Fighting the Right

Scott Lively Warns Christians To Prepare For Relentless Persecution In Wake Of Gay Marriage Ruling

Speaking at an event in Chicago last night, anti-gay activist Scott Lively warned the audience to prepare for wholesale persecution in the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling because the goal of gay rights activists is "to punish anyone who disagrees with them as severely as they can."

"As Christians, our world changed on the day the Obergefell case came down," he said, "and there's going to be persecution unfolding for all of us in this country because this movement of people is implacable, they can't be placated. They're relentless and their goal is supremacy. It's not tolerance, it's not acceptance, it isn't even celebration, it isn't even being able to force everyone to participate in their culture, it's to punish anyone who disagrees with them as severely as they can and that is what's coming for every person."

The time is coming, Lively warned, for Christians to decide that they are willing to "stand with the Lord and the truth of the Bible and say that homosexuality is an abomination," regardless of the consequences.

Scott Lively: LGBT Rights Brought Us To The 'Twilight Zone'

Religious Right activists Peter LaBarbera and Scott Lively appeared on “Crosstalk” yesterday to discuss the “massive push underway to undermine Christianity and to change the moral fabric of our nation” through LGBT rights.

“This is very spiritual warfare at the most intense level,” Lively said regarding the recent legal defeat for the ex-gay group Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), which was found guilty of violating consumer fraud laws. “The idea that any person cannot reorient their sexuality to the design of their own body is preposterous and to win a lawsuit on the theme that it’s consumer fraud to suggest that it’s possible, we’ve entered into the Twilight Zone here.”

After host Jim Schneider asked the two about transgender White House staffer Raffi Freedman-Gurspan, whom Schneider made a point of misgendering, Lively said that “we’re a mockery around the world because of this.”

“I’m actually a little surprised they moved so fast into transgenderism when they still haven’t finished mopping up on just simple homosexuality,” he added. “And I was especially shocked when they went into the military and said they were going to actually legitimize transsexuals in the U.S. military. What a disaster in the making. It’s mindboggling to see what is going on here.”

Pat Robertson: Gays Can Never Be Happy, Call My Network For 'Freedom' From Homosexuality

Today, Pat Robertson’s news program “The 700 Club” aired a story about one man’s “struggle with homosexuality,” which ended, supposedly, after the man joined a “support group for Christians caught in the gay and lesbian lifestyle,” became abstinent, and eventually married a woman and founded a church.

Following the report, Robertson lamented that “it used to be that psychologists would tell people how to come out of this, now they tell them how to stay in it and be happy.” “Well, you’ll never be happy unless you’re happy in Jesus,” he said.

Later, Robertson urged gay viewers to call his Christian Broadcasting Network to speak with someone who can tell them how to receive deliverance: “If you’re into the homosexual lifestyle and you want freedom, somebody is here to love you.”

Lively: 'The Widespread Acceptance Of Homosexuality By Society Is The Harbinger Of The Wrath Of God'

Last night, virulently anti-gay activist Scott Lively joined fellow activists Peter LaBarbera and John Kirkwood for a discussion on the supposed persecution of Christians in the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.

Predictably, the conversation was filled with dire warnings and over-the-top language, such as when Lively declared that America has "entered into a time of apostasy" as evidenced by school shootings and "the barbarianistic behavior that is manifested so much on the internet."

But worst of all, he said, is the acceptance of homosexuality, which is the most abominable of all sins because, according to the Bible, "it's the only sin associated with the incineration of four cities."

"The widespread acceptance of homosexuality by society is the harbinger of wrath of God," he said. "It's the only sin that is associated with the reprobate mind, the worst state that a person can have and then the apostate culture that derives from that ... [If you read Romans,] you see what God believes about this and what he warns about. Even AIDS and these other diseases, it says they receive in themselves the penalty of their error, which is appropriate. It's plain, simple Scripture, stated as clear as could possibly be done and that's manifest before our eyes in the way that these people are now struggling with all these diseases that are associated with their conduct."

"The heart of it is malicious deception," Lively concluded, "which is the satanic goal, isn't it?"

Linda Harvey: Transgender People Are Possessed By Demons

Mission America’s Linda Harvey is outraged that many journalists refer to transgender people by their preferred pronouns, telling readers of her weekly WorldNetDaily column that they must fight back any time they “hear a so-called journalist or government official refer to any male like Bruce Jenner as ‘she’” because “our children deserve a heritage of sane pronouns.”

Harvey, attacking the media for “inventing gender fables,” calls the use of preferred pronouns “untrue, inappropriate, cruel, disrespectful and hypocritical.”

She claims that such “naked propaganda” is suppressing the truth that trans people are really just possessed by the Devil: “There’s one tragic explanation for such pervasive delusion: Demonic deception may be active in the lives of these people and their advocates. Prayers are needed instead of lies.”

The next time you hear a so-called journalist or government official refer to any male like Bruce Jenner as “she,” please scream, then blast an email to demand that truth be told.

Our children deserve a heritage of sane pronouns.

If reporters aspire to a higher plane than naked propaganda, they need to stop inventing gender fables and describe objectively verifiable attributes of actual people.

Responsible journalists don’t make up the street addresses and ages of people for news reporting. Why invent gender? This popular mythology is no more justifiable than picking new names for people, variable facts in a police investigation, or inventing witnesses to crime who don’t exist.



Bruce Jenner is a guy. So is American traitor Bradley (not “Chelsea”) Manning. So are “Laverne” Cox, confused star of “Orange is the New Black,” and “Jazz” Jennings, teen TV personality. These are males – and the use of female names and pronouns is untrue, inappropriate, cruel, disrespectful and hypocritical.

Chastity Bono is a woman, not a troubled “man” called “Chaz.” There is no “he” in the reality of this person’s life, only in her public mask.

What is the problem with claiming one’s authentic sex? There’s one tragic explanation for such pervasive delusion: Demonic deception may be active in the lives of these people and their advocates. Prayers are needed instead of lies.

Mike Huckabee Jokes About Clinton Murder Conspiracy Theories, Hillary Leaving Nuke Codes At Chipotle

Earlier today, Newsmax host Steve Malzberg asked former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee if a joke he told about living to tell the tale of defeating the Arkansas “Clinton machine” had anything to do with the persistent rumors from the far right that Bill and Hillary Clinton are behind several murders (including that of a cat).

While Huckabee refused to make the connection directly, Malzberg kept pushing him on whether he was referencing “the people who didn’t survive to talk about it.”

“I’ll let the listener decide, but I think most people when they heard me say that knew that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek,” Huckabee replied. “I’m not making reference into anything in particular. Whether I was speaking metaphorically of political surviving or otherwise, I will leave it to the listener.”

Huckabee later said that Hillary Clinton is “an ideal person to run against for the Republicans” since she is “such a damaged and wounded candidate without credibility or trust.”

“So let’s hope she stays in [the race], I don’t see how she can convince the American people that they can trust her with the nuclear launch codes when she might leave them at a Chipotle restaurant sitting at the table,” he added.

Rand Paul Claims That His Personhood Bill Is Merely Meant To Start A 'Debate'

Sen. Rand Paul was the chief sponsor in the last Congress of a “personhood” bill that would have granted full constitutional rights to zygotes, thereby banning all abortions, in-vitro fertilization, and even possibly common forms of birth control. But for someone who champions an unambiguously anti-abortion plan, Paul has been curiously unwilling to talk about it in a straightforward manner.

In his communications with anti-abortion activists, Paul has taken a hard line, writing in a fundraising email for one pro-personhood group that his Life at Conception Act would “collapse” Roe v. Wade without even needing a Constitutional amendment and telling another Religious Right group that American civilization won’t “endure” without ending all abortion.

“Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over,” he enthusiastically declared in an email for the pro-personhood National Pro-Life Alliance. “Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.”

But to the mainstream media, Paul has been more circumspect, claiming that the no-exceptions abortion ban he sponsored would have “thousands of exceptions,” saying that the country is too divided to change any abortion laws, and opining that laws about the very procedure that his bill would attempt to ban nationwide would be best left up to the states.

Paul took the obfuscation tack again in an interview last week with the Catholic television network EWTN, responding to news anchor Raymond Arroyo’s question about his Life at Conception Act by saying that the goal of the bill is to merely “drive the debate about when life begins” and to make liberals talk about abortion.

“We get trapped by the other side, the liberals who always want to talk about the very beginning of gestation,” he said. “And I think it’s important to want to talk about and make them express their opinion that a six-, seven-, eight-pound baby has no rights. But I believe for religious and scientific reasons that life begins at the beginning, otherwise we just keep finding an arbitrary time.”

Paul has won praise from anti-choice activists for trying to turn criticism of his extreme anti-abortion policies back on liberals. But he can hardly claim to be starting a “debate” when he won’t even cop to what his true policy position is.

Wait. Is Ben Carson Pro-Choice?

Ben Carson has made a point of courting Religious Right voters, suggesting that God called on him to run for the GOP presidential nomination and perfecting the right-wing persecution narrative about how conservatives are being repressed by a Nazi-like government and politically correct culture. It seemed that it went without saying that Carson would emerge as a staunch opponent of abortion rights.

However, as Politico’s Katie Glueck pointed out in an article today, Carson and his campaign have been using the exact same language used by a good many supporters of abortion rights, saying that while abortion may be objectionable, it should not be outlawed.

The attention to Carson’s ambiguous position on abortion rights comes after it was revealed that Carson once used aborted fetuses in his medical research, to which he offered an incomprehensible explanation. Back in 1992, he disavowed an anti-choice campaign ad that featured his remarks, telling the Baltimore Sun at the time that he did not believe in legal sanctions on abortion and had referred patients to doctors who offer abortion services:

“As a physician who does not believe in abortion, when faced with a patient who has severe medical problems, I would refer someone for an abortion,” Carson told the Baltimore Sun in September of 1992. “I believe that person needs to hear both sides … I would never advocate it’s illegal for a person to get an abortion. I think in the long run we do a lot of harm when we bludgeon people.”

In an interview with Glueck, a spokesman for Carson’s campaign made a similar argument, saying that while Carson personally opposes abortion, he doesn’t think the laws should be changed to take away that choice. 

We can’t imagine that this position will sit well with Carson’s enthusiastic Religious Right fan base. But we also aren’t sure that Carson’s campaign even knows what his position on abortion rights is.

“He believes in quality medical care, No. 1, and secondly, he believes in people making their own decisions based on facts and information,” said Carson communications director Doug Watts, when asked whether Carson stands by his previous decisions to refer women whose fetuses had genetic defects to doctors who provide abortions. He does, Watts said.

“He believes people ought to have all the facts available to them, but he is steadfastly opposed to abortion,” Watts continued. “Referring it on does not mean he is advocating it, he’s advocating they are getting qualified medical supervision. He has always believed that the battle over abortion had to be waged in the hearts and minds of Americans, that you cannot legislate morality. But he also believes we’re winning the debate.”

Many pro-abortion rights politicians also personally have qualms about the procedure, but don’t feel it’s their role to pursue legal restrictions on the measure. Pressed repeatedly to name a legal restriction Carson supports, Watts demurred even as he stressed that the candidate is adamantly anti-abortion.

“It’s not a matter of legality, because there is legal abortion, but you’re asking for his point of view, where his restrictions are,” he said in a follow-up call. “Restrictions are not necessarily in his mind determined by laws. He believes that life begins at conception and that he is opposed to abortion after that.”

Carson has, in fact, come out in support of a bill in Congress that would ban abortion at 20 weeks, and he has said that cases in which giving birth endangers the life of the mother are rare — but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But Watts reiterated that the legal realm is not Carson’s focus.

“It is legal,” Watts said of abortion. “And as I say, he does not think the issue is one that can be legislated as much as having to win the hearts and minds of people, to discover the morality or immorality of abortion. He is unequivocally, completely, positively opposed to abortion.”



He thinks it is not something that is legislated,” Watts said of reining in abortion. “There’s been all kinds of laws over the years on abortion, some far more harsh than we have today, some less harsh. But what’s going on, to properly address the issue in his mind, is speaking to people in their hearts and minds so they realize the immorality of the act.” (emphasis added)

'I Was Born That Way': Bryan Fischer Claims He Was Born Christian, Repulsed By Homosexuality

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer argued that he and others like him were "born a Christian" and repulsed by homosexuality and so they ought to be entitled to have their associated rights respected and protected by the government.

Fischer took a call from "Terry in Macon, Georgia," who argued that he didn't have a choice about being a Christian because he was made in God's image and was therefore born that way. As such, he wanted to know why he has "fewer rights" than gays who also claim to have been born that way.

"I think, actually, that's a good argument," Fischer replied. "The way I am, I was born this way. And you know, you think about it Terry, who would choose, at this time in our nation's history, to be a Christian? You're ridiculed. You're mocked. You're made fun of. You get fired ... I mean, who would choose a lifestyle where you are the unending subject of ridicule, mockery, and contempt by liberals in society, by elites, by professors, on the media, by politicians? Who's going to choose that? So our defense is, hey, I was born that way."

After admitting that this was really nothing more than a facetious argument because "we know that our faith is a matter of choice," Fischer went on to assert that being repulsed by homosexuality was actually something most people were born with.

"I think that most of us have an instinctive, I think revulsion is not too strong of  a word, to the act of homosexuality, what actually happens when homosexuals come together and engage in sexual congress," he said. "We look at that and there is just an inner revulsion to that."

"God has the same reaction that you and I do," he continued, "but that instinctive revulsion that we have when we think about homosexuality, I was born that way."

Oath Keepers, Preparing For Obama-Provoked Race War, Say They'll Arm Ferguson Protesters. What?

The Oath Keepers, the group that helped provoke the heavily armed standoff with federal officials at the Bundy Ranch last year, made some news last week when they showed up in Ferguson, Missouri, wearing body armor and carrying assault weapons. Now, the head of the group’s St. Louis County chapter says he’s angry that his men were “discredited” by the county police chief – he called their presence “unnecessary and inflammatory” – and the Oath Keepers are planning to signal their displeasure by arming 50 black demonstrators with AR-15 assault rifles.

To prevent those protesters from being shot by police, the Oath Keepers will “surround the black demonstrators as protection.” Sam Andrews, the county Oath Keepers leader, says the event will be an iconic event like Martin Luther King, Jr.’s March on Washington.

Martin Luther King? Let’s step back a minute, and encourage any Ferguson activists who might be thinking about partnering with the Oath Keepers to do the same, and remind ourselves who the Oath Keepers are and why they were in Ferguson.

At an abstract level, the idea behind the Oath Keepers sounds reasonable, almost noble – getting military and law enforcement officers to pledge to uphold their oath to protect the Constitution, and to declare that they will not participate in acts that would violate Americans’ constitutional rights, such as warrantless searches. Some members of the group have denounced excessive use of force by police. In reality, though, the group’s lofty mission statement hides a far-right, anti-government ideology and a strong dose of race-based paranoia. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, promotes the kind of wild conspiracy theories that have thrived since the election of Barack Obama as president, including the idea that Obama is trying to provoke a race war as an excuse for declaring martial law and discarding the Constitution.

Rhodes is fond of talking about civil war. In December he said that a 2013 Connecticut law banning some assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would lead to an attempt at door-to-door confiscation and “civil war.” Rhodes said last year that if Congress didn’t impeach Obama for his executive actions on immigration, “then they will lose all credibility, and throw us into a TRUE constitutional crisis, because they will have failed to do their jobs, leaving the people with the necessity of pursuing ‘other options’ to stop him.” In May, he said Sen. John McCain should be tried for treason and then hung.

As Right Wing Watch reported, Rhodes gave a speech to the Oath Keepers’ New York chapter in June, in which he “encouraged his group’s members to organize and stock up on food in order to resist the government’s plan to institute martial law after bringing down the country with an economic collapse, a race war, ISIS attacks and unchecked immigration.” From his speech:

I think that keeping with that communist agenda of a fourth-generation warfare assault, the intent is to use an economic neutron bomb — doesn’t destroy the buildings, but it kills the people eventually, it starves you out — cause chaos, and in the middle of all that chaos, spark a race war, and in the middle of that, unleash these ISIS cells that are now all over the country. And they don’t just ignore the influx of these cells, they cultivate it, they give them fertilizer, water and fresh air and make them grow.

Rhodes said “the leftists in this country hate this country, they hate it, and they will get in bed with radical Islamists because they have a common enemy, western civilization.”

The Oath Keepers’ concern for the Constitution doesn’t seem to apply to the constitutional rights of gay people. Mike Koeniger, vice president of the Virginia state chapter, declared last month that a couple hundred sheriffs could defy the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling if they were backed by Oath Keepers:

Imagine that we only had 200 sheriffs that stood in the gap, and behind every one of those sheriffs there were 2,000 Oath Keepers, being civilian or prior military or whatever, imagine the power of 200 sheriffs…

We’d win. We’d win with just 200 sheriffs and 2,000 people behind each of those sheriffs. And then we win the war.

That’s not the only time the Oath Keepers have waded into issues involving gay rights. Earlier this summer, Rhodes accepted an invitation from James David Manning, a Harlem-based pastor who says gays should be stoned to death, to speak at a July 4 event in Gettysburg that Manning hoped would draw attention to “attempts to divide the races.” Rhodes’ contribution to racial healing at the event was claiming that liberals want to divide Americans by race and prompt another civil war. Manning, for his part, called Obama the “son of Satan” and asked the crowd to join him in yelling, “Sodomites, go to Hell!”

But didn’t Oath Keepers say they were in Ferguson to promote unity? Where’s unity, and where’s the Constitution, in all this?

Take the standoff at the Bundy Ranch, at which heavily armed Oath Keepers and other assorted “patriots” sided with a millionaire rancher who was refusing to pay fees that he legally owed for grazing his cattle on federal land. There’s certainly no constitutional right to break federal law or refuse to pay your bills – unless you adopt rancher Bundy’s radical-right refusal to acknowledge the authority of the federal government altogether. During the Bundy standoff, Oath Keepers founder Rhodes warned that Attorney General Eric Holder had authorized a drone strike on the compound. When that turned out to be false, the group claimed that the rumor itself had been an example of psychological warfare by the federal government.

More from the Bundy episode:

Noting that a number of military veterans joined the armed anti-government protest at the Nevada ranch, Rhodes said that “the politicians and the would-be dictators in Washington, D.C…have to worry if they go too hard, if they drop the hammer too blatantly on Americans like at Bundy Ranch, that the Marine Corps would flip on them. And I think it would. And same goes for the tip of the spear in the Army, Army Airborne, special forces, your Navy SEALs, all of those groups out there, the more hardcore they are as warriors, the more likely they are to look at something like that and say, ‘that’s it, I’m done’ and join the resistance.”

Last year, an Oregon mine owner called in the Oath Keepers to prevent government officials from closing him down before a court could hear his appeal. But the mine owner soon decried the “absolute bullshit” being circulated on social media and said the situation had “taken on a life of its own.” He pleaded with activists to stop calling and threatening the Bureau of Land Management personnel.

Back to Ferguson and the protests that were being held around the anniversary of Michael Brown’s killing. Oath Keepers initially said they were there to protect “journalists” working for Alex Jones’ InfoWars. The connection to Jones is not surprising; he is probably the country’s most energetic promoters of outrageous anti-government conspiracy theories, including his claim that killings at Charleston’s Emanuel AME church were part of a government plot to foment a race war and persecute conservatives.

“This is all a set-up.” Jones agreed: “Oh it is. Look at the priming, look at the preparations…. You can see all of the preparation building towards this, this is the big move, it’s a race war to bring in total chaos and then total federalization with this evil Justice Department, they even got rid of the other attorney general who had baggage, they put the new one in for the political persecutions of conservatives and Christians. They’re dropping the hammer.”

At a 2013 Washington, D.C., rally that right-wing activist Larry Klayman convened for the purpose of forcing Obama to step down as president, an Oath Keeper speaker said that the Department of Homeland Security was behind the Boston bombing and committed murder to cover it up.  

Rhodes said this spring that the military exercise called Jade Helm 15 – which right-wing activists warned was going to impose martial law on conservative states – was “conditioning and assessment and vetting” of politicians and members of the armed forces to identify who is willing to go along and “drop the hammer on us.”

Given all this history, Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told Gawker’s Andy Cush that he doesn’t buy Oath Keepers’ recent claims to have been in Ferguson to protect protesters.

“I think they realized rather quickly that very few people looked on them kindly, and all of a sudden they became defenders of black protest against police violence,” Potok said. “The reality is they’ve never said anything like that in their entire history. I think it’s ludicrous.”

 

For more on the Oath Keepers, see the Southern Poverty Law Center and Mother Jones magazine.

 

Rand Paul: 'So Much Of Our Population' Lacks 'Work Ethic'

In an interview with the Catholic television network EWTN last week, Sen. Rand Paul said that the main problem that must be addressed in the immigration debate is that we have “almost defeated the work ethic in our country” and “we’ve destroyed the ethic of work in so much of our population.”

When EWTN anchor Raymond Arroyo asked the Kentucky Republican about the 250 Disney employees who were let go after training their replacements who came to the U.S. on temporary visas, Paul said the U.S. must “look very carefully at how many people we need.”

But he added that immigration is a “two-fold problem” because “we’re rotting from the inside” thanks to unspecified “people” who lack a work ethic.

“We also have almost defeated the work ethic in our country,” he said. “And so, for like picking crops, hard work, if we didn’t bring in migrant labor, we’re rotting from the inside. We have people who really — we’ve destroyed the ethic of work in so much of our population.”

 

Religious Right Lawyer Debunks Religious Right's Favorite Talking Point On Gay Marriage

Anti-gay activists have claimed that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down same-sex marriage bans in Obergefell v. Hodges will lead to a tidal wave of oppression and persecution — just as they did following the passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009. Struggling to find the “victims” of gay marriage, Religious Right activists have pointed to a small handful of wedding cake bakers or photographers who were sued after denying service to gay couples.

One of these bakers, Jack Phillips, recently lost his appeal after he was found to be in violation of Colorado’s nondiscrimination law. After the courts ruled against Phillips for a second time, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Fox News pundit Todd Starnes linked the ruling to the Obgerefell decision, even though the lawsuit against the baker was filed prior to Obgerefell and even before Colorado legalized same-sex marriage (the couple was married in Massachusetts).

Alliance Defending Freedom’s Nicolle Martin, who is representing Phillips, appeared yesterday on Perkins’ radio show, where she spoke to guest host Craig James, another FRC official, about the case. (When Martin spoke to Perkins about the case last year, Perkins speculated that it could be a forerunner to an anti-Christian holocaust, asking when the government would “start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians.”)

When James asked Martin if Phillips would have “prevailed if the Supreme Court had not redefined marriage,” the attorney flatly answered, “No.”

“This court used decisions that predated Obgerefell,” she said, adding, “Obgerefell has nothing to do with the First Amendment and the right of all Americans to live and work according to their conscience, it has nothing to do with the Free Exercise Clause, it does not affect those fundamental rights, the pre-eminent civil rights laws of our nation, it doesn’t affect those laws in anyway.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom attorney’s statement pretty much rebuts the Religious Right’s favorite talking point about how the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling “abolished” the First Amendment.

Rick Santorum: Liberals 'Rewriting History' To 'Fit Their Ideology' Like In Communist China, USSR

On Friday, Rick Santorum spoke to Iowa radio host Jan Mickelson about his recent debate with Rachel Maddow in which he disregarded the principle of judicial review, pointing to Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson as presidents who defied the court in order to “do what is right.” This led Mickelson to ask him about the Iowa Democratic Party’s recent decision to rename their “Jefferson-Jackson Dinner” because the two men were slaveholders.

“This is what the left does, the left has done this from the days of the Soviet Union and Communist China, is they erase history and what history they have they re-edit it and redefine it into something that is fundamentally untrue to fit their ideology,” Santorum said. “If you are trying to decide what’s true, conservativism and traditional American values or this new progressivism, if progressivism is true, why are they going back and rewriting history to make it match what they believe in? That should raise some question marks.”

Clearly Rick Santorum has never heard of David Barton.

David Barton Claims Pedophilia And Bestiality Are Now Recognized 'Gender Identities' Protected By The Military

David Barton hosted the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins on his "WallBuilders Live" radio program today to discuss the military's move toward lifting its ban on transgender service members, which Barton claimed would allow child molesters to serve in the military without repercussion.  

Absurdly stating that the government now recognizes and protects 82 different "gender identities," including pedophilia and bestiality, Barton claimed that child molesters are now free to openly serve in the military.

"There's 82 official gender identities now and they all have equal status and protection here," Barton said, "so we're talking pedophiles. If you're a military member and you have an inclination for young children, you can't be kicked out of the military for that anymore because that is your gender identity. If you are into having sex with animals, bestiality, that is one of the 82 gender identities, you cannot be kicked out for your lack of judgment and your very perverse taste on that."

For his part, Perkins voiced his opposition to allowing gay and transgender soldiers to serve in the military, as well as to allowing women to serve in combat roles, warning that doing so is unbiblical and will "completely eradicate"  respect for women from the "DNA of being a man in the western culture."

"Men, we've been taught to be deferential toward women, to protect women" Perkins said. "That something I hope we don't lose but this engineering is going to be driven out of the military because you cannot give deference to another member of a fighting unit; that jeopardizes the safety and security of the entire unit. And that is something that will have to be taken out of what's become a part of the DNA of being a man in the western culture. It's being lost, it's not what it was at one point, but this will completely eradicate it to see women no different than a man. Quite frankly, that's not biblical and it's certainly not conducive to an environment that respects women."

Markell: Pope Francis May Be The 'Second Beast' Of The End Times

End Times radio host Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries sent out an email to activists today warning that Pope Francis may be the "False Prophet" spoken of in the Book of Revelation, signaling the rise of the Antichrist and the End of Days.

As Markell explained, while Francis may not be the Antichrist himself, he very well might be the "second beast" warned of in the Bible:

I am cautious about "pinning the tail" on the Antichrist and the False Prophet.  We cannot know ahead of time who these personalities are; however, Pope Francis comes close to "filling the bill" on the False Prophet. Or he may be but a "type" of that man just like there are many "types" of the Antichrist throughout history. I think the devil has always had a candidate for the Antichrist waiting in the wings as he doesn't know when the final generation is.

The False Prophet is described in Revelation 13:11-15. He is also referred to as the "second beast" (Revelation 16:13, 19:20, 20:10). Together with the Antichrist and Satan, who empowers both of them, the False Prophet is the third party in the unholy trinity.

Pope Francis is revealing himself to be a blatant Marxist. He has also pulled back from issues Catholics have considered sacred. He apparently has replaced abortion with social justice and environmentalism. Most troubling, however, is his call for a "new world order" and that there be a global constitution, a global court and a one-world government. Scripture is clear that the Antichrist will be the head of a one-world government (Revelation 13).

Even conservative Catholics are sounding a warning that Pope Francis--the first Jesuit Pope--may be the most troubling Pope ever. He is raising apocalyptic concerns and some in the eschatological community feel that he, indeed, has gotten the nod to be the False Prophet.
 

 

Pat Robertson: Christians Forced To 'Bow Down' Before Gays Who Are Bent On Destroying Us

Today on “The 700 Club,” Pat Robertson claimed that “left-wing so-called progressives” have “hijacked the Constitution and control the court system of America,” which has ushered in judicial “tyranny” with rulings such the recent Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. As a result, America’s Christian majority “are being made to bow down before the two percent who are homosexual.”

“We have surrendered the great freedom we have in this nation to an oligarchy of non-elected judges,” he said. “This is a free country.” The televangelist especially took issue with Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the Obergefell decision: “These five, and Justice Kennedy is off on this kick about the personhood and sanctity of personhood and being gay is your self-identity and all that baloney, it’s not in the Constitution but he’s come up with all of these rules.”

“Why am I upset about this? We better be upset,” Robertson added.

Robertson further alleged that “homosexuals, gays, lesbians, transgender, whatever you call them,” are not satisfied with “acceptance.”

LGBT people, he said, are not “content,” despite the fact that they have “job protection” (which isn’t actually the case) and “homosexual marriage is protected by the Constitution,” adding that “the founders would have been turning in their graves if they thought such a thing was being said.”

“They now are on a vendetta to destroy everyone who disagree with them,” he warned. “They are going to do everything to destroy everyone who disagrees with this point of view.”

Glenn Beck's Birmingham Rally Is Designed To Allow Participants To 'Be Seen By God'

Glenn Beck opened his television program last night with a monologue about how his upcoming "Never Again Is Now" event is being held not for media coverage, but for God. In fact, Beck said that the event is designed to allow participants to be seen by God as they take a stand amid a nation that has utterly lost its way.

Beck revealed that his church hosted a regional conference over the weekend which sought to prepare members "to be a sign to God that you stand with him" because people do not "understand what is about to come our way." This terrified Beck because he sees it is proof that all of his doomsday predictions are not crazy.

"That freaked me out a little bit because I like thinking that I'm crazy," he said, "I like thinking that I'm the only one that is thinking this ... I told my kids it's important, even if you're standing all by yourself, it's important to be seen standing. I'm doing all I can do and I know you're doing all you can do as well, but good gosh, we're in trouble."

Beck went on to say that he is not even inviting the media to cover his rally in Birmingham, Alabama, next week because the event is not for them, but rather for God.

"We're going to be seen by God," Beck said. "The media's not going to cover it, nobody's going to cover this, and that's okay. I haven't even sent out a press release. It's not for them, it's for Him."

President Mike Huckabee Will Outlaw Abortion By Executive Fiat

At a campaign stop in Iowa last week, Mike Huckabee elaborated on his pledge to outlaw all abortion by declaring legal “personhood” for fertilized eggs and fetuses, telling the audience at a town hall event that if he is elected president, he will simply start operating as if zygotes have full constitutional rights. If anyone were to have a problem with that, he said, they could challenge him in the courts. (Whether or not he would actually abide by a court ruling is still an open question.)

“As president, I would say, ‘We will protect every person,’” Huckabee said in Waukee, Iowa. “And I know that would just send shockwaves. There would be lawsuits immediately. Fine. Let there be. Let’s let this now work its way, but from the position, instead of being where we defend the killing of 60 million babies since 1973…let us now operate on the principle that it is not okay and let them fight for the right to take those baby’s lives, let them tell us when that person becomes a person, let us argue their point of the unrestricted right to deny life and liberty to that person.”

The former Arkansas governor added that he would feel compelled to make such a move — which would criminalize abortion in all cases and could threaten common forms of birth control — because otherwise he couldn’t continue to ask God to bless America.

“We’ve never had a president who was willing to go there,” he said. “Well, I’m not just willing. If I’m elected, I will go there. And the reason why is because I don’t believe I can honestly make a speech and end it by saying ‘God bless you and God bless America’ if we are committing such savagery as the infanticide that we have continued to slaughter so many unborn children.”

Huckabee went on to reiterate his hope to see Planned Parenthood “criminally prosecuted” and “go out of business” because “we simply are protecting the people that they used to take money to end their lives.”

The Iowa conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts posted the comments on its YouTube page:

Santorum: Judicial Review Is Okay…If The Court Agrees Me!

Last month, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum got into a heated exchange with Rachel Maddow about his statement that the Supreme Court doesn’t “have the final say on anything,” including abortion rights and LGBT equality. He attempted to clarify his position at a campaign event in Iowa last week, explaining that while he is fine with the Supreme Court having judicial review powers, the president and Congress should simply ignore decisions that they think are wrong.

In comments captured on video by the conservative blog Caffeinated Thoughts, Santorum said, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the right or the duty or the obligation to determine what is constitutional and what is not.”

“Marbury v. Madison is a Supreme Court case where they granted themselves that authority,” he continued. “And for a couple of hundred years, roughly, we have seen that deference given to the court. I think the court is the right place to make these types of constitutional judgments. But what happens if the court makes an unconstitutional judgment? What happens if the court itself violates the Constitution? Is there a remedy?"

“Our founders clearly wanted it to be very hard to change the Constitution,” he said. “That’s why when you see the court change the Constitution in an unconstitutional fashion, in other words…amend the Constitution by creating something that’s not there, they’ve short-circuited something that was supposed to be very hard to do, and there should be some remedy of saying, ‘No, you can’t do that.’ And what is that? Well, what is that is the president or the Congress saying, ‘You’re acting unconstitutionally and we’re not going to pay attention to that law, we’re not going to pay attention to your ruling.’”
 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious