Fighting the Right

Nance: Legal Abortion Worse than the Holocaust

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, writes in a Christian Post column this week that legal abortion “is the seminal human rights issue of our time” and a “heart-breaking atrocity against mankind” that is worse than the Holocaust.

Abortion is the seminal human rights issue of our time. For our grandparent's generation, the Holocaust was the most heart-breaking atrocity against mankind. As many as 1.5 million Jewish children were killed as a result of the Nazis' horrific genocide scheme. What's shameful is that America surpassed this number of little lives lost to a cruel genocide long ago. Since 1973, the deaths of more than 54 million unborn children have been reported in the United States alone. Every year, approximately 1.21 million more unborn children will be aborted. And nearly 4,000 abortions are performed daily, as reported by National Right to Life. This is an injustice which must end.

Texas this week is ground zero in the abortion debate, as pro-life supporters engage in a righteous battle to protect babies in utero and their mothers. And as one side of the debate sang "Amazing Grace" and the other chanted "Hail, Satan," we clearly see the founding principles on which opposing belief systems are based. One is life. One is death.

Earlier this year, Nance linked then-transportation secretary nominee Anthony Foxx to the Holocaust, claiming that his declaration of a National Day of Reason represented the kind of thinking that “led us all the way down the dark path to the Holocaust.”
 

Owens Calls for Anti-Gay Groups to Channel Civil Rights Movement, Parshall Botches DOMA Decision

Janet Parshall yesterday hosted William Owens of the Coalition of African-American Pastors and the National Organization for Marriage to discuss the Supreme Court’s recent marriage cases.

Parshall twice asserted that Kennedy called anti-gay activists “in his words ‘enemies of the nation.’” Kennedy never used such language, but Justice Antonin Scalia did accuse Kennedy of calling gay rights opponents “enemies of humanity.”

The Supreme Court rules, in his opinion, stunningly, Kennedy says basically that those of us who don’t agree with his worldview are in his words “enemies of the nation.” So I have to tell you, what does that do for us as followers of Jesus? If God hasn’t changed his mind on the definition of marriage and immediately a Supreme Court justice says those of you who follow God’s word are “enemies of the nation,” it seems to me the temptation is going to be for us to just sit down, be quiet, keep our thoughts to ourselves because hey who wants to be marginalized by the culture?

Meanwhile, Owens announced that CAAP and the Heritage Foundation are hosting a conference in October for anti-gay activists who seek to “work together to stop this nonsense.”

“The adults are confused and they’re confusing the children,” Owens lamented, “how can two men rear a child? How can a man be a mother? Tell me that.”

He called on gay rights opponents to launch a new Civil Rights Movement: “You think we did something during the Civil Rights Movement? This is our Civil Rights Movement…. We are going to fight to the end, we are not going to give up, we are going to fight like we fought to get civil rights, like we marched for miles and miles and miles, we took the heat, whatever it took, we are going to stand for the family.”

'Gimme My Fence Or Give Me My Money Back': Bachmann Demands A Refund For Her Nearly Completed Border Fence

Yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann called into Glenn Beck's radio program for a discussion about immigration reform legislation during which she urged Beck's audience to call the Congressional switchboard and "melt the phones" with demands to their representatives to refuse to vote for any immigration bill.

Near the end of the interview, around the 10:30 mark, Bachmann grew animated as she declared that "we're not putting up with any fake border security bill. We can't trust the President to enforce the border and so we are not going to take up anything right now until you build us a fence. Build me the fence! Where's my fence that I paid for in 2006? Gimmie my fence or give me my money back":

Yeah, where is Michele's fence? Let's ask the Congressional Research Service (PDF): 

Congress expressly authorized the construction and improvement of fencing and other barriers under Section 102(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA; P.L. 104-208, Div. C), which also required (pursuant to Section 102(b)) the completion of a triple-layered fence along the original 14 mile border segment near San Diego. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) amended IIRIRA Section 102(b) with a requirement for double-layered fencing along five segments of the Southwest border, totaling about 850 miles. IIRIRA was amended again by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). Under that amendment, the law now requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to construct reinforced fencing “along not less than 700 miles of the southwest border where fencing would be most practical and effective and provide for the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to gain operational control of the southwest border.” The act further specifies, however, that the Secretary of Homeland Security is not required to install fencing “in a particular location along the international border of the United States if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such location.”

As of January 15, 2013, DHS had installed 352 miles of primary pedestrian fencing, 299 miles of vehicle fencing (total of 651 miles), and 36 miles of secondary fencing (see Figure 4). The Border Patrol reportedly had identified a total of 653 miles of the border as appropriate for fencing and barriers.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 called for the construction of 700 miles of border fence and, according to CRS, 653 miles of fencing have been erected. 

So Bachmann's fence is more than 90% complete ... but now she is demanding a refund?

Mat Staver: Ex-Gay Superstar

UPDATE: Since Ex-Gay Pride Month was a complete bust, Staver will now receive the award during Ex-Gay Awareness Month.

While Ex-Gay Pride Month organizers continue to search for a theme song , Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel is set to receive the Ex-Gay Pride Freedom Award. Staver is slated to speak at the Ex-Gay Pride Month’s reception later this month at the Family Research Council, and will receive the award from Christopher Doyle and Greg Quinlan.

As head of Liberty Counsel and Liberty University Law School, Staver represented ex-gay cause célèbre Lisa Miller, who kidnapped her daughter and fled to Central America in order to prevent her former partner from receiving custody. Some reports say he may have been involved in the kidnapping.

Staver has fought laws that try to limit the practice of ex-gay therapy on minors and likened homosexuality to alcoholism, pedophilia and kleptomania. He also defends laws criminalizing homosexuality and fears President Obama will impose “forced homosexuality.”

Voice of the Voiceless (VoV) and Equality and Justice for All (E&JA) are excited to announce that Mat Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel, will accept the 2013 Ex-Gay Pride Freedom Award when he addresses the First Annual Ex-Gay Pride Celebration on July 31, 2013 at the Family Research Council Action in Washington, D.C.

“We are thrilled to honor Dean Staver at the First Annual Ex-Gay Pride Celebration on July 31,” commented former homosexual Christopher Doyle, President & Co-Founder of VoV. “He has been a champion in defending the freedoms of clients who pursue counseling to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions (SSA) and has tirelessly advocated for their God-given right of self-determination and Constitutional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I can’t think of a better person to receive this award!”

Dean Mathew D. Staver is the Founder and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel and currently serves as the Chairman of the Board. Liberty Counsel is a litigation, education, and policy organization with hundreds of affiliate attorneys in all 50 states. Liberty Counsel was one of the first religious liberty litigation organizations in the country. In the early 1990s, Dean Staver was one of the first to pioneer a new legal strategy and theory in litigating religious liberty cases.

Dean Staver has been on the front lines in defending the rights of clients who pursue counseling to overcome unwanted SSA. Staver was the lead Counsel in Pickup v. Brown, which challengedthe California ban on change therapy (SB 1172) that would prohibit any counseling to minors seeking to diminish or eliminate unwanted SSA, behavior, or identity. Oral arguments were heard in April 2013 in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, with a decision still pending.

“In honor of his heroic work on behalf of former homosexuals and clients who seek change, we are excited to congratulate Dean Staver with this award and express our deepest gratitude as he continues to advocate for our rights,” commented former homosexual Greg Quinlan, Board member of Equality and Justice for All, who is co-hosting the First Annual Ex-Gay Pride Celebration on July 31 at the Family Research Counsel Action in Washington, D.C.

Charisma: Gay Spider-Man 'Weaves a Wicked Web' and an 'Unholy Gay Agenda'

It was only a matter of time before Charisma news editor Jennifer LeClaire took issue with The Amazing Spider-Man actor Andrew Garfield’s asking, “Why can’t we discover that Peter is exploring his sexuality?”

LeClaire, who believes that dark spirits are behind gay superheroes, writes today that “Garfield’s push for a gay Spider-Man weaves a wicked web that could help deceive a generation.”

“Unholy gay agenda, Batman!” LeClaire begins her column, “Don’t we have enough gay comic book heroes?”

She wishes there were superheroes, besides Bibleman, who are “casting devils out of their antagonists in the name of Jesus.” However, she says that “the gay agenda would crucify” a “Spirit-filled, tongue-talking superhero raising the dead.”

Unholy gay agenda, Batman! Andrew Garfield, the actor who starred as the superhero in The Amazing Spider-Man, apparently wants to see the beloved wall-crawler break Mary Jane’s heart and shack up with another man.

Not only did Garfield imagine his tights-wearing character in a relationship with a man, he’s also even considered who might play his damsel, er, dude in distress.



Really? Don’t we have enough gay comic book heroes? About this time last year, DC Comics outed the Green Lantern. When he’s not wearing his neon-green garb and accomplishing superhuman feats, the chiseled Green Lantern enjoys kissing his new boyfriend. As I noted in my column last year, perhaps DC Comics was trying to compete with its rival, Marvel Comics, which announced just days earlier that it would host the first gay wedding in the June 20 issue of Astonishing X-Men #51.

Of course, Marvel Comics has long proved more progressive on the gay superhero front. Northstar, an X-Men character, became the first openly gay superhuman in American comic book history way back in 1992. Around that same time there was also speculation that Batman was about to come out of his caved closet, which would confirm decades-old rumors that Batman and Robin are much more than friends in tights.

Garfield’s push for a gay Spider-Man weaves a wicked web that could help deceive a generation. Make no mistake, same-sex marriage is not God’s plan.

Here’s another thought: Gay superheroes are now mainstream. But where all the Christian superheroes? Why are Christian superheroes in the closet? I’m not knocking Bibleman, but that franchise is hardly influencing the masses on the silver screen.

Of course, some have said that Superman is a Methodist, Batman is an Episcopalian and Spider-Man is a Protestant. But you hardly see them casting devils out of their antagonists in the name of Jesus (which perhaps some would consider to be as bold as gay superheroes kissing in comics).

I wonder what the world would do if it saw a Spirit-filled, tongue-talking superhero raising the dead. I imagine the gay agenda would crucify him.

Gaffney: Immigration Reform a Communist Plot to Destroy GOP, Help Terrorists

In his “Secure Freedom Minute” today, Frank Gaffney ominously warns that immigration reform legislation will “determine the fate of the [Republican] party and our Republic.” He alleges that if the bill becomes law it will “prove a magnet for more illegal aliens and more amnesties in the future” and even “permit terrorists now here to put on the so-called path to citizenship.”

Gaffney argues that immigration reform is a “product of decades of work by communists determined to consign the GOP to permanent minority status incapable of halting the further radical transformation of America.” He cites a piece by Trevor Loudon, who claims that several California politicians are tied to a “secret communist” immigration activist and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Barber: 'The First Pro-Choicer ... Was Satan Himself'

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Matt Barber and Steve Crampton were particularly disturbed by the recent incident in Texas where some protestors facetiously chanted "Hail Satan" at a rally during the special legislative session called to pass the state's restrictive abortion bill.

While Barber saw it as evidence that "the pro-aborts are losing their minds," Crampton felt that it accurately reflected the contrast between the two sides in this legal battle where "you have the demons from the escorts and the pro-abortion side and angels from the pro-lifers."

And that made perfect sense to Barber, because "the first pro-choicer ... was Satan himself":

Robertson: 'We Are Not Anti-Gay' Since Gays Are Just Confused Straight People

Pat Robertson is disturbed that people, for whatever reason, might believe that he is somehow anti-gay. After all, how could blaming gays for 9/11, warning that gay rights will destroy Americausing anti-gay slurs, linking homosexuality to pedophilia and disease and saying that Facebook should create a ‘vomit’ button specifically for pictures of gay couples possibly make someone seem anti-gay?

Well, following a story on the Exodus International head Alan Chambers’ decision to shut down the ex-gay ministry, Robertson insisted that “we are not anti-gay.”

“I am very pleased that we have many, many, many homosexuals watching this program and many of them are looking for love and acceptance and help,” Robertson said, “and I’m glad to report that we have thousands of these people who are saying, ‘yes we want to follow Jesus, we’re not happy with the lifestyle we’re in and we want to have a better way,’ I think it’s wonderful that that’s happening.”

He claimed that people are gay “because they have forsaken God, it’s not something that is natural and when people reunite with the Lord, the Lord will get their priorities the way it is supposed to be…. You work through it and if you meet the Lord it should be, it can be instant.”

The televangelist has frequently endorsed ex-gay therapy, so Robertson’s criticism of Chambers’ apology came as no surprise.

He argued that many gay people are simply straight but are confused due to child abuse: “A lot of people are into this homosexual thing because they’ve been abused by a parent, abused by a coach, abused by a sibling, abused by a friend, they’re little boys and little girls and they don’t know any better and then they somehow think, ‘well I must be gay,’ they aren’t they are heterosexual and they just need to come out of that.”

Robertson maintained it may be possible the some gay people “maybe got some chromosomal damage that’s different from heterosexuals,” and concluded by calling for another ex-gay ministry to emerge “to help people who want out.”

Erik Rush: Obama Is Murdering Everyone And I Don't Need Evidence To Prove It

Erik Rush says he is positive that President Obama and his minions are murdering people, and he doesn’t need any proof to back up his charges because requiring evidence is just a “ruse” of the “political left.” He previously wrote a column alleging that the Obama administration had a hand in the murder of a gun enthusiast, while admitting he had “no proof” besides an “inclination.”

Now, much like the debunked Clinton Body Count claims of old, the WorldNetDaily columnist asserts that Obama killed his gay lovers and drowned a woman who may have “come by information on the night of the [Aurora] shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.” According to Rush, Obama also killed journalist Michael Hastings, an identity theft criminal, his dog trainer, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and Andrew Breitbart (of course).

Rush insists that he is simply asking questions! This is the age of FEMA camps, Rush writes, after all.

I know it’s typical for those on the political left to demand peer-reviewed studies, videotape and signed affidavits proving the assertions some of us make concerning the machinations of the Obama administration and socialist encroachment at large, but we all are aware by now that this is a diversion. It’s also a good indicator that we’re correct in said assertions. Like the left’s tendency for projection, wherein they accuse the opposition of that in which they are themselves engaged, it’s a fairly transparent ruse.



For example: On June 11, Lord Monckton reported in WND that a U.S. congressman told him the birth certificate for the president released by the White House was “unquestionably a forgery,” and “We all know that.” The congressman went on to cite fear of political retribution as the rationale for most cases of Obama’s political opponents eschewing the subject.

Rather risk-averse when compared to those who founded this nation, and cowardly considering the stakes, but we’ll move on.

There are things that go beyond the pale even of political intrigue and scandal, and there is ample evidence the president has been involved in some of these also. Once again, you’re not going to get peer-reviewed studies, videotape, or signed affidavits here. But the coincidences or confluence of events tend to dispel the idea that these are wild accusations.

In fact, they’re not accusations at all; they’re theories.

There is an entire true crime novel in the case of the Trinity United Church murders, two gay men known to Obama who were killed execution-style in 2007 at a time when charges of homosexuality and drug use were being leveled at the candidate. Years later, as reported in WND, an entire network of closeted professional gay black men at the Chicago church was exposed.

Ancillary to the question of Obama’s eligibility, there was the case of Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr. (not a military officer; he just had a weird name), a hustler who was also killed execution-style on April 18, 2008, during an investigation into the theft of the passport records of candidate Obama, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton. John Brennan, who became Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and later CIA chief, was also implicated in this case (of the passport records, not the murder).

On Aug. 6, 2012, Jennifer Gallagher, a 46-year-old nurse, drowned mysteriously while vacationing with her family in Iowa. Gallagher had been on the team that attended to victims of the July 20 Aurora, Colo., theater shooting. She was also among staffers who met with President Obama during his highly publicized visit of the shooting victims. Several inconsistencies came to light in the theater shooting accounts and aspects of the subsequent investigation; one can’t help but wonder if Gallagher came by information on the night of the shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.

Then, of course, we have the off-the-chart suspicious death of journalist Michael Hastings on June 18 in a car wreck worthy of any action film. The circumstances surrounding the incident are right out of a political thriller and have all the hallmarks of a staged accident. Hastings was the individual whose reporting brought down the career of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; reportedly under government surveillance, he was also said to be working on a story involving domestic government spying at the time of his death.

So there we have it. There are more than a few other suspicious deaths that some attribute to Obama, from his dog trainer to Andrew Breitbart. I have asserted that the attack on the Libyan mission on Sept. 11, 2012, had its genesis in Obama’s need to “erase” either the administration’s illegal operations in Libya or Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself.

Whether or not the president had a hand in any or all of these may never be known for certain, even if his treason someday becomes common knowledge. What chills the blood in this time of domestic spying, drones, data mining centers and FEMA camps is the possibility that there are those working among us who might actually be willing to kill for this treacherous mobster.

Hagee: DOMA Ruling A Sign That 'The Rapture Of The Church Is About To Occur'

On a recent installment of the weekly "Hagee Hotline," Matthew Hagee responded to a question from a viewer wondering if the Rapture is about to occur by declaring that indeed it is.

Citing the statement from Jesus in Luke 17: 22-30 that "just as it was in the days of Noah [and] Lot ... so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed," Hagee explained that today all of the same things are taking place as occurred during the days of Noah, such as men being wicked and atheistic, and during the days of Lot when "men had given up the natural affections for women and were lying with other men."

Hagee then pointed specifically to the Supreme Court's recent DOMA decision, saying "that's something that would have been applauded in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.  So when you see these things similar to the days of Noah and similar to the days of Lot, it's very easy to know that the rapture of the church is about to occur":

Fischer: The Bible Mentions The Second Law Of Thermodynamics

Every once in a while, Bryan Fischer takes a break from attacking gays, and Muslims, and Mormons in order to impart a bit of biblically-sound scientific wisdom to his audience, like when he explained that only the Bible can provide accurate information regarding the age of the earth or how Jesus holds together the atomic nucleus.

On his broadcast today, Fischer once again put on his scientist cap to explain how the second law of thermodynamics, which he, for some reason, combined with the first law of thermodynamics and then proceeded to absurdly oversimplify, was first mentioned in the Bible; in Psalm 102, to be exact, which reads: 

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.

Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.

But you remain the same, and your years will never end.

As Fischer said, scientists could have figured all of this out if they had simply read this passage from the Book of Psalms, written in 900 BCE, several thousand years before it was formulated:

Swanson: Colorado Becoming a Stoned, Gay, 'Worst Possible Hellhole on Planet Earth'

After blaming the recent Colorado wildfires on women wearing hats and pants and gay people kissing, Colorado pastors and Generations Radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner warned yesterday that things in Colorado are getting even worse.

Swanson said that Colorado is “more tyrannical than communist China and maybe even North Korea” as a result of new pro-choice and gay rights laws, and is even on its way to becoming “the worst possible hellhole on planet earth.” “Their vision for Colorado is a drugged-out, marijuana’d-out, homosexual culture where children are abused as much as possible,” Swanson claimed, “this is the vision of the Democrats.”

If it was evil, they loved it; if it was against God’s laws, they said go for it. Our legislature in Colorado stuck a finger in God’s eye every opportunity that they had in this last legislative season, it was amazing, they obliterated family freedoms at every step, they trashed gun rights, they embraced every moral abomination they could find, they undermined liberty at every single point.

Their vision for Colorado is a drugged-out, marijuana’d-out homosexual culture where children are abused as much as possible, because children in non-nuclear families are twenty times more likely to be abused than children in nuclear families, so children abused as much as possible.

This is the vision of the Democrats, get children abused, kill them in the womb as much as possible, be sure there are as many dysfunctional families as possible, as many homosexual families as possible and children abused as much as possible, so government can grow their child welfare services even more, so that they can kill more kids, so that more adults can commit adultery, so that more kids would be murdered, so that more kids would be abused, so more government would tax and regulate and tax and regulate to produce the worst possible hellhole on planet earth.

Swanson and Buehner later claimed that Karl Marx “was a Satanist” who has won adherents among “most of the world” and “most of the universities.”

“It’s interesting how the most evil people in the world who bring about the Marxist, Communist, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agendas typically revert back to the worship of Satan,” Swanson said.

Buehner agreed that progressives are “turning towards Satan” and resisting God: “their vision is orgies in the street; their vision is where every man is his own god. They hear the words of the serpent, ‘you’ll be as gods knowing good and evil for yourselves,’ and they say, ‘yeah, bring it on, that’s what I’m all about baby, keep that guy off the throne so that we could be there.”

NOM: No More Brides and Grooms If Gay Marriage Becomes Legal

Jennifer Thieme of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute is worried that marriage equality laws will mean that no one can be a bride or a groom ever again. According to Thieme, in states that recognize same-sex marriages, “no woman gets to be a bride and no man gets to be a groom,” which may come as a surprise to all of the couples who have been married there since marriage equality was approved.

And of course, big government will step in to pick up the pieces. “The state will not likely give up the increased power it gets over individuals, children, and the church as this change gains traction,” Thieme writes, urging libertarians not to back gay rights because “socialists support it.”

First, I do not think it is realistic to believe the government will actually get out of marriage, especially once the definition of marriage becomes sexless (genderless) as a widespread policy. Sexless marriage as a policy is what must happen in order to allow gay couples to marry. It wasn't fair that only straight women could be brides, and only straight men could be grooms. So now no woman gets to be a bride, and no man gets to be a groom in same sex marriage states. The state will not likely give up the increased power it gets over individuals, children, and the church as this change gains traction.



"How does gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?"

I've encountered honest, far-left leaning Democrats who admit that sexless marriage is the destruction of traditional marriage. They admit it, point blank. One even likened it to slavery. This is not how it gets marketed to voters. Voters are told that marriage is simply being expanded to include gay couples. Expanding marriage vs. eliminating traditional marriage are two very different things.

Furthermore, father of Marxist thought Friedrich Engels was against traditional marriage. It is not possible to know what sort of stand he would take on the sexless marriage issue. I think it's very fair to say that his modern day followers support it. It frustrates me that some prominent libertarians refuse to engage an important social policy that socialists support. Does it occur to them why socialists support it?

David Barton Doesn't Need Religion Or The Bible To Lie About Gay Marriage

When it comes to honesty and accuracy, we have learned not to expect much of either from David Barton, just as we have learned that he is not going to stop repeating something just because it is demonstrably false. And that trend continues as, on his radio program today, Barton misrepresented a ten year old study to prove that "homosexual marriage is not a good deal for a country":

I don't need religion or a Bible to prove that homosexual marriage is not a good deal for a country. We have now twelve nations who have adopted homosexual marriage; they have stats. 

Jesus did give us a good admonition in Matthew 7 that you can judge a tree by its fruits, so if I take the nations that have homosexual marriage and I look at them, I say okay in those nations where you have homosexuals allowed to marry, only two percent of homosexuals do marry. So even though they want homosexual marriage, 98% of homosexuals don't marry when they get it and the average homosexual marriage lasts eighteen months and involves eight extra-marital partners.

Now by what stretch of the imagination would you consider that to be a marriage?

Predictably, nothing Barton said was true. As Jim Burroway pointed out several years ago, this talking point about gay marriages lasting only a year and a half and including multiple partners has been cited incessantly by anti-gay activists despite the fact that the study they are supposedly citing said nothing of the sort.

In fact, the study focused on the transmission of HIV infections among gay men in Amsterdam and was completed years before gay marriage even became legal, so it literally has nothing to do with gay marriage whatsoever, as Burroway diligently explained:

Claim #1: The study was of homosexual relationships between married homosexual men.

This study was not about homosexual relationships. The authors are mostly doctors and epidemiologists – they study how diseases are passed along from one person to the next. Their research article presented a mathematical model that was intended to predict how HIV and AIDS would spread among gay men. If a couple is monogamous, then by definition they would not be contributing to the spread of HIV and AIDS. Monogamous couples were simply irrelevant to the study, which is why they were explicitly excluded.

Claim #2: Homosexual relationships last for an average of only one and a half years, making same-sex marriages short-lived.

The first problem we have here is that everyone over the age of thirty was excluded from the study. By keeping the age of the sample population artificially low, this artificially limits the length of time any of them could have been in a “steady relationship”. You’re certainly not going to find any twenty-nine-year-olds in thirty-year relationships — or even fifteen-year ones.

But that’s not the only problem. The study didn’t ask if any of the participants were married because they couldn’t marry. Marriage equality didn’t arrive in the Netherlands until April 2001, two years after the study ended. Instead the participants were simply asked if they had a “steady relationship” with no further guidance on what that means. People dating for a few weeks could consider themselves in a “steady relationship” – which would be a far cry from full-fledged marriage.

This is an important pont. If legally recognized marriage had been an option for these couples (and if the researchers had been interested in studying only married gay men), they would have had a consistent standard for excluding those couples who were merely dating, or even those who were living together but who didn’t want to get married. That would have been the only valid way to compared married gay couples to married straight ones. You would have weeded out those who don’t want to marry, or who weren’t at that stage in their relationships where they felt ready to be married. After all, not all straight couples in “serous relationships” are married. By including couples in short-term relationships as well as those who don’t want to be married, the average length of relationships is significantly lowered.

And of course, monogamous couples were excluded from the study altogether. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to assume that non-monogamous relationships are less likely to be as stable as monogamous ones. By excluding monogamous couples, the average is likely reduced even more.

To make a valid comparison to straight couples, we would need to compare this group of gay men to married and unmarried urban straight couples – all under thirty and all non-monogamous. This didn’t happen.

Claim #3: Men in homosexual relationships on average have eight partners a year outside those relationships.

The authors quoted that average in their study, but they never tried to claim that it was true for gay men as a whole. Because the study excluded monogamous couples, the stated average would naturally be excessively high. What’s more, we don’t know how much this average was skewed because we don’t know how many monogamous couples were excluded.

The only thing we can conclude from this study is that when people decide to be non-monogamous, they decide to be really non-monogamous.

As we have seen, the “Dutch study” claims made by anti-gay activists are seriously distorted. Like most of their claims about gay men’s sexual behavior, anti-gay activists rely on studies that are not representative of the general population. What’s worse, they especially rely on studies culled from STD clinics for most of their claims. And by not telling you the nature of these studies or their participants, they are engaging in a deliberately deceptive practice. And they get by with it because they assume you won’t read these studies yourself, which is a safe assumption for most readers. After all, who has the time to go to a medical library to look up these studies in arcane professional journals?

This is the second time in recent weeks that we have heard Barton make these same phony claims and it presumably won't be the last, since Barton is not the sort who lets lack of truth stop him from spreading his propaganda.

Rios: Obama Is an 'Enemy of the Faith'

Echoing her colleague Bryan Fischer, who earlier this year called President Obama “an antichrist,” American Family Association talk show host Sandy Rios yesterday dubbed Obama “an enemy of the faith.” Railing against the supposed “loss of religious freedom” in the military as a result of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Rios insisted that Obama is not a Christian but one who “presses all things immoral, all things unbiblical.”

We’re releasing a report with the Family Research Council on what’s happening in the military in regard to the loss of religious freedom. It really is stunning, it is absolutely angering and we’ve talked about it before, many of you are serving in the military and we are doing what we can to stop this and to help you, those of you that are Christ-followers serving in the military, to bring people to account, to stop this out of control—really it’s a reflection of this President. You do know that, don’t you? I long ago crossed the line in trying to be careful about how I speak about him because as far as I’m concerned he’s an enemy of the faith, I believe he is. He presses all things immoral, all things unbiblical and he claims to be a Christian which to me is even worse, it’s worse.

Robertson: 'Rise Up' Against Obama Like Egyptians Revolted Against Morsi

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson said Americans should “rise up” against President Obama over the “gobbledygook” health care reform law just like Egyptians took to the streets to oppose and ultimately topple Mohamed Morsi.

“You know they revolted in Egypt against the oppressive actions of the Muslim Brotherhood and this example of state socialism is something that Americans should rise up against,” Robertson said, referring to Obamacare. “They snuck that thing by us.”

Watch:

Charisma: Fight Against Gay Rights Resembles Fight Against Nazism

Pastor Larry Tomczak sure does like comparing gay rights advocates to Nazis. The Charisma columnist this week claimed that, like Nazi Germany, gay equality threatens the church and “would imperil us all—our children, our grandchildren and our future as a nation.” He praises “courageous” African countries that “outlaw homosexuality” for “standing strong amidst this moral storm” of President Obama, WNBA player Brittney Griner and “unscriptural, squishy, spineless” Christians.

Naturally, Tomczak ends the column by quoting Winston Churchill’s speech on the imminent Nazi attack on Britain.

The landmark Supreme Court ruling on gay “rights” did not redefine marriage, but it did give the rationale to deconstruct marriage.

Those of us standing up for traditional marriage now find ourselves portrayed as bigots for simply upholding marriage as it has stood for over 5,000 years of Western civilization! It’s unbelievable, but true.



All Christians are called to be salt and light, but if leaders choose calm over courage instead of addressing these issues for any number of reasons—“Just keep things positive,” “Don’t scare people off,” “We’re in a building program and can’t risk offending big donor,” Just preach the gospel; steer clear of politics,” “It’s all going down anyway,” “Why invite trouble or controversy?” “I’m warning all of you on staff that this would be a deal-breaker if you start talking about these kind of issues”—marriage as the central pillar of our civilization will be forever lost. We just cannot sit on the bench, mute in the midst of the defining moral issue of our generation, as the people will follow suit.

That’s what happened in Nazi Germany as pastors (with the exception of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and a remnant) were intimidated into silence and their flocks emulated their example. Adolf Hitler chortled derisively behind closed doors, knowing he’d discovered the key to railroading his plans through: “They [German pastors] will submit. … They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs, and they sweat with embarrassment when you talk to them.”

Granted, we are not facing the Fuhrer, but redefining marriage means redefining religious liberty, and that would imperil us all—our children, our grandchildren and our future as a nation.



Alan Chambers, Rob Bell and Jim Wallis crisscross the country advocating for an unscriptural, squishy, spineless approach to this hot-button issue of homosexuality. The WNBA No. 1 draft pick from Baylor Baptist University, Brittany Griner, invites girls to follow her lesbian example as a new role model in USA Today. Even our president holds nothing back in pronouncing, “God bless you!” at America’s No. 1 abortion provider’s convention, then flies to Africa after the Supreme Court ruling in order to promote gay rights there after last telling them, “Africa’s future is up to Africans!”

Thank God for our courageous African counterparts who aren’t capitulating but are instead standing strong amidst this moral storm. Thirty-seven nations there outlaw homosexuality, and Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner and Africa’s first female president, boldly stands to say she opposes decriminalizing homosexuality in her country. “We’ve got certain traditional values in our society that we’d like to preserve,” she says.



Will you ask God to help you speak up as America is going down? We need to pray and foster another great revival before it’s too late. As Winston Churchill told his flock in England’s “darkest hour” as they faced the extinction of their democratic freedoms, “I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. … If we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age. … Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its commonwealth last 4,000 years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’”

VDARE: South Should Secede (Again) If Immigration Reform Passes

Noting that Southern lawmakers have traditionally supported punitive and restrictive immigration policies, William Houston of the white nationalist group VDARE thinks it might be time for the South to once again mount a rebellion if Congress approves immigration reform. Houston believes that Southern opposition to new immigration laws, along with marriage equality, affirmative action, Obamacare, environmental protection and gun violence prevention legislation, are reason enough for the states to secede from the US and refuse to “continue to carry the rest of America on its back.”

How long can Dixie continue to carry the rest of America on its back? In the U.S. Senate, the Northeastern states voted 21 to 1 in favor of "comprehensive immigration reform." In 2010, every single representative from New England voted for the DREAM Act. And in 1965, every single representative in the House from the Northeast voted for the Immigration Act of 1965, and only one senator from the Northeast voted against it.

If history is our guide, Southern Republicans in the House will again probably succeed in killing "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" this time around.

But what about next time? How long can we expect this charade to continue? For almost fifty years now, Dixie has voted for border security and against Third World immigration. But, because of the existence of the Union with the Northeast, West Coast, and Upper Midwest, we have gotten illegal alien amnesty, Open Borders, and Third World immigration—among a laundry list of other undesirable things that could never pass an all-Southern Congress.



Polls have already showed that, for example, 26% of Georgians and 42% of Georgia Republicans were prepared to support secession after President Obama’s re-election. GA Republicans split on secession, Deal vulnerable, Public Policy Polling, December 07, 2012. As Southerners consider Harold Meyerson's implacably hostile words, and as they react to the recent Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage and Affirmative Action, the recent Senate votes on illegal alien amnesty and gun control, and the upcoming debate on "climate change" legislation and the imminent implementation of Obamacare, millions of them have already no doubt begun—in the phrase widely used in the ante-bellum period—to "calculate the value of the Union."

Staver: Push For Transgender Rights 'Is The Abolition Of Civil Rights'

On today's "Faith and Freedom" broadcast, Matt Barber and Mat Staver reacted just as you would expect to news that a young transgender girl in Colorado who had won the right to use the girl's bathroom in her school, calling it absurd and delusional and outright child abuse. 

Staver asserted that the push for transgender rights is all a part of the "gay agenda's" efforts to create sexual anarchy in order to destroy marriage, morality, and objective truth.

"It this is civil rights, this is the abolition of civil rights," Staver said, "this is the deconstruction of objective reality; it's the deconstruction of law":

Klayman Envisions Military Coup to Remove Obama

Another day, another call for an anti-Obama revolution from Larry Klayman. In his column, ‘Americans to follow Egypt’s lead?,’ Klayman predicts that President Obama’s supposed drive to “refashion the nation through intimidation and threat, in his own Muslim, socialist image” will push the US military into removing him as leader, just as the Egyptian military deposed Mohamed Morsi.

He claims that Obama, “like Morsi before his downfall,” is “pushing the American people to the limit” and “playing with fire among the military.”

“If this display by our most distinguished and honored American military heroes is any indication, given the state of affairs generally in this nation, which borders on total political, economic, moral and ethical collapse,” Klayman asks, “is it inconceivable that one day the military in this country could rise up in support of not only the American people but themselves, and remove Obama and his radical Muslim, socialist comrades by whatever means prove necessary to preserve the republic?”

Klayman believes that there may be “no other choice” but to have the military oust Obama if Congress does not impeach and remove him from office or else “what occurred in Egypt this week might regrettably someday soon become a reality in our own nation.”

Of course Obama is committed to the democratic process in Egypt, as it was this so-called democratic process that put the "mullah in chief's" fellow religious Muslims in power there. Ironically, although Obama publicly supported Morsi's remaining in power under the guise of "the democratic process," shortly after Morsi's ouster, the Arab League, led by none other than oil-rich and influentially powerful Saudi Arabia, hailed the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood as a great event. So here you have it: The president of the United States seeks to prop up Morsi and his terrorist comrades in Egypt, while the majority of other "mainstream" Arab states, recognizing the threat of radical Islam to the region and their own regimes' stability, are content that Egypt has now purged itself of this extremist Muslim scourge. If this is not proof positive of the American president's own intentions to further an Islamic revolution in the Middle East and elsewhere, then fat dogs don't pass wind, to put it most diplomatically.

That being said, the American people and the rest of the Western world should be rejoicing today. The people of Egypt have risen up valiantly and removed one of the biggest cancers in the Middle East – the Muslim Brotherhood. They did so by organizing mass demonstrations in the heart of Egypt's capital, Cairo. The Egyptian people had the guts to do what thus far in this country we have not seen fit to do – demand the removal of a president who furthers his own subversive agendas at the expense of the people, most recently siccing the Internal Revenue Service and National Security Agency on the masses to keep them down and silent as he proceeds to refashion the nation through intimidation and threat, in his own Muslim, socialist image.

But President Obama is not only pushing the American people to the limit; he, like Morsi before his downfall, also has been playing with fire among the military. Indeed, to avoid violent revolution, it was the Egyptian military that removed Morsi to further the will of the Egyptian people who did not want to see their nation enslaved under Muslim Shariah law.



If this display by our most distinguished and honored American military heroes is any indication, given the state of affairs generally in this nation, which borders on total political, economic, moral and ethical collapse, is it inconceivable that one day the military in this country could rise up in support of not only the American people but themselves, and remove Obama and his radical Muslim, socialist comrades by whatever means prove necessary to preserve the republic?

This is not the scenario we would like to see, but like the Egyptians, when there is no other choice, anything is possible. Our Congress has shown no willingness to seriously confront Obama for his illegal and treasonous acts; the constitutional process of impeachment has never succeeded at removing a lawless and destructive president; and our judges have become the "yes-men and women" of the political establishment.

In this context, what occurred in Egypt this week might regrettably someday soon become a reality in our own nation. After all, on this anniversary of our greatest day, July 4, 1776, did not our Founding Fathers take matters into their own hands, when they threw off the slavish and evil yoke of King George III by rising up and using all God-given lawful means under the circumstances to further freedom?
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious