Sen. Ted Cruz has been rounding up support for his State Marriage Defense Act among conservative talk show hosts, and yesterday Jonathan Saenz of Texas Values sang Cruz’s praises during an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Saenz also alleged that growing support for marriage equality is nothing but a myth.
There is this notion that things have changed so much, there’s all this momentum from the media suggesting that people’s views have changed on homosexual marriage. But we’re not seeing that at the polls. All of these victories so to speak that have happened for their side, some short-lived, have been a federal judge who is unelected or the Obama administration or some of the AGs refusing to enforce their own laws and constitution. I haven’t really seen evidence of a major change.
We’re not sure where Saenz has been, but polling consistently shows that a majority of Americans, and an overwhelming number of young people, favor legalizing marriage for same-sex couples. In the 2012 election, a plurality of voters agreed that same-sex marriage should be legal in their state, and marriage equality opponents lost in all four states where voters faced ballot measures on the issue.
The two went on to warn that marriage equality states must also legalize incest (which, despite their claims, has clearly not happened).
“Not only does it destroy the definition of marriage, it perverts the word love,” Perkins said of same-sex marriage. “It becomes nothing more than a sexual act or a physical act of intimacy. Because you could say two brothers love each other, two sisters love each other, an aunt and an uncle love each other, different folks that may not be able to be married could love each other, so if you change this definition, what’s to keep them from entering into some kind of contractual relationship as well? It’s absurd.”
Saenz agreed: “They’re not really interested in equality, the homosexual advocates, they just want what they think they can get and what works best for their selfish interests…. They know that the majority of people do not support them because it breaks apart.”
Last week, Ajit Pai, a Republican nominee serving on the Federal Communications Commission, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in which he alleged that the FCC was planning to "send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run" in newsrooms all over the nation.
Predictably, the claim has been picked-up by all sorts of folks on the Right who are now warning that it is part of an attempt by the Obama administration to shut down conservative media outlets; most recently Glenn Beck, who spent a large portion of his radio broadcast today freaking out about it, at one point declaring that he would renounce his citizenship if this is what America is becoming:
As luck would have it, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler recently sent a letter to the chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee explaining that the right-wing fear-mongering over this study is totally overblown and inaccurate, as the FCC "has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters."
As Wheeler explained, the FCC has a legal obligation to identify "market entry barriers for entrepreneurs and other small businesses in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services and information services" and make a report to Congress. The study in question aims to identify the "access/barriers to [Critical Information Needs] in diverse American communities" within "FCC regulated markets."
Beneath all the jargon, as far as we can determine the study will allow the FCC to monitor "television, newspaper, radio, and Internet" reports in communities of varying sizes at various periods in order to determine if there are barriers in place in the given media market that are preventing entry by entrepreneurs and small businesses. As part of this study, researchers working on it will interview "corporate management, local management, and lower level employees" at various media outlets in order to "ascertain the process by which stories are selected, station priorities (for content, production quality, and populations served), perceived station bias, perceived percent of news dedicated to each of the eight CINs, and perceived responsiveness to under-served populations."
The FCC is not going to be stationing agents in local news stations all over the country in order to monitor their reporting, as the Right has been frantically proclaiming. As Wheeler explained in his letter, the study is designed merely as "a tool intended to help the Commission consider effective, pro-competitive policies that would encourage new entrants" and is currently being modified so as "not [to] go beyond our responsibilities."
Will this clarification from the FCC stop the Right from continuing to make feverishly overblown and politically charged claims about the study? If history is any indication, most certainly not.
Brian Camenker of the anti-gay group MassResistance joined Voice of Christian Youth America’s Vic Eliason this week for a program on Crosstalk called “Stopping the LGBT War on Children.”
Eliason told one caller that he should oppose gay rights because he wouldn’t sit back if he “saw somebody molesting children.” “The molestation of children through organizations such as what Brian has been talking about here are literally declaring war on children,” he said.
“We’re talking about these explicit homosexual books and philosophies being paraded, then on top of that you have the media that somehow feels that in order to be politically correct you got to have homosexual guests, homosexual actors, homosexual films, all of this stuff,” Eliason lamented. “It ain’t cool unless it’s gay.”
Camenker agreed, calling support for gay rights “insane” and like something out of the Soviet Union: “The homosexual movement does a good job of instilling that fear of harassing people and threatening them terribly so you don’t have anybody speaking out — we do — but when people start speaking out this whole house of cards will start to fall.”
The MassResistance leader also warned that gay rights advocates will turn the U.S. into Nazi Germany, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and North Korea, agreeing with a caller who urged straight people to fight back with their own “Heterosexual Pride Parades.”
Camenker: You think of what it must have been like in Europe in the 1930s or in the communist countries in the 1920s or in Mao’s communist China or Cambodia where just complete madness was reigning and large numbers of people were part of it. This is what it must have been like where you had complete insanity going on and people buy into it.
Eliason: I mean Massachusetts apparently has an official state GLBT commission. Is that correct?
Camenker: Yes it does.
Caller: Those of us who are heterosexual and/or ex-gay need to come out and have some ‘Heterosexual Pride Parades’ and so forth. I was listening to a talk show on the radio driving home last night and they brought up the Michael Sam situation. All four panelists were pro-homosexual, not one conservative or Christian or opposing viewpoint allowed. I had to stop listening to it. You know, North Korea used to use reeducation camps, China too during the Cultural Revolution. We have that, I’m a nurse and I know what it’s called, it’s called diversity and tolerance training. It’s cultural Marxism pure and simple.
Camenker: I think you’re right, I think you’re absolutely right on all of those points. Believe me, I’ve seen it myself. You are one hundred percent correct.
The 700 Club ran a story today about Charles Manson’s grandson, whose “ties to the Manson family name haunted him, and he swore to break the cycle of drugs and violence.” The younger Manson turned to drugs and ended up in prison, but now “talks to kids about how to avoid the mistakes he made.”
Host Pat Robertson said that the story is a good example of how God can change people if they repent of their sins, whether it be murder, stealing…or being gay: “God knows your sin. Some of you have been involved in homosexuality, some of you have had an abortion, some of you have actually committed murder, you have lied, you have been disobedient to your parents, you have stolen money from your business, and God says if your repent and come to me I’ll wash the slate clean, you can get rid of it all.”
As we noted earlier this year, Matthew Hagee has been hosting a weekly talk show called "The Difference" where he interviews people like Rick Santorum and now Tom DeLay, who declared that a lot of the problems in America can be traced back to the moment when "we allowed our government to become a secular government."
DeLay said that Americans have forgotten "that God created this nation [and] that He wrote the Constitution, that it's based on biblical principles," but he is also optimistic that the tide is beginning to shift, noting that when he was in Congress, he sealed off the rotunda in the Capitol building so that leaders from Congress could come together for three hours to get on their knees and seek the face of God.
"And I really feel now," DeLay said, "that the Lord has heard us and I see the Holy Spirit moving":
On this week's "Hagee Hotline," Matthew Hagee answered a question from a viewer who wanted to know if sex education was ungodly by explaining that things like sex ed, science, English, and math are only ungodly if they are not taught from the perspective that "God is the source of all knowledge."
Provided that those being taught sex ed are told that they were created by God in order be fruitful and multiply for His glory, then it is fine. But, Hagee said, if it is taught from any other perspective in order to "teach perversion," then it is ungodly, just as "whenever you use science to teach the deception of evolution, that's ungodly":
Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson once again suggested that President Obama is a Muslim and a follower of the Muslim Brotherhood. While speaking to Christian Broadcasting Network commentator Raymond Ibrahim, the televangelist claimed that “Obama got up at the United Nations and said this man is a prophet and he needs to be honored as a prophet and anybody who won’t honor him as a prophet, there’s something wrong with him; we’re talking about Muhammad, he preached hate.”
Obama actually said the following: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”
Ibrahim agreed with Robertson’s bogus claim, using it to launch into a defense of Orientalism.
Later in the broadcast, Ibrahim said that “the US is in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood,” while Robertson wondered why Obama is “linked up with the Brotherhood” and “takes leaders of the Brotherhood into the White House for his consultation.”
Among other conspiracy theories circulating throughout the pro-government Egyptian media is the belief that the Obama administration and the Israeli government are secretly aiding the Muslim Brotherhood in order to divide Egypt and destabilize the Mideast.
WorldNetDaily’s Erik Rush naturally believes the US-Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy, listing it as a reason that President Obama should be overthrown and executed.
Today, Rush writes that both Democrats and Republicans are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and warns that Obama is personally setting up Islamsit cells in America to prevent anyone from removing him from office: “Considering the laxity of our federal law enforcement with regard to Islamists within our borders, the insinuation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into our government and the known presence of foreign jihadis in America, could it be that the president has clandestinely created jihadi cells across country in order to ‘have his back’ in the event that a move is made to remove him?”
It appears that with each passing week – if not more often than that – we are made aware of yet more evidence of the transcendent corruption in our government and political infrastructure, if you will. Although the emerging tyranny of the Obama administration and its audacious proliferation of collectivist policies defy reason, the façade has indeed begun to crumble.
As the crimes of the president and his collaborators are revealed, however, the evidence of even more entrenched subterfuge and malevolent designs comes to light. Some of these – like the overall objectives of Marxists like Obama – have been decades in the making, and involve individuals and organizations the average American would never suspect.
In recent weeks, I have reported here on the history of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Islamist activist who worked closely with Adolf Hitler during World War II and who was a bridge figure in terms of transporting the genocidal and anti-Semitic Nazi model into the post-war Middle East. I’ve also detailed the similarities between the respective political rises to power of Barack Obama and Mohamed Morsi. This becomes particularly chilling when one considers the damage that continues to be done in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood since Morsi was driven from office. Considering the laxity of our federal law enforcement with regard to Islamists within our borders, the insinuation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into our government and the known presence of foreign jihadis in America, could it be that the president has clandestinely created jihadi cells across country in order to “have his back” in the event that a move is made to remove him?
Now we have evidence that there are Republican leaders who may be just as guilty as Obama of compromising our national security as well as our sovereignty and our economy. We’re well aware of the influence of high-placed faux conservatives in government and activist circles. Some may be familiar with such stories as the near-takeover of the conservative organization FreedomWorks by progressive Republicans and the infiltration of progressives into the tea-party movement from its inception.
As we move forward in battling our domestic enemies, it is imperative that we remember that this evil transcends party, and impart that knowledge to the newly engaged. The fate of this nation hinges upon those who recognize this, who adopt the Constitution alone as their herald and commit to unequivocal, unapologetic and courageous commitment.
In the last month, two Mississippi towns have passed resolutions recognizing "the inherent worth of all its city's residents" that specifically included members of the LGBT community and that is not sitting well with Bryan Fischer and the American Family Association, which used its OneNewsNow news website to voice its displeasure and call for the city council members who voted for these resolution to be removed from office:
Bryan Fischer with the Mississippi-based American Family Association says it's obvious the council members didn't check with the people they represent – or with the Centers for Disease Control about "how risky and dangerous homosexual behavior is."
"It's very clear that homosexual conduct is as risky to human health as intravenous drug use," Fischer tells OneNewsNow. "I don't think there's any way in the world that the Hattiesburg City Council is going to draft an ordinance that promotes intravenous drug use. Why? Because it's risky to human health. They should have taken the same position on homosexual behavior."
Fischer, AFA's director of issues analysis, laments the fact that similar decisions by city leaders are becoming more common in college towns – adding that it reflects those leaders' negligent attitudes toward unhealthy lifestyles. "... These city councils, I believe, are being grossly irresponsible in the signal that they're sending to vulnerable young men and women in their communities," he states.
The AFA spokesman also argues that the vote does not represent the beliefs of the majority of residents in Hattiesburg. He reminds those residents that members of the city council serve "at the pleasure of the citizens who can do something about it" – and he adds: "They should."
During the controversy over Chick-fil-A’s stance on gay rights issues, Fox News pundit Todd Starnes said that people boycotting the restaurant chain are “un-American” and warned that “the days of persecution are upon us.”
But apparently boycotts aren’t “un-American” as long as Starnes supports them, as today he endorsed the Religious Right boycott of the Girl Scouts over bogus accusations that Girl Scout cookies fund Planned Parenthood:
The Girl Scouts make a great thin mint – but I’ve decided not to buy their cookies this year.
Pro-life groups around the nation have launched a boycott of their cookies because of the organization’s alleged ties to Planned Parenthood.
Lila Rose, the president of Live Action, is one of the nation’s leading pro-life voices. She urged parents to consider healthy, wholesome alternatives.
“No little girl – or her parents – should have anything to do with an organization that kills over 330,000 pre-born children a year, covers up sexual abuse, advocates for infanticide, and builds its entire business model on harming women,” Rose said in a prepared statement.
So that’s why I’ve decided to forego their peanut butter patties this year. If I knew that a single penny of Girl Scout money was helping to fund Planned Parenthood — Well – I’d just lose my cookies.
Most RWW readers probably had little intention of reading Phyllis Schlafly’s latest column, entitled “Obama’s War on the First Amendment.” But just in case you were interested, we can spare you the time. Its ridiculous nature is encapsulated in one paragraph:
Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t want any expression of religious faith in any public place, including buildings or schools or events. He wants to redefine the First Amendment from “free exercise” to “freedom of worship,” which means you would only be able to go inside your church, shut and perhaps lock the doors, and say a prayer where no one else can hear you.
Actually that transparently false first sentence is enough. No expression of religious faith in any public space? Has Phyllis Schlafly ever listened to an Obama speech? Did she watch either of his inauguration ceremonies? His National Prayer Breakfast addresses?
It’s one thing to disagree with the Obama administration’s position requiring insurance coverage of contraception, and to take a position that private corporations have the right to exempt themselves from laws that company owners say violate their religious beliefs. It’s another to make the ludicrous leap that the administration is out to force all religious expression behind closed doors.
In her column, Schlafly says “Make no mistake; we are in a war for religious liberty.” Clearly, in Schlafly’s war, truth is already a casualty.
Naturally, Starnes cites Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to suggest that the late civil rights leader would criticize the program as racist against white people.
I applaud the president’s initiative – but what about the young, white man looking for a job?
Where are the special programs designed to help him get a leg up in the world? Where are the mentoring and interning opportunities for white kids from impoverished neighborhoods?
The Rev. Martin Luther King Junior once had a dream that his children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
Let’s hope in the future that President Obama applies that same standard when it comes time to helping all young men find jobs.
Or better yet – why not just hire the best person for the job – regardless of their skin color?
Perhaps Starnes should actually read some of Dr. King’s work, as he will find out that King supported a full employment economy and backed policies specifically addressing the black community:
We call our demonstration a campaign for jobs and income because we feel that the economic question is the most crucial that black people and poor people generally are confronting. There is a literal depression in the Negro community. When you have mass unemployment in the Negro community, it’s called a social problem; when you have mass unemployment in the white community, it’s called a depression. The fact is, there is a major depression in the Negro community. The unemployment rate is extremely high, and among Negro youth, it goes up as high as forty percent in some cities.
We need an economic bill of rights. This would guarantee a job to all people who want to work and are able to work. It would also guarantee an income for all who are not able to work. Some people are too young, some are too old, some are physically disabled, and yet in order to live, they need income . . . It would mean creating public-service jobs, and that could be done in a few weeks. A program that would really deal with jobs could minimize ---I don’t say stop---the number of riots that could take place this summer. Our whole campaign, therefore, will center on the job question, with other demands, like housing, that are closely tied to it. Much more building of housing for low-income people should be done. . .
King also claimed that the anti-black racism is heavily ingrained in the US economy:
Depressed living standards for Negroes are not simply the consequence of neglect. Nor can they be explained by the myth of the Negro’s innate incapacities, or by more sophisticated rationalization of his acquired infirmities (family disorganization, poor education, etc.). They are a structural part of the economic system in the United States. Certain industries are based on a supply of low-paid, under-skilled and immobile nonwhite labor.
Starnes might also want to know that King advocated black solidarity in pursuing social and economic change.
The economic highway to power has few entry lanes for Negroes. Nothing so vividly reveals the crushing impact of discrimination and the heritage of exclusion as the limited dimensions of Negro business in the most powerful economy in the world.
We have many assets to facilitate organization. Negroes are almost instinctively cohesive. We band together readily, and against white hostility we have an intense and wholesome loyalty to each other. We are acutely conscious of the need, and sharply sensitive to the importance, of defending our own. Solidarity is a reality in Negro life, as it always has been among the oppressed.
But all of this will probably fall on deaf ears since it might get in the way of Starnes’ efforts to level attacks on Obama and distort King’s actual beliefs.
Whatever America once was and once stood for and once represented, Glenn Beck said on his radio program today, that it is all over ... and he really doesn't even care anymore if they just burn Washington, DC and all of its monuments to the ground.
"I will tell you this," he bellowed, "the country, the institution, what that flag, those buildings that the flag flies over, what the flag is becoming, what it means to the rest of the world, I DON'T KNOW! I don't care!"
No matter what happens though, Beck proclaimed that he was never going to change and would give his life in defense of the Constitution, if necessary.
"Shoot me in the head if you have to," he said, "you're not changing me."
Saying that he despises them, by which he means progressives who are responsible for everything that is wrong in the world, Beck said he is working on becoming entirely indifferent to them, so much so that "I don't really care" if they were to burn down the entire city of Washington, DC and the Capitol Building and the White House and all the monuments.
"I don't care," he shrugged. "I don't care. I'm not about the buildings, I'm not about the flag, I'll burn the flag every day. In fact, I'm really considering burning the flag. I may do a show really super soon where I burn the flag. And if you don't like it, then maybe you should figure out what the flag means."
While he vowed to defend the Constitution to his last breath, Beck said "I'll burn the flag every day of the week":
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council alleged yesterday that people who agree with the scientific consensus regarding evolution and climate change are actually out of step with modern science.
Perkins, who has previously professed belief in Young Earth Creationism (the belief that the earth is only several thousand years old), said on Washington Watch that “the theory of evolution just doesn’t work when you consider all the holes, look at the fossil record, the molecular isolation, transitional difficulties, irreducible complexity, cyclical change, genetic limits, there are just so many holes and flaws in the evolutionary theory.”
He later compared the supposed problems with evolution to the purported flaws in climate science: “I remember a few years ago, it might have been Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, made a reference to a hurricane or a storm being an act of God — it’s interesting that’s how we refer to some of these things in our insurance policies — they were ridiculed, saying ‘how dumb can you be?’ Well, there’s more to back that up than to say what’s happening in our environment, our climate, is because of people driving Suburbans or coal-fired power plants.”
Last fall, the Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin spoke at the WallBuilders' Pro-Family Legislators Conference where he declared that when Jesus comes back, he'll do so carrying an AR-15 assault rifle.
As Boykin explained once before, Jesus was a tough guy and real "man's man," and that is because he is a warrior who will come back covered in the blood of his enemies and carrying an assault rifle ... which is why every Bible believing Christian must own one as well:
The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 is says when he comes back, he's coming back as what? A warrior. A might warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe ... I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies 'cause he's coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.
And I believe now - I've checked this out - I believe that sword he'll be carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.
Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? ... From the Founding Fathers, it's in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples 'now, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'
I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! He was saying in building my kingdom, you're going to have to fight at times. You won't build my kingdom with a sword, but you're going to have to defend yourself. And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that's where the whole thing came from. I can't prove that historically and David [Barton] will counsel me when this is over, but I know that's where it came from.
And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don't have one, go get one. You're supposed to have one. It's biblical.
Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin yesterday blamed President Obama for the high rate of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and sexual assaults among military service members.
Speaking with FRC president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch about an Associated Press story on the increasing number of military officers leaving the Army due to misconduct charges, Boykin said that Obama and his “radical agenda” are responsible for the problems in the military.
Boykin claimed that leaders of “true American values” are “electing to leave the military” because the Obama administration “has proceeded down the path of social engineering in our military and forced its very radical agenda on our military" and now people with “questionable backgrounds and character” are taking their place, contributing to growing rates of “sexual assault and fraud and all kinds of things.”
He added that Obama is bringing “lawlessness” into the military.
Boykin even linked Obama to PTSD cases: “One of the reasons I think we see so much PTSD today is because of this lawlessness, it’s because of the declining moral climate and troops are in a situation where they actually don’t know what the standards are — moral standards, value standards — they don’t know what they are because they don’t see it at the highest levels, all the way up to the Commander-in-Chief, and as a result of that I think from time to time they do bad things that they live with the rest of their life.”
While George Washington’s religious faith is to this day a matter of debate, Charisma is out with an article by pastor Eddie Hyatt insisting that Washington was an evangelical Christian just like Charisma readers.
Some have challenged Washington’s faith because he was a slave owner. But what is often not told is the fact that when Washington was challenged on how his keeping of slaves was inconsistent with his profession of faith in Christ, he began setting in motion a compassionate plan, at great personal cost, to make Mt. Vernon slave free. He offered freedom to all who wanted to go, but realizing that some did not have the knowledge and skills to prosper on their own, no one was forced to leave. Those who chose to stay began receiving wages for their work. Washington was much beloved by the black workers on his plantation whom he fed well, encouraged to marry and build families, and made sure they were well instructed in the gospel. Many, therefore, chose not to leave and became employees of the estate. Children were not released until they were of age and were provided with food, clothing, shelter and education. His own actions expanded his vision and he wrote, “I clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union.”
Maybe Hyatt should read about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 or about Washington’s attempts to kidnap and re-enslave Oney Judge, a slave who escaped from his plantation, before he claims that Washington “offered freedom to all who wanted to go” and only kept them in inhumane bondage to help them “prosper on their own.”
In 1847, Rev. Benjamin Chase wrote a letter to the editor of the abolitionist newspaper The Liberator describing an interview he had conducted with while she lived as a runaway slave in New Hampshire, where Washington had sent men to capture her and her child. Chase noted that Judge’s reports of Washington drinking and playing cards on Sunday might have mattered more to some doubters of the former president’s Christian faith than his ownership of hundreds of slaves:
She says that she never received the least mental or moral instruction, of any kind, while she remained in Washington's family. But, after she came to Portsmouth, she learned to read; and when Elias Smith first preached in Portsmouth, she professes to have been converted to Christianity.
She, and the woman with whom she lives, (who is nearly of her age,) appear to be, and have the reputation of being imbued with the real spirit of Christianity. She says that the stories told of Washington's piety and prayers, so far as she ever saw or heard while she was his slave, have no foundation. Card-playing and wine-drinking were the business at his parties, and he had more of such company Sundays than on any other day. I do not mention this as showing, in my estimation, his anti-Christian character, so much as the bare fact of being a slaveholder, and not a hundredth part so much as trying to kidnap this woman; but, in the minds of the community, it will weigh infinitely more.
Great names bear more weight with the multitude, than the eternal principles of God's government. So good a man as Washington is enough to sanctify war and slavery; but where is the evidence of his goodness?
This woman is yet a slave. If Washington could have got her and her child, they were constitutionally his; and if Mrs. Washington's heirs were now to claim her, and take her before Judge Woodbury, and prove their title, he would be bound, upon his oath, to deliver her up to them. Again — [New Hampshire Gov.] Langdon was guilty of a moral violation of the Constitution, in giving this woman notice of the agent being after her. It was frustrating the design, the intent of the Constitution, and he was equally guilty, morally, as those who would overthrow it [emphasis in orignal].
On Valentine’s Day, I found a stack of boxed “Duck Dynasty” valentines on the 50 percent clearance shelf at Food Lion. America seems to have moved on from December’s flap over offensive remarks by Phil Robertson – along with many of the show’s former viewers – but the American Family Association hopes that fond memories of the family patriarch’s anti-gay sentiments will encourage AFA’s contributors to dig deep.
A new fundraising letter from AFA’s Tim Wildmon is built around a postcard to Robertson that Wildmon asks people to sign and return to the AFA, along with a check. The postcard reads:
By simply expressing the truth of God’s moral law you have encouraged other Christians to speak out in opposition to those who would convince our society that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality.
Following your example, I intend to be bolder and more active in defense of God’s truth.
I am praying for you and your family. May God bless you.
Wildmon’s letter, which recounts Robertson’s brief suspension by the A&E network, portrays the support for Robertson from Christian conservatives as an opportunity to “uproot the entrenched evil that’s killing the soul of our nation.”
Will Christians and other like-minded Americans seize the moment? Will we capture the energy Phil Robertson has generated and draw on that energy to confront the entrenched fortresses of error and sexual anarchy that now dominate our social landscape?
The homosexual lobby’s outrageous demand – and A&E’s capitulation – has awakened social conservatives from their slumber and brought them to the point where they’ve had it with being insulted, demeaned and deprived of their basic rights to freedom of religion and speech.
That being the case, we’ve got to harness the outrage of Christians and direct it at helping uproot the entrenched evil that’s killing the soul of our nation.
If we fail to do this, then all this righteous anger will dissipate and our cultural wasteland will remain just that: a cultural wasteland. On the other hand, using the support that you and other AFA ministry partners provide, we will act quickly and decisively to turn this attack on Phil Robertson into a victory for our nation and for those who are to come after us.
It’s worth noting that while sometimes, when AFA radio host and spokesman Bryan Fischer says something even more offensive than usual, he and the organization claim (unconvincingly) that he doesn’t speak for the AFA, Wildmon happily quotes Fischer’s defense of Robertson and his criticism of “Big Gay.”
Glenn Beck is oddly obsessed about a move by the state of Washington to convert all of its same-sex domestic partnerships to marriages now that gay marriage is legal in the state. Back in 2007, before the state enacted marriage equality, Washington began granting marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples (as well as to older heterosexual couples) who registered for domestic partnerships.
Operating on the assumption that same-sex couples who registered for such partnerships would have gotten married had that been an option at the time, the state will now automatically convert those domestic partnerships to marriages as of June 30 for every couple that chooses not to opt out and the domestic partnership option will be eliminated for gay couples entirely.
The way Beck and his staff see it, the state of Washington is now essentially forcing gay couples to get married against their will, which is apparently just like forcing two same-sex roommates to get married.
Beck talked about this issue on his television program last night with The Blaze's Billy Hallowell and gay writer Brandon Ambrosino. During the discussion, Ambrosino made the point that some gay couples might object to having their relationship converted to marriage because they believe that marriage is a heteronormative institution of which they do not want to be a part ... and Ambrosino's use of the word "heteronormative" completely threw Beck for a loop, as he simply could not understand the point that Ambrosino was making, which he then logically attributed to the fact that other people supposedly aren't being consistent.
"The world is such a confusing place now," Beck said. "How do you disagree with that because people aren't consistent?"