extremists like Farah and the AFA as more Republicans gear up to run.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious