Liberty Counsel

Barber: Obama 'Might Start Rounding up Priests' and 'Throw Priests in Prison'

After warning that the hate crimes law would be “used to prosecute pastors” (it didn’t), now Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber is warning that the mandate for insurance plans to cover contraceptives with narrow religious exemptions, a decision backed by the majority of Catholics, will mean that the government may “start rounding up priests.” Yesterday on Faith and Freedom, Barber made the case that the contraceptive mandate, which he called “the most astounding and gross constitutional violation I have ever seen,” will lead to the government to “start throwing priests in prison” and “pastors in prison.”

This I have to say is the most astounding and gross constitutional violation I have ever seen, and violation of the freedom of conscience, I have seen in my lifetime, and it comes from the President of the United States. The gloves have come off, all pretexts are gone, this president is willing to push his agenda to trample the Constitution of the United States to do it, his radical pro-abortion, liberal agenda.



I am hoping that they have called President Obama’s bluff here, because what’s the alternative now? Are they going to go in and start shutting down Catholic hospitals? Start shutting down Catholic schools? Start fining them inordinate amount of money? Start throwing priests in prison, pastors in prison, organizers and CEOs of Christian hospitals around the country in prison? They might! I wouldn’t be surprised frankly, the fact that they were willing to do something so brazenly unconstitutional who’s to say that they won’t take it to the next step, to the next level, and start rounding up priests who refuse to comply with this unconstitutional dictate?

After 9th Circuit Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional, Marriage Equality Opponents Look to the Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.



A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”



“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

After 9th Circuit Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional, Marriage Equality Opponents Look to the Supreme Court

The Ninth Circuit Court today upheld a lower court ruling which found Proposition 8, which overturned marriage equality in California, unconstitutional. Religious Right activists immediately denounced the ruling and used the decision to attack gays and lesbians, judges, Hollywood and San Francisco.

The National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown emailed members with a warning that the case will end up with an “all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court” and told members that donations are needed to deny “same-sex marriage radicals” a legal victory:

Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!

This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.



A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop. But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.

NOM also posted additional statements from Brown and board chairman John Eastman, who called it an “absurd ruling”:

“As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker’s first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail.”



“Never before has a federal appeals court – or any federal court for that matter – found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution,” said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. “The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling.”

The Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Brian Raum dubbed the ruling a “Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage”:

No court should presume to redefine marriage. No court should undercut the democratic process by taking the power to preserve marriage out of the hands of the people. Americans overwhelmingly reject the idea of changing the definition of marriage. Sixty-three million Americans in 31 state elections have voted on marriage, and 63 percent voted to preserve marriage as the timeless, universal, unique union between husband and wife.

We are not surprised that this Hollywood-orchestrated attack on marriage–tried in San Francisco–turned out this way. But we are confident that the expressed will of the American people in favor of marriage will be upheld at the Supreme Court. Every pro-marriage American should be pleased that this case can finally go to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ProtectMarriage.com legal team’s arguments align with every other federal appellate and Supreme Court decision on marriage in American history.

Catholics for the Common Good president William May derided the court for failing to “to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society”:

"It is outrageous that judges continue to disregard the will of 7 million voters who voted to protect the centrality and integrity of marriage for children and society," May said.

Federal District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker presided over a show trial about marriage in which plaintiff's counsel trotted out witness after witness with emotional arguments in a PR attempt to re-argue Proposition 8.

"Failing to disclose that the judge himself was similarly situated as the plaintiffs (in a long-term committed relationship with a same-sex partner), Walker could find no rational reason for the voters to define marriage between a man and a woman and concluded they were bigoted and discriminatory," said May.

"To reach his judgment about the voters and his decision to strike down Prop 8, he created a new definition of marriage as merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for the benefit of adults. However, the voters of California know that marriage is much more than that. It is the reality that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. This is what marriage is; that is what it does. It is a reality that can only be recognized by law and never changed."

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council accused the court of “judicial tyranny” and trying to “impose San Francisco values on the entire country”:

"Today's decision was disappointing but not surprising, coming from the most liberal Circuit Court in the country. This Hollywood-funded lawsuit, which seeks to impose San Francisco values on the entire country, may eventually reach the Supreme Court. This is not about constitutional governance but the insistence of a group of activists to force their will on their fellow citizens.

"This ruling substitute's judicial tyranny for the will of the people, who in the majority of states have amended their constitutions, as California did, to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

"However, we remain confident that in the end, the Supreme Court will reject the absurd argument that the authors of our Constitution created or even implied a 'right' to homosexual 'marriage,' and will instead uphold the right of the people to govern themselves.

"Voters in 31 states have voted to uphold the historic and natural definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Twenty-nine, a majority of American states, have actually inserted such a definition into the text of their state constitutions," concluded Perkins.

Focus on the Family analyst Bruce Hausknecht called the ruling “yet another instance of social engineering”:

“Opponents of Prop 8 insist on changing the definition of marriage for everyone, including children who deserve the opportunity to grow up in a home with their own married mother and father," Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family, said in a statement after the ruling.

“But no judge has the right to redefine marriage," he continued. "Doing so redefines parenthood, and offers yet another instance of social engineering based on the desires of adults rather than the interests of children."

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Young Nance asserted that the judges “undermined the foundations of the family and liberty”:

Once again, the Ninth Circuit lives up to its reputation as the most overturned court in the country. Only this time, they have reached a new low. They not only showed a complete disregard for the Constitution, but also for those principles and values that gave birth to it, and for "we the people" who are supposed to be the ultimate authority.

Californians voted overwhelmingly to support the traditional definition of marriage that has been the foundation of this great nation. Our experiences have shown us, as science proves, that the best environment for children to develop as productive members of our society is in a home where there is a mother and a father who love them and each other unconditionally. Yet with a stroke of the pen these three judges have undermined the foundations of the family and liberty.

Shame on them.

We know this issue will eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court and we hope, for the sake of our country's future, that they will show much more respect for the Constitution, our foundations and the people who give them the right to make these rulings in the first place.

UPDATE: The Capitol Resource Institute blasted the ruling as “a stunning assault on democracy”:

"This is a stunning assault on democracy and California's initiative process," explained Karen England, Executive Director of pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute and a key leader in the passage of Proposition 8. "Well over 50% of California voters approved Proposition 8; today their will was overturned by a panel of arrogant judges who want to impose their political agenda on the rest of us."

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling is not the end of the road for Proposition 8.

"The truth will always prevail and we are confident that the traditional-and true-definition of marriage will be upheld by the Supreme Court," stated England. "The voice of the people must be heard and respected. The future of California and American families depends upon the sanctity of traditional marriage. It's time for the courts to recognize marriages' critical role in society and protect it."

Former NOM head Maggie Gallagher, now with the Culture War Victory Fund, writes on National Review Online that the ruling represents a “breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic”:

In a breathtaking exercise in ill-natured illogic, a divided Ninth Circuit ruled 2–1 that because Prop 8 does not take away civil-union benefits for same-sex couples, it’s an unconstitutional exercise in irrational animus towards gay people.

Dishonestly, the court claimed it did not require any heightened scrutiny to reach this result.

Gordon Klingenschmitt said that the “Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves” as a result of the ruling:

The liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced today that the Founding Fathers wrote homosexual 'marriage' rights into the U.S. Constitution, and overturned California's Proposition 8 traditional marriage law, which had twice been passed by voters. The Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves, since all of them believed sodomy was a crime, and certainly not a Constitutional right.

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver claimed the ruling “undermines the legitimacy of the judicial system” and represents the “unraveling of the actual judiciary”:

"This is a travesty of justice and it undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "When judges find that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, it's absolutely absurd. This is, I think, an illustration of why the judiciary has lost the confidence of the American people."

"If you look at ideology ... pushed by this particular panel, obviously that's what this panel did: they looked at their own ideological bias, their radical positions -- not the Constitution itself. And when they did that, it undermined their own legitimacy -- and I think this is the unraveling of the actual judiciary. It is the very seeds, as Thomas Jefferson said, of tyranny."

"They're not only saying that the voters don't have the right to amend their own constitution and define marriage, they're also saying that there is a constitutional, guaranteed right to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution itself. That's absolutely absurd. It is insane to suggest that there is such a right in the United States Constitution."

The Family Leader dubbed the court a “friend of the radical homosexual agenda” and referred to the ruling as a case of bullying:

Today's decision by the liberal 9th Circut Court, while expected, is sad and outrageous on many levels. Not least of which is "we the people" get bullied again by a few "robed masters." It's also evidence that when executives go wobbly on fighting the left's agenda and not appointing ONLY strict constructionist judges, who take the Constitution and due process seriously, we continue to lose these battles. However, the 9th Circuit's opinon is no surprise; they have been a friend of the radical homosexual agenda for years. As for us; we have only begun to and will continue to be in the fight! Join us!

Gary Bauer of American Values chided the “Circus” Court for attempting to “force its radical agenda down our throats” and “threatening religious liberty”:

The Ninth “Circus” Court of Appeals has struck again. Today, a divided three-judge panel overruled the majority of California voters and struck down Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The court’s majority ruled that traditional marriage “fails to advance any rational basis.” So in spite of thousands of years of recorded history, in spite of the values held by every major faith, in spite of basic biology and common sense and in spite of the will of the people, these left-wing judicial ideologues believe that normal marriage is irrational.

Here’s the bottom line: The culture war is real. The left does not intend to allow these issues to be decided by the people in their respective states. It will use the courts to force its radical agenda down our throats.

This is why it is so important for men and women of faith to be informed and active in the public policy debates of our time. These decisions are redefining our cherished values and threatening religious liberty.

Religious Right Reacts To Komen's Latest Statement with Confusion, Anger and Warnings of God's Wrath

In the world of Religious Right activists, waging a campaign to convince the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut funding to breast cancer exams at Planned Parenthood clinics is an admirable exercise of public advocacy, but when people join a campaign to convince the Komen foundation to continue their partnership with Planned Parenthood to fight breast cancer, it’s “gangsterism.”

After Komen released a statement that opened the door to maintain its ties to the women’s health organization, Planned Parenthood said it is “heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women” and “enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria.”

The uproar not only resulted in a huge black eye to Komen but also helped Planned Parenthood raise over $3 million to protect their breast health program from cuts. Moreover, the controversy exposed the Religious Right’s unabashed glee that tens of thousands of women would lose access to breast exams and gave them another opportunity to rekindle the debunked claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer.

But their excitement at women losing access to cancer screenings seems to be fading with the new statement from Komen.

Mona Charen of the National Review Online lamented that “it’s extremely disappointing that Komen has caved” but “it’s hardly surprising given the onslaught they’ve endured over the course of the last few days,” and NRO’s Daniel Foster charged Planned Parenthood with “gangsterism.” Of course, just days prior Kathryn Jean Lopez on NRO hailed Komen’s initial decision as a major victory, noting “this Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists.”

Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative (C-Fam) president Austin Ruse told LifeSiteNews called potentially successful effort to have the Komen foundation reverse their decision defunding Planned Parenthood a “mafia shakedown”:

Pro-life leaders say that the exact import of the statement is not yet clear, and that Komen seems to be asking for breathing room, possibly with the intention of caving in definitively to pro-abortion pressure.

Austin Ruse of C-Fam told LifeSiteNews.com Friday morning that, “The mafia shakedown tactics may have worked, but we’re not sure.”

Ruse advised that pro-lifers should “take a wait and see attitude” to discern whether the pro-abortion pushback against Komen would succeed.

Kristen Walker of Live Action called it a “terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood” and wondered what will happen to all the money people gave to Komen to reward them for dropping Planned Parenthood:

If raising money to cure breast cancer were their primary concern, they would not have reversed this decision. Their donations went up 100% in the short time since they announced the halting of grants to PP as pro-lifers who have refused to donate to Komen opened their wallets to thank them for their decision, happy to finally be able to give to their good work of fighting breast cancer with a clear conscience. I wonder if Komen has given any thought to the fact that those people gave money in good faith believing it wouldn’t be used to fund abortions. Will they refund that money? I guess we’ll see.



It is a terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood. It is a terrible shame they’re allowing PP and its followers to compromise their mission to cure breast cancer.

Evangelist Bill Keller warned that the latest move by the Komen foundation may well lead to “the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment”:

Keller said, "It only shows the level of spiritual decay in this nation when a private foundation who made a decision to stop giving money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, causes the media, politicians, and the supporters of killing babies to go into a wild frenzy. The Catholic Church has always stood for the sanctity of life, yet Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, were livid that the Komen Foundation decided to stop giving a $250,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood."



Keller concluded, "You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know that we are on the verge of seeing the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment. Every 24 hours we slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent babies. Where is the outrage about that in the media, in the halls of Congress? Sadly, society doesn't even give it a second thought and has fully embraced this 'culture of death' which hangs over this nation like a black cloud."

UPDATE: Liberty Counsel Action is now urging its members to cancel any donations they made to Komen, with Matt Barber arguing that the group should change their name to “Susan G. Komen for the Cause,” pushing the discredited charge that abortion is linked to breast cancer:

The reversal comes on the heels of news that Komen’s donations jumped 100% after deciding to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider that is currently under criminal investigation in multiple venues. Liberty Counsel Action is encouraging its members to cancel any checks and credit card contributions made in the wake of Komen’s initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood and asking any pro-life participants in Komen’s June 2 Global Race for the Cure run in Washington, D.C. to withdraw.

Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, says that anyone who sincerely wants to contribute to the fight against breast cancer has dozens if not hundreds of other options from hospitals to other nonprofit organizations, but Komen should be off the list.

“It’s a sad day for those who both seek a breast cancer cure and who respect the dignity of all human life,” said Barber. “Susan G. Komen for the Cure should recognize that abortion is not a cure for anything. Perhaps they should change the name to Susan G. Komen for the Cause. What a tragic paradox. There is mounting medical evidence that indicates abortion significantly increases the risk for breast cancer.”

Calling Komen’s decision “the coward’s way out,” Barber said that the decision to once again partner with Planned Parenthood was nothing more than capitulation to “tremendous left-wing political pressure.”

“They have chosen death over life – cancer over cure,” said Barber. “Instead of showing courage, they caved. Komen is now part of the breast cancer problem rather than the solution.”

Religious Right Reacts To Komen's Latest Statement with Confusion, Anger and Warnings of God's Wrath

In the world of Religious Right activists, waging a campaign to convince the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to cut funding to breast cancer exams at Planned Parenthood clinics is an admirable exercise of public advocacy, but when people join a campaign to convince the Komen foundation to continue their partnership with Planned Parenthood to fight breast cancer, it’s “gangsterism.”

After Komen released a statement that opened the door to maintain its ties to the women’s health organization, Planned Parenthood said it is “heartened that we can continue to work in partnership toward our shared commitment to breast health for the most underserved women” and “enormously grateful that the Komen Foundation has clarified its grantmaking criteria.”

The uproar not only resulted in a huge black eye to Komen but also helped Planned Parenthood raise over $3 million to protect their breast health program from cuts. Moreover, the controversy exposed the Religious Right’s unabashed glee that tens of thousands of women would lose access to breast exams and gave them another opportunity to rekindle the debunked claim that abortion is linked to breast cancer.

But their excitement at women losing access to cancer screenings seems to be fading with the new statement from Komen.

Mona Charen of the National Review Online lamented that “it’s extremely disappointing that Komen has caved” but “it’s hardly surprising given the onslaught they’ve endured over the course of the last few days,” and NRO’s Daniel Foster charged Planned Parenthood with “gangsterism.” Of course, just days prior Kathryn Jean Lopez on NRO hailed Komen’s initial decision as a major victory, noting “this Komen-Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists.”

Catholic Family and Human Rights Initiative (C-Fam) president Austin Ruse told LifeSiteNews called potentially successful effort to have the Komen foundation reverse their decision defunding Planned Parenthood a “mafia shakedown”:

Pro-life leaders say that the exact import of the statement is not yet clear, and that Komen seems to be asking for breathing room, possibly with the intention of caving in definitively to pro-abortion pressure.

Austin Ruse of C-Fam told LifeSiteNews.com Friday morning that, “The mafia shakedown tactics may have worked, but we’re not sure.”

Ruse advised that pro-lifers should “take a wait and see attitude” to discern whether the pro-abortion pushback against Komen would succeed.

Kristen Walker of Live Action called it a “terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood” and wondered what will happen to all the money people gave to Komen to reward them for dropping Planned Parenthood:

If raising money to cure breast cancer were their primary concern, they would not have reversed this decision. Their donations went up 100% in the short time since they announced the halting of grants to PP as pro-lifers who have refused to donate to Komen opened their wallets to thank them for their decision, happy to finally be able to give to their good work of fighting breast cancer with a clear conscience. I wonder if Komen has given any thought to the fact that those people gave money in good faith believing it wouldn’t be used to fund abortions. Will they refund that money? I guess we’ll see.



It is a terrible shame that Komen has caved in to political pressure from pro-abortion fanatics who demand obeisance to Planned Parenthood. It is a terrible shame they’re allowing PP and its followers to compromise their mission to cure breast cancer.

Evangelist Bill Keller warned that the latest move by the Komen foundation may well lead to “the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment”:

Keller said, "It only shows the level of spiritual decay in this nation when a private foundation who made a decision to stop giving money to the world's largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, causes the media, politicians, and the supporters of killing babies to go into a wild frenzy. The Catholic Church has always stood for the sanctity of life, yet Catholics like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, and MSNBC's Chris Matthews, were livid that the Komen Foundation decided to stop giving a $250,000 annual grant to Planned Parenthood."



Keller concluded, "You don't have to be a Biblical scholar to know that we are on the verge of seeing the wrath and punishment of God unleashed on this wicked nation at any moment. Every 24 hours we slaughter approximately 4,000 innocent babies. Where is the outrage about that in the media, in the halls of Congress? Sadly, society doesn't even give it a second thought and has fully embraced this 'culture of death' which hangs over this nation like a black cloud."

UPDATE: Liberty Counsel Action is now urging its members to cancel any donations they made to Komen, with Matt Barber arguing that the group should change their name to “Susan G. Komen for the Cause,” pushing the discredited charge that abortion is linked to breast cancer:

The reversal comes on the heels of news that Komen’s donations jumped 100% after deciding to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion provider that is currently under criminal investigation in multiple venues. Liberty Counsel Action is encouraging its members to cancel any checks and credit card contributions made in the wake of Komen’s initial decision to defund Planned Parenthood and asking any pro-life participants in Komen’s June 2 Global Race for the Cure run in Washington, D.C. to withdraw.

Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action, says that anyone who sincerely wants to contribute to the fight against breast cancer has dozens if not hundreds of other options from hospitals to other nonprofit organizations, but Komen should be off the list.

“It’s a sad day for those who both seek a breast cancer cure and who respect the dignity of all human life,” said Barber. “Susan G. Komen for the Cure should recognize that abortion is not a cure for anything. Perhaps they should change the name to Susan G. Komen for the Cause. What a tragic paradox. There is mounting medical evidence that indicates abortion significantly increases the risk for breast cancer.”

Calling Komen’s decision “the coward’s way out,” Barber said that the decision to once again partner with Planned Parenthood was nothing more than capitulation to “tremendous left-wing political pressure.”

“They have chosen death over life – cancer over cure,” said Barber. “Instead of showing courage, they caved. Komen is now part of the breast cancer problem rather than the solution.”

Religious Right to Romney: Safety Net Un-Biblical

When Mitt Romney stepped on his Florida primary victory message by declaring that he wasn’t concerned about the very poor – and that he’d patch any holes that just might be in their safety net – most observers thought his mistake was declaring disinterest in the poor. But to right-wing activists, Romney’s bigger problem was his support for any kind of social safety net.
 
The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack called Romney’s comments “unconservative,” saying that “The standard conservative argument is that a conservative economic agenda will help everyone.” 
 
“The safety net contributes to poverty,” declared Rush Limbaugh. “It does not solve it.” Tea Party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint told a reporter, “Those are the programs that are hurting, not just the poor, but our country.” 
 
Religious Right leaders added another touch: the safety net is un-Biblical. Yesterday, Liberty Counsel pushed out a statement promoting the Christian Reconstructionist notion that the Bible gives the government no role in addressing poverty:
Romney wrongly assumes that it is the role of government to provide more entitlements to help the poor. In fact, that is not the role of government. The historical biblical view of helping the poor is that they are best helped by individuals and the faith community. Government programs tend to enslave the poor in an endless cycle of poverty. The biblical model is that both, the giver and the recipient, are blessed. When government steps in between the giver and the recipient, the giver loses the blessing of giving and the recipient is often left in a worse, rather than better, position. Romney's statement that he would rely on government programs to help the poor indicates his intent to continue the same failed big government programs and policies….it is the duty of the church, the faith community, to look after the poor, the orphans, and the widows.
Longtime Religoius Right activist Gary Bauer made the same point in a USA Today column in January, arguing that “nowhere in the Bible are we told that government should take one man's money by force of law and give it to another man. Jesus' admonition was a personal command to share, not a command for Caesar to "spread the wealth around." 
 
There are, of course, alternative views about what the Bible has to say. President Obama, speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast this week, cited the Biblical principal that much will be expected of the person who has been given much. (Laughably, Obama has been criticized by Ralph Reed for discussing how his faith influenced his approach to policy-making.) Writing recently for Sojourner’s, an economically liberal evangelical group, Tim King called Bauer’s claims about scripture “false,” saying that biblical injunctions related to forgiveness of debts and the release of slaves are “forms of government mandated redistribution of wealth” and “laws concerned with justice not encouragements to charity.”

Staver: The APA Bullies Ex-Gay Proponents

Today's episode of Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom" radio program was dedicated to discussing the controversy over a high school newspaper op-ed in Wisconsin in which a student argued against allowing gay couples to adopt by repeatedly calling homosexuality an "abomination" and citing Bible verses calling for gays to be put to death.

Liberty Counsel is now threatening to sue over it because, as Mat Staver sees it, school officials pulling and apologizing for the column is a violation of the student's First Amendment rights.  And it is also an example of bullying ... just like how the American Psychological Association bullies those who promote ex-gay research and therapy:

It's just like in 1973 when the homosexual lobby pressured the American Psychological Association to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. From that point on, there has been an outright political opposition to any research on the fact that homosexuality is a condition that you can change, it is not static, it is not wired in your system where it is unchangeable, that you can change. Any researcher that wants to pursue that kind of research or even counsel in that kind of research is bullied by the APA and those professional organization.

The Religious Right Really Needs to Tone Down the 'Survival of Western Civilization' Rhetoric

I don't know what has gotten into Religious Right leaders lately, but seemingly all we are hearing about these days is how we are literally facing the extinction of Western Civilization if America does not turn back to Christ, push back gay rights and defeat President Obama.

A few weeks ago, Mat Staver was on a local Florida talk show where he said that we are engaged in a spiritual battle as both America and Israel were under attack from enemies with common goals.  Staver asserted that "what we're facing in our lifetime, and I make no exaggeration about this, is literally the survival of Western Civilization" because attacks on religious liberty and marriage are "designed to destroy our core foundations" and, once they go, everything else will follow suit:

Santorum Accepts, Romney Declines Invitation to Religious Right Forum Hosted by Gingrich Campaign Co-Chair

To the surprise of nobody, Mitt Romney is ignoring an invitation to participate in the presidential candidate forum at Liberty Counsel’s Florida Awake! conference on Saturday. So far, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have accepted the invitation, while Ron Paul respectfully declined because he will be outside of Florida at the time. Romney has already skipped the Thanksgiving Family Forum in Iowa and two Personhood USA forums, and his decision to skip the Liberty Counsel debate earned him a rebuke from Personhood USA, even though Romney at one point endorsed the group’s extreme anti-choice legislation. The slam from Personhood USA, a cosponsor of the forum, implied that he wouldn’t be a strong opponent of abortion rights:

Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator Rick Santorum are confirmed to participate in Florida Awake! Congressman Ron Paul regretfully declined, as he is not scheduled to be campaigning in Florida at that time. The event is already sold out, with over 1800 tickets reserved.

Governor Romney, again expressly invited, has again neglected to notify organizers of his willingness or disinclination to participate.

"Following President Obama's statement celebrating the Roe v. Wade decision -- effectively celebrating the deliberate killing of 54 million innocent American citizens -- Personhood USA recognizes the urgency of ensuring that we know where our candidates stand," stated Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. "We need a president who values life, and will defend the innocent in word and in deed. We certainly don't need a candidate who cares nothing for the Sanctity of Life, nor one who will join President Obama in celebrating the deaths of millions.'

But Romney may have a not terrible reason for skipping the forum led by Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver, as Staver is Co-Chair of the Gingrich Faith Leaders Coalition. Staver endorsed Gingrich earlier this month, calling him the “clear choice for conservatives.”

While Romney’s decision to not participate is nothing new, it is far more bizarre that Santorum would accept the invitation to a forum hosted and moderated by a Gingrich campaign leader.

Freud, Marx & Darwin: The Holy Trinity of Secular Humanism

We already know that the folks over at Liberty Counsel believe that secular humanism is a religion, so perhaps it shouldn't come as much of a surprise when, on today's installment of the "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Shawn Akers explained that the religion of secular humanism even has its own Trinity - Darwin, Marx, and Freud:

I'll tell you something that's really interesting, Ron. There was a poet by the name of William Butler Yeats wrote a poem called "The Second Coming" around the early 1900s and his idea was that every two thousand years, a new God arises. And it was kind of striking that, after two thousand years after Christ, about the time that Yeats wrote this poem, no new God was to be found, or at least we didn't think so.

But it was about that time Darwin came on the scene and told us that you really created yourself by dragging yourself out of the primordial ooze and evolving faster then all the other species. And Marx came along and told us really that religion is the opiate of the masses, that if you're going to be fed, you're going to feed yourself. And then Freud came along and said if you don't feel good about yourself, don't look to a god to heal you, you got to dig down deep in yourself through psychoanalysis and you're your own counselor.

What I find interesting about that, Ron, is that we took the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - the father that told us where we came from, that I created you in the beginning, we took the Son that said I'll tell you that I'm going to feed you and heal you and tell you how to find your substance, and we took the counselor, the Holy Spirit, and we put Freud in his place and said you counsel yourself.

In other words, the new god that arose under Yeats' scheme was secular humanism. It was making man god.

This is a pretty interesting theory, aside from the fact that the works of Marx and Darwin had been published more then a half-century before Yeats' poem and both men had already been dead for nearly forty years.

Liberty Counsel Outraged by 'Censorship' and 'Indoctrination'

A recent issue of high school newspaper in Wisconsin featuring a pro-con editorial debate on the issue of adoption by gay couples is generating controversy due to the fact that the "con" side of the argument was filled with multiple passages calling homosexuality an "abomination" and citations of Bible verses calling for gays to be put to death:

For good measure, the author even managed to cram in a citation of notorious anti-gay "researcher" Paul Cameron

School officials have apologized for the piece and so, of course, the professional anti-gay bigots at Liberty Counsel are outraged and accusing the school of censorship:

In its statement, the school “sincerely apologized” -- not for allowing the topic to begin with, but rather, for the Biblical viewpoint presented by one student. The school claimed that the censored article created a “negative environment.” Liberty Counsel believes that school officials have violated the First Amendment protections of both free expression and religious freedom ... Steve Crampton, Vice President of Legal Affairs and General Counsel for Liberty Counsel, commented: “When you censor one side of the debate and allow the other side to fully present their case, you have hopelessly skewed the argument and effectively endorsed one side. Shawano’s actions were not only unconstitutional, but were also the highest form of educational hypocrisy. This is not education, it is indoctrination. The school should apologize – not for the student’s viewpoint, but for its shameful censorship.”

Of course, as we have noted before, there is something rather ironic about people who work for an organization affiliated with a university that blocks access to critical newspapers and refuses to allow the formation of a Democratic Club on campus to be complaining about censorship and indoctrination.

Barber: OWS is an AstroTurf Movement Made up of People who Hate America

Matt Barber is convinced that liberals are out to indoctrinate school children in every possible way and is pointing to this OneNewsNow article about organization helping a group of kids write a song about Occupy Wall Street as further proof.

On the "Faith and Freedom" radio program today, Barber used this article as a jumping off point to rail against the Occupy Wall Street movement in general, which he claimed was nothing more than an "astroturf" movement created by George Soros and run by people who hate America:

This, again, brings us back around to the larger subject of this Occupy Wall Street, this astroturf movement that's been funded from [George] Soros down and from every other angle, taking a bunch of over-educated, over-indulged white youth and attempting to force change ... So we shouldn't be surprised that this group, this Occupy Wall Street movement, which has been endorsed by the Messiah himself, President Barack Obama, that they are now trying to infiltrate the schools and corrupt the minds of children.

I think the Occupy Wall Street movement, the larger movement, is anathema to the idea of American Exceptionalism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many of those involved in this movement hate America as it was originally formed and founded as a free market country rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Matt Barber Sees a Sexual Conspiracy in Everything

Last week, the Associated Press ran an article about new sexual education guidelines that were released by a coalition of health and education groups.  The guidelines had various requirements based on grade level and in paraphrasing the suggestions for second graders, the AP wrote that "students should use the correct body part names for the male and female anatomy, and also understand that all living things reproduce and that all people have the right to not be touched if they don't want to be."

And that, of course, was proof to Matt Barber that liberal groups are trying to sexually indoctrinate young children:

The guidelines say that students should use the correct body part names for the male and female anatomy. How dare they! That's up to parents to decide!

And understand that all living things reproduce and that all people have the right not to be touched - okay, that's good. I sit down with my children and I teach them at. Again, this is for parents. Now, educating children about potential sexual abuse, that's a good thing, but listen to this: the right not to be touched if they do not want to be touched. Again, don't you love how they inject the poison pill into that. So again, this is the values neutral notion.

Children as young as second grade, you have the right not to be touched unless you want to be touched. If you want to engage in sexual behavior and you're in second grade, why, more power to you, second grader. No time to watch SpongeBob, you want to go hook up with some other second grader? It's disgusting, it's despicable what they're doing and I don't know about you folks, but it makes me angry!

Of course, if anyone is "sexualizing" these recommendations, it is Barber, as he is the one assuming that telling children that they have the right to tell people not to touch them "if they do not want to be touched" is really some nefarious plot to encourage second grade students to engage in sexual behavior.

Barber: Gays Seek to 'Desecrate' Church Property

On yesterday's edition of Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Matt Barber complained that now that gay activists had corrupted the military, it is up to the church stand up and oppose the "contamination of our culture with this sexual sin" because gays are trying to force the church to affirm their "spiritually, physically, emotionally" destructive lifestyles:

I have asserted for years now that this, again, has never been about equality, never been about tolerance, you hear the term "celebrate diversity." The political strategy here, the legal strategy is - and even with the last vestige of the embracing of sexual morality, of biblical sexual morality, the church, even the military is gone now, so now the church is essentially left as defenders of sexual morality and opposing the contamination of our culture with this sexual sin, whether it's homosexual sin, the embrace of adultery, fornication, whatever.

This has never been about celebrating diversity or equality; it's about, yeah, you celebrate diversity, you affirm our demonstrably destructive, spiritually, physically, emotionally, our lifestyle, under penalty of law, or else. And that goes for you too, church. You either allow us desecrate your property with our counter-biblical, sinful civil union ceremony or we will see that you are sanctioned by the United States government. 

Staver Wants to See Diverse Viewpoints on College Campuses?

Sometimes you have to marvel at the utter lack of self-awareness among Religious Right leaders. 

Take, for instance, Mat Staver who is complaining about the lack of diversity on college campuses:

Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel says it is common for conservatives and Christians to have a disadvantage on college campuses.

"Perhaps 90 to 95 percent of the people in college campuses or on law school campuses are registered Democrats, are avowed liberals," he estimates. "They're identified as liberal with regards to political views; and so conservatives -- and certainly Christians, but obviously conservatives -- are a distinct minority."

He suggests college campuses should strive to avoid having the entire faculty dominated by just one ideology and instead encourage diverse viewpoints and ideas.

In addition to being the head of Liberty Counsel, Staver is also Dean of the Liberty University Law School - a university that blocks access to critical newspapers, teaches Creationism and right-wing anti-abortion and anti-gay views as it instructs students how to ignore the law, all while refusing to allow the formation of a Democratic Club on campus "solely based upon the moral issues of abortion and marriage."

If Staver really thinks that college campuses ought to encourage diverse viewpoints, maybe he ought to try instituting that policy on his own campus

A $370K Bonus for Saving Yourself for Marriage?

The Day of Purity is a project of Liberty Counsel that encourages students to use Valentines Day to "make a public demonstration of their commitment to remain sexually pure, in mind and actions."

Amber Haskew, the Day of Purity Coordinator, was the guest on Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom" radio program today where she explained the many benefits of saving oneself for marriage ... like the fact that people who do earn nearly $400,000 over their lifetimes:

This figure comes from a 2005 Heritage Foundation report that didn't actually provide any data to support this assertion, but simply predicted that students who abstain are also likely to do better in school and therefore have higher lifetime earnings:

Teens who abstain are likely to have greater future orientation, greater impulse control, greater perseverance, greater resistance to peer pressure, and more respect for parental and societal values. These traits are likely to contribute to higher academic achievement. In short, teen virgins are more likely to possess character traits that lead to success in life. Moreover, the practice of abstinence is likely to foster positive character traits that, in turn, will contribute to academic performance ... In our society, greater educational attainment leads, on average, to higher lifetime incomes. Because they are more successful in school, teen virgins can expect to have, on average, incomes that will be 16 percent higher than sexually active teens from identical socio-economic backgrounds. This will mean an average increase of $370,000 in income over a lifetime.

Liberty Counsel Accuses Macy's of Rape Cover-Up

The right-wing legal foundation Liberty Counsel is representing a former Macy’s employee who was fired when she violated company policy and refused to allow a transgender woman to use the woman’s changing room to try on clothes. In the weeks since the incident, Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver has made the rounds to disparage and attack transgender Americans as well as Macy’s for respecting the rights of LGBT customers.

Staver has previously warned that Macy’s policy could lead to rape by enabling male rapists to claim they are female and then assault women in changing rooms. Today on Faith & Freedom, Staver went even further by repeating accusations made by an unnamed tipster that Macy’s is actively covering up a string of sexual assaults, including rape, at its stores. Staver did not seem to know much about the tipster or his claims, but that did not stop him from repeating them. Staver’s deputy, Matt Barber, went on to say that he wasn’t surprised by the accusations. After all, Barber said, the “homosexual activist lobby and people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle” are “in constant rebellion with order, with their natural order, with natural law, with biology.”

Watch:

Staver: We also have another individual that contacted us, Matt, who said that he was sort of a trouble shooter, I forgot the exact title that he was working in in Macy’s, and he brought to Macy’s the issue of these men going into the women’s fitting rooms.

Barber: Probably working in corporate security or loss prevention.

Staver: Loss prevention or something of that nature. He brought to their attention articles from around the country where people had gone into Macy’s, and some other stores but specifically Macy’s, women had gone in and they had been sexually assaulted in these fitting rooms by men that have been coming into those fitting rooms, and even rapes. He brought this to the attention of Macy’s to address this policy and he said rather than address it he was terminated.

Barber: Not surprising, they are pulling the wool over their own eyes here. That’s the hallmark of the homosexual activist lobby and people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle, they are in constant rebellion with order, with their natural order, with natural law, with biology, obviously a man can’t be a woman and a woman can’t be a man. Groups like the Human Rights Campaign are constantly raising the bar, moving the goal posts if you will, they have their Corporate Equality Index and they use that in order to strong arm companies into signing off on every single one of their demands.

Liberty Counsel's Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Back in August, Liberty Counsel and other Religious Right organizations were incensed when LGBT rights advocates called on companies to drop out of the Charity Give Back Group because the CGBG was directing proceeds to anti-gay organizations such as the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family and Liberty Counsel. Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel’s Director of Cultural Affairs, said that activists leading the pressure campaign wanted to put conservatives “behind bars” and were “using economic terrorism.” Such remarks were especially ironic at the time since Liberty Counsel led similar pressure campaigns against schools that permit the Day of Silence, McDonalds and Starbucks.

Today, in an interview with the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow, Liberty Counsel attorney Matt Krause praised the decision by Lowe’s to cave in to a pressure campaign by the far-right Florida Family Association to pull its advertisements from All-American Muslim. The FFA pressured advertisers by complaining that the show was portraying Muslims as regular Americans rather than showing stereotypical Muslim terrorists. Krause commended Lowe’s for agreeing with the FFA that the show did not “genuinely reflect the values of its customers”:

A Christian legal group applauds Lowe's for standing by its decision to pull advertisements from a show on Muslims living in America. The North Carolina-based Charlotte Observer reports that Lowe's will not change its decision to pull commercials from TLC's All-American Muslim. The decision came after the Florida Family Association and the American Decency Association requested that constituents e-mail the show's advertisers because of the program's failure to present the lives of radical Islamic believers truthfully. The company has stood firm on its move, even after Muslim groups launched their own petition drive.

"We applaud Lowe's for taking the steps that they think [are] correct by pulling the advertising," says Matt Krause, litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel. "And if they don't feel that the show or the contents of the show genuinely reflect the values of its customers, then we say that that's terrific that they're standing by their decision."

So just to be clear, Liberty Counsel believes that when gay rights advocates ask businesses to drop out of the politically-geared CGBG, it is “economic terrorism.” But when a fringe anti-Muslim group demands companies refuse to advertise on All-American Muslim just due to the fact that it is a reality show about Muslim-Americans, it is a “terrific” act that is worthy of applause.

Staver: Gay Rights is 'The Most Significant Threat to Religious Freedom That We Face'

Yesterday on Truth that Transforms, the radio program of Truth in Action Ministries, Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver maintained that pastors in America are experiencing legal punishment for preaching against homosexuality. Staver claimed that the “homosexual rights agenda” is “without a question, the most significant threat to religious freedom that we face in the future.” He argued that gays and lesbians do not care about “tolerance” and “coexisting,” saying that “it has always been about dominance.” He went on to repeat the falsehood that organizations are being classified as anti-gay hate groups because of their position on marriage equality, when in fact the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose hate group classifications do not have legal weight, clearly notes that “not one of them was listed because of their position on same-sex marriage.”

Staver told host John Rabe that American pastors, as they supposedly are in Canada and Scandinavian countries, are facing legal penalties for speaking against gay rights. As Kyle pointed out when discussing a similar claim from David Barton, the “Hate Crimes Legislation was signed into law in October 2009 and not one pastor, priest, or preacher has yet been charged with a hate crime for preaching against homosexuality.”

Carmen Pate: What would you see as the greatest threat to our religious freedom here in America today?

Mat Staver: Well I think the greatest threat is the prevalence of the apathy that we sometimes have and just simply the lack of knowledge of the threat being there, I think that’s certainly the base line. Beyond that though I think that there is a clash that’s coming and it is very significant, and it is the clash between religious freedom and the homosexual rights agenda. There will be a winner and there will be a loser. And it’s not necessarily because of those who advocate religious freedom, it’s because of those who advocate the homosexual rights agenda. It’s no longer about tolerance and it never has been about tolerance, it’s never been about coexisting and so forth, it has always been about dominance. The dominance is that the homosexual rights agenda trumps everything else and if you disagree with it or if you have a different view, say for example even on marriage, then you will be labeled and you already see labels being thrown out there as a hate group, a hater. Someone that does not have the same access to a public facility, to have the same opportunity as a Christian club on campus or any other public venue or benefit that is otherwise open to people of various viewpoint except for your viewpoint because of your religious viewpoint, particularly as it relates to homosexuality. I think, without a question, the most significant threat to religious freedom that we face in the future.

John Rabe: If you look in countries, like some of the Scandinavian countries, what you’ve actually had pastors in churches being disciplined for standing up and offering a biblical perspective on homosexuality, or preaching from the bible about homosexuality, you’ve had cases in Canada where people are called before hate crimes tribunals for offering the biblical perspective. Is that something that could happen in the United States of America?

Mat Staver: Well it’s something that is happening in the United States of America and it is something that could escalate to a more significant level.

Religious Right Activists Warn that Gay Rights will Bring About Communist, Satanic Domination

On Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Radio Hour, Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel and Religious Right activist Paul Blair joined AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera in exposing the surreptitious Satanic-Communist-‘Homosexualist’ conspiracy to take over America…and the world.

LaBarbera criticized Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for using “homosexualist semantics” in her speech defending the human rights and dignity of the LGBT community, and went on to commend countries with severe laws that punish gays and lesbians and face of American pressure to decriminalize homosexuality. Blair said that the communists are trying to “inculcate homosexual values, or lack of values, into the American culture” in order “to destroy the family” and create “a global utopia.” Barber readily agreed with Blair and said those “trying to impose a globalist, communist structure” are using the gay rights movement as a “polar ice cutter,” arguing that “homosexual activism, undermining the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic and doing away with it, that is the ice breaker that breaks the ice so that the bigger communist ships and the redistributionist ships” can take hold:

Referencing Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg’s condemnation of the LGBT rights directive, LaBarbera warned that we have “now become a force for evil in the world,” and Blair, once again, said that Satan is the source and “ultimate conspirator” behind “the force of communism, the force of the radical homosexual agenda, the secularist movement in America”:

Blair: Isaiah talks about in his day and age, and we’re seeing it now, where right is turned into wrong and wrong is turned into right and bitter waters have become sweet and truly we have turned the world upside down. You look at some of the things we’ve got going on in America and you would think we moved into the Twilight Zone. But ultimately all of these forces—the force of communism, the force of the radical homosexual agenda, the secularist movement in America—they all have the same source, the same ultimate conspirator, and that is Satan.

Not to be outdone, Barber claimed that Satan is behind words like ‘gay’:

Barber: Proponents of God’s objective truth relative to sexual morality and sexual sin, we’re not as crafty as the Enemy, the Enemy being Satan, what we’re talking about here is Satanic, this is sin. Those who are defenders of sin and who embrace and identify based upon giving into such sinful temptations, they are very good at crafting the language and arguing semantics. If we play by their rules and let them define the terms, then we’re off to a marked disadvantage. Unfortunately, too many people in churches and in para-church organizations and pro-family organizations across the country have adopted the euphemistic language of homosexual activists and it puts us at a distinct disadvantage.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious