Fighting the Right

LaBarbera: TIME Magazine 'Promoting Perversion'

As you can imagine, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality head Peter LaBarbera is none too happy with TIME’s cover story on the success of marriage equality advocates, telling the American Family Association’s news service yesterday that the magazine is “publishing indecent photos” and “promoting perversion.” After lamenting that children might see the magazine covers of same-sex couples kissing, he went on to blast his home state senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) for “pushing homosexuality in the Republican Party” by endorsing marriage equality.

But Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH) is "upset" by how the magazine is jumping the gun.

"This is shocking that TIME magazine would do this -- basically publishing indecent photos, promoting perversion on the cover of their magazine, where on racks across the country children can see this," he laments. "This is an in-your-face promotion of homosexual immorality, and I'm very upset that they would go to this length."

And LaBarbera is especially dismayed that the order to print the photos came from the top.

"The managing editor of TIME, Richard Stengel, said the images published by TIME were -- quote -- 'beautiful and symbolized the love that is at the heart of the idea of marriage' -- unquote," the AFTAH president reports. "How can you be more confused? Two people of the same sex kissing symbolizes the love of marriage?" Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman, and he asserts that media moguls cannot change that.

LaBarbera adds that the media and the far left are confused, and he submits that the article and cover photos are a sellout to the homosexual lobby, as corporate America supports TIME through its advertising dollars.



"He was always liberal on social issues, and he was a favorite of the so-called moderates in the Republican Party," the AFTAH president notes. "But I certainly didn't expect that he would capitulate this fast. This very simplistic explanation by Senator Kirk fits a man who really ... never treated the social issues seriously."

While Kirk's decision is not a surprise, LaBarbera points out that it will still benefit the pro-homosexual forces.

"The sad thing about this is it gives fuel to the left's 'inevitability' claim," he offers. "The left and the media are promoting homosexual marriage like never before -- they're saying it's unstoppable; it's inevitable. Of course that's not true; nothing's inevitable. But they're really pushing homosexuality in the Republican Party. Senator Kirk's defection on this issue only helps the left."

Boykin: Bachmann 'Standing on the Word of God' by Spearheading Anti-Muslim Witch Hunt

Janet Parshall hosted a panel on Islam with Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin and phony ex-terrorist Kamal Saleem during February’s National Religious Broadcasters convention, where Saleem described how he instantly healed his sister of a stomach hernia and headaches:

Boykin cited a report from Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy that claims that judges in fifty court cases have used Islamic law in making their decisions and that Sharia “has been insinuated into our legal system.”

However, as the ACLU points out, “the CSP report consists mostly of 50 judicial opinions, which the authors copied and pasted word-for-word simply because they mention Islam or involve claims brought by Muslims, contending that these cases serve as evidence of the so-called ‘Sharia threat.’” The report doesn’t even attempt to prove that Sharia law is being used in courts, but merely finds that there are some court cases which “happen to involve Islam or Muslims.”

Boykin went on to cite Oklahoma’s unconstitutional Sharia ban and insisted that the media is refusing to reveal “the true nature of Islam.”

Later, Boykin called for people to support Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert and Trent Franks over their role in leading the witch hunt against Muslim-Americans serving in government, which he said proves that they are “standing on the word of God” and “their belief in Christ.”

We need to understand that one of the fundamentals of Islam is Sharia, Islamic law. It has been insinuated into our legal system and we did a study that showed fifty court cases, twenty-three states judges used Sharia. Right now there are efforts in over twenty states to prevent that from happening with legislation at the state level called ‘American Laws for American Courts.’ Initially Oklahoma passed it and it was immediately challenged by Eric Holder and the Justice Department but there are other states that have passed it and still more that are working on it. So protect us from Sharia. Those are prudent laws that would protect us from judges being able to practice Sharia and violate Article VI of our Constitution by doing so. Second thing is; everything needs to get informed on this. If you are tied to the mainstream media you will never know anything about the true nature of Islam.



There’s a lack of leadership in America today. Leaders are intimidated, they’re afraid and they will not confront the Muslim Brotherhood; they will not face up to what is really happening in America. Those who will are people that are standing on the word of God. Start with Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks; they are a very small number who are standing on God’s word and because they have the spirit of God they see this for what it is. They need our help. We need to lite up Washington in support of these people that are the only ones that are unafraid because of their dependence upon God’s word, they are unafraid to confront this; yet they get pilloried from everybody across the country because they have stood up to the realities of the Muslim Brotherhood. We need to stand with them, we need to pray for them and we need to stand with them as they stand for us because of their belief in Christ.

How Bryan Fischer Sees the World

One of the most interesting things about watching Bryan Fischer's program on a daily basis is learning to understand the bizarre manner in which he views the world.  And it is not his vehement hostility to Muslims, or gays, or liberals that demonstrate his warped view of reality but simpler things like how he interprets seemingly benign comments and events.

On yesterday's program, Fischer provided a good example of the sort of lens through which he views the world when he ripped President Obama for supposedly insulting the people of Iowa by sharing a story in which Michele Obama said she could understand why people would want to own guns.

While speaking in Denver earlier this week, Obama was making a point about why it is so hard to make any progress on gun control legislation, saying that people on "both sides of the debate sometimes don't listen to each other.  The people who take absolute positions on these issues, on both sides, sometimes aren't willing to concede even an inch of ground." 

The key to overcoming this was to build trust, Obama said, and try to understand the positions of people with different points of view. In demonstrating this, he told a story about something Michelle said to him:

And so one of the questions we talked about was, how do you build trust?  How do you rebuild some trust?  And I told the story about two conversations I had.  The first conversation was when Michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural Iowa.  And we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland.  And she said, if I was living out in a farm in Iowa, I'd probably want a gun, too.  If somebody just drives up into your driveway and you're not home -- you don't know who these people are and you don't know how long it's going to take for the sheriffs to respond.  I can see why you'd want some guns for protection.

But for Fischer, this story does nothing but demonstrate Obama's "sneering contempt for everybody in middle America; it is condescending, it is patronizing, it's insulting" because Obama is basically saying that "Iowa is some kind of third world country" and a murderous hell hole:

Rand Paul Raising Money for Right-of-NRA Gun Group

PFAW’s recent Right Wing Watch in Focus report on opposition to more effective regulation of guns noted that promoting conspiracy theories is a primary strategy used by extremists to block common sense policies.  New evidence comes in the form of a recent email from Sen. Rand Paul raising money for the National Association for Gun Rights, a group that is so far out there it thinks the National Rifle Association has gone soft.

Rand Paul’s letter uses inflammatory rhetoric to push the conspiracy theory that registration of guns and requiring background checks for gun purposes – which is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners – is just a prelude to “confiscation” by the “gun-grabbers.”

And make no mistake, the gun-grabbers’ TRUE motives behind gun registration is always the same -- outright gun CONFISCATION, and to do that they must first register every gun and gun owner.

Another letter Paul signed for the group argues that President Obama is working to empower United Nations bureaucrats to confiscate Americans’ guns:

I don't know about you, but watching anti-American globalists plot against our Constitution makes me sick.

PFAW’s report on opposition to addressing gun violence notes that there are real consequences to the promotion of conspiracy theories by elected officials:

It is also true that the failure to challenge extremist and dishonest rhetoric can lead to damaging consequences for our common public life.  The promotion of false conspiracy theories, the claims by public figures that their political opponents are out to destroy freedom and America itself, and the false equation of sensible, broadly supported laws with the elimination of the rights of hunters and other gun owners, can foster a dangerous extremism, including threats of violence.

One of Rand Paul’s letters refers to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill restricting ownership of assault weapons as “the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.”

I can hardly even think about what a DISASTER for our country it would be should President Obama, Senator Feinstein and their anti-gun pals succeed in ramming this monstrosity down our throats.

An earlier alert from the National Association for Gun Rights was labeled: “Obama declares war.”

Why is Rand Paul raising money for these guys?

Fred Luter Says He Didn't Mean To Link Gays to North Korean Threats

It is always fun to watch Religious Right leaders say one thing when speaking to right-wing audiences and then something completely different while speaking to mainstream ones. It is even more fun to see what happens when they get called out on it.

Take for example Fred Luter, the new president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

As we reported last week, Luter told End Times radio host Rick Wiles that he doesn’t think it is a coincidence that North Korea’s military threats are coming at the same time the US debates marriage equality and allowing gays to join the Boy Scouts.

During an interview with Anderson Cooper, however, Luter quickly backtracked.

Luter claimed he told Wiles that he didn’t “think there’s any connection” between North Korea’s threats and gay equality but had to backtrack after Cooper played the recording of Luter saying exactly that.

After Cooper confronted Luter about his claim that a favorable decision on marriage equality from the Supreme Court may lead to America’s “destruction” a la Sodom and Gomorrah, Luter again tried to backpedal. Luter said that homosexuality is a sin comparable to abortion, gun violence and racism, but then told Cooper that he does not believe that homosexuality is a sin on par with gun violence.

AFA's Buster Wilson 'Staying Neutral' on Whether It's OK to 'Shoot Down United States Marshals'

Buster Wilson of the American Family Association is no stranger to spreading anti-government conspiracy theories on his radio show, even sharing them with listeners who threaten President Obama’s life.

On his show this Tuesday, Wilson lauded a caller who said that “our boys will never use force against our own country but they will use it to protect this country and Obama, look out,” and went on to once again promote the Oath Keepers, of which he is a member:

At another point of his show, Wilson received a call from someone who wondered if he should “shoot somebody who is going to come in my house” and take his weapons.

Wilson, rather than give the obvious answer that it is not ok to kill federal authorities, responded by telling the caller that he is “neutral” on whether it is appropriate for someone “to shoot down United States Marshals when they come to take our weapons.”

Caller: I’ve got some information, what you guys were saying, about the government buying millions of rounds of ammunition and Homeland Security buying these 2,700 assault vehicles that are supposed to be for homeland security and what goes through my mind immediately, looking at the fools that are running our country, what am I going to do when they come to my house and say: ‘We want to come in.’ ‘What did I do wrong?’ ‘Nothing, we want to look and see.’ ‘No, you’re not coming in my house.’ Am I willing to protect my home and my family and my constitutional rights because I know where I’m going when I die, but am I willing to shoot somebody who wants to come in my house and basically devastate — if they can take your weapons they can come in and take your wife or your children or whatever.

Wilson: I appreciate that and I’m going to comment on what you said. You and I right now are talking about things at the level of anarchy. I want to tell you what I don’t want to do on this program; I don’t want to have a discussion about how we are ready, willing and able to shoot down United States Marshals when they come to take our weapons. I’m not saying you wouldn’t do that or you shouldn’t do that, I’m just staying neutral on that right now. But I don’t want to talk about it because if our society breaks down that far then we are really in trouble.

Staver: Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Be 'the Beginning of the End of America'

Yet again, Liberty Counsel dedicated its "Faith and Freedom" radio program today to warning about the dire consequences that would result if the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutionality of marriage equality, with Mat Staver proclaiming that not only would it undermine religious freedom, but "a major disruption to our society [and] the beginning of the end of America":

Paul Cameron: Gay People More Likely to Have Sex With Children and Animals

The discredited “researcher” Paul Cameron, chairman of the anti-gay Family Research Institute, frequently claims that gay people want to rape children. Or, as he once put it, “The long term goal of the homosexual movement is to get every little boy to grab his ankles and every little girl to give it a try.”

Cameron, whose “research” has been used by numerous Religious Right groups and was cited recently in an essay promoted by RNC committeeman and Michigan Republican lawmaker Dave Agema, told the National Press Club today that around one in four gay men have sex with children “as part of their sexual repertoire.”

He asserted that “parents are very leery about having their children sleep over or have homosexuals’ children sleep over with their children, they just don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Cameron also claimed that the adults in his study “who had reported [having] a homosexual parent…seemed to account for a disproportionate number of those who reported sex with their parents and sex with friends of their parents

Cameron’s bases his new report on a review of gay peoples’ obituaries, that is, those that have one; Cameron writes that “many gays are anonymous—having sex without ever exchanging names—so their obituaries are ‘missing.’ Lesbians are anomalous—seldom being given an obituary.”

Cameron goes on to say that gays and lesbians are “more frequently involved in criminality” and “are more apt to smoke, use drugs, drive recklessly and get infected by their sexual activities with a host of dangerous germs and experience various organ failures.”

He adds that a reference to pets in a gay person’s obituary is a sign of his or her “estrangement from humanity,” adding that 20% of gay men “reported having had sex with an animal.”

According to the crackpot study, it is even more likely that gay men have sex with children:

“Not only do GLBT fail to generate their replacements, their influence on the demographic is negative when the ~25% of gays who admit sex with boys and thereby influence many to adopt homosexuality is factored in,” Cameron writes, arguing that gays and lesbians “make a negative contribution to the demographic by inducing many boys to adopt homosexuality (and seriously harming many [especially boys’] lives).”

Wiles: God Promised I'd Get a 'National Audience Just Before the Judgment Strikes'

Back in January, we discovered Rick Wiles' TruNews radio program after it was mentioned in an email from Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, mentioning that he had been a guest on the program. In looking through Wiles' archives, we noticed that he regularly interviewed a variety of Religious Right activists that we monitor here and so we started listening to his programs ... and then we kept listening when we realized that it was going to be a source of nonstop craziness.

Last week on the program, both Wiles and Southern Baptist Convention president Fred Luter agreed that it was no coincidence that North Korea was threatening nuclear war with the United States at the same time the Supreme Court was hearing two cases involving gay marriage.

The attention from that clip eventually led to Alan Colmes inviting Wiles onto his radio program to explain his views. And according to Wiles, all this attention he is receiving is proof that God's judgment is just around the corner.

As Wiles explained on his program today, when God first gave him a vision of America on fire back in 1998, God also promised that He would give Wiles a nation audience through which to spread his message "just before the judgment strikes" ... and that is exactly what is happening now:

This ministry was birthed by the Holy Spirit in 1998 following a life-changing spiritual vision that I experienced in April that year. I saw American cities on fire; I saw American refugees staggering out of those cities with a bewildered look on their face, they were amazed that they had even survived  whatever had happened.  I didn't know what to the cities, I just saw the cities burning.  And I asked God what I was seeing in the vision and he said "this is your nation's future if America does not repent." And I asked him why he was revealing it to me and he said "I am calling you today as a watchmen to warn your nation, tell them to repent and return to me and I will forgive them.

In 1999, just before this radio program took off, the Lord made two promises to me: he told me that if I accepted this call to warn America, he promised that no harm would come to my family and the second thing that he told me was "I will give you a national audience just before the judgment strikes."

Monday evening, Fox News Radio called and we went on the Alan Colmes Program and after that interview, a friend of mine called me and he said "hey, I heard the interview and you did good but I tell you what, I'm not feeling good about this Rick."  And I go "why?" And he said  "because I remember what you told me." He said "you said the Lord told you in [19]99 he'll give you a national audience just before the judgment strikes and I don't know that this is a good sign that Fox News is now interviewing you."

Paul Cameron Rests His Case: Homosexuality a 'Mental Pathology'; 'Mental Disability or a Disorder'

Dr. Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute appeared at the National Press Club today to unveil his new report, which claims that gays and lesbians who are married or in civil unions actually die younger than their uncoupled peers.

“The Supreme Court ought not to harm homosexuals by legitimating homosexual coupling,” Cameron said, “and the psychiatric community ought to pay attention to this enormous deficit of lifespan and reopen the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a mental disability or a disorder.”

He argued that homosexuality is a “mental pathology” much like drug abuse or cigarette smoking, because it “shortens lives” and “harms its participants and harms the demographic.”

Watch:

Fischer: Bill O'Reilly Is a 'Pompous, Arrogant Windbag' Who is 'Insulting Us to Our Face'

Bryan Fischer is furious with Bill O'Reilly over his recent statement that opponents of marriage equality do nothing but "thump the Bible" as Fischer ripped into him on his radio program yesterday, calling O'Reilly "blindly ignorant" of all the non-Scriptural arguments opponents of gay marriage have made.

Fischer admitted that anti-gay activists have indeed thumped their Bibles and have done so because it contains the revealed word of God, but they have made other arguments as well, but O'Reilly - who "a lot of the times just comes across as a pompous, arrogant windbag" - has just been "completely oblivious to this." Fischer was outraged by this "insult, this ridicule, this mockery of ordinary Americans who do believe in the Bible as the revealed word of God." 

"The implication," Fischer declared, "is [that] we're a bunch of neanderthal, redneck, hillbilly Bible-bangers.  That is essentially what he is saying were are ... He's insulting us to our face": 

Rep. Fleming: UN Treaties May Repeal Second Amendment, Ban Spanking

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins yesterday hosted Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) who immediately started spreading conspiracy theories about the United Nations.

Fleming insisted that the recently approved global UN Arms Trade Treaty, which will restrict the sale of arms to countries and groups that commit war crimes and other atrocities and has been the subject of several discredited right-wing attacks, is an attempt by the left to weaken and ultimately “repeal” the Second Amendment.

The Republican congressman concluded by speculating that the UN may make it illegal for parents to spank their children.

Fleming: In the case of the UN small arms treaty what that means is that if we enter into a treaty with one or more nations that in some way controls firearms, protective arms, handguns, something like that, if it’s ratified by the Senate then that has the same effect as an amendment to the Constitution. So that would be a way that liberals could literally change the Second Amendment. I think as you well know, although it’s not going to have a full effect as part of the ‘votorama’ the other day the Senate had in their vote for their budget, a vote on an up-or-down on the acceptance of, or voting against in effect in their opinion, at least a resolution if you will, on the the acceptance of such a treaty, and Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana actually voted that we should move forward on such a small arms treaty. This is a dangerous thing when it comes to the Second Amendment. People need to understand that there is an end-run around the Second Amendment that is available to the Senate and I do think President Obama and others do support this.



Perkins: We’re talking here for just a moment about the UN’s Small Arms Treaty and as he pointed out, an end-run around Congress on the Second Amendment through the Congress. This is a very real possibility in my opinion congressman because it looks like the efforts to get legislation through Congress, especially through the House, that would severely restrict gun ownership and attack the Second Amendment is unlikely to happen, so what’s the next best thing for the Obama administration? Pursuing a treaty like this.

Fleming: Well if for instance through the UN and with an agreement with other countries, we all come together and we say, you know what we as a group of countries, both inside and outside of our borders, are going to control the handling the use and access to handguns, for instance, then if we sign onto that treaty and it’s ratified by the Senate—the House doesn’t even have to vote on it—it’s ratified by the Senate and signed onto by the President, it is firm law. A simple passage of a law or a repeal of law by Congress itself can’t undo that is my understanding. So we wouldn’t have to have a repeal of the Second Amendment, we could just simply alter it or put into effect what is essentially a repeal of it. That is not the only thing. There’s another issue just to show you how broad scope this is on how we deal with our children and what control we have of our children as parents and how we may define child abuse and the responsibility of the state. That could potentially be up for a ratification of a treaty with other nations. So that if you for instance spanked your child, you could be in violation of a UN treaty and a law created as such.

Fischer: Everything The Bible Says Is Objective, Historical Fact

Ever since returning from his short Easter break, Bryan Fischer has been on a kick of arguing that all you really need to know about anything can be found in the Bible and if the Bible says that something is true or immoral or whatever, that is all you need to know about it.

During the opening segments on his show this week, Fischer has twice made this very case, asserting that he is a Christian because the resurrection of of Jesus Christ is "an objective historical fact ... with abundant eyewitness testimony and no rational alternative explanation."  And it is an objective fact because the Bible says that it is ... and we know that the Bible is one hundred percent true because "every time we can cross-check the Bible's record of history against external sources, it matches matches up every time."

As such, Fischer explained, "when the Bible makes claims about history, geography, the origin of all things, when it makes claims about morality and truth, you can trust everything that [it says]":

Tom DeLay: Violence Against Women Act Protects 'Sexual Deviance'

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is currently out on bail while appealing his three year prison sentence in his corruption case, took the time to join Rick Scarborough on a March 7th Tea Party Unity conference call where he criticized the Violence Against Women Act.

He attacked the law because it “includes homosexuality, transgender; setting up all kinds of different classes of sexual deviance,” and later called it “unconstitutional.”

While they were having a meeting with the Values Action Team, which is reaching out to those values organizations, in the same week they passed the Senate’s Violence Against Women Act that includes homosexuality, transgender; setting up all kinds of different classes of sexual deviance. It’s just absolutely amazing that they did that. They fashioned a rule so it would be easier to pass the Senate bill, which is a wacko leftist bill. We as groups need to understand that that’s happening and reach out to the members of the House and the Senate and tell them enough is enough.



This is how we took over the House for the first time in forty years in 1994’s election is that for five years we spent five years providing alternatives to everything the Democrats were doing: alternative bills, alternative amendments, alternative press releases. We expressed ourselves by always having an alternative. The same here, if there is a Violence Against Women Act there should be a conservative alternative. First and foremost, they should point out the fact the whole act itself is unconstitutional.

DeLay insisted that conservatives need to “rebuild our infrastructure” in order to win elections again, by establishing new groups to “hold the media accountable” and creating “an outside organization that is focused on taking over our schools.”

We are desperate for a media operation to hold the media accountable. We need an outside group, formal group that reflects the left’s Media Matters, that’s a group that takes their message and drives it through the media, we desperately need something like that. We need an outside organization that is focused on taking over our schools. The left has our school systems and our universities and we’re doing nothing to take our schools back.

We need an infrastructure, a conservative infrastructure that fills the voids in politics, that holds the media accountable, that holds our schools accountable, that holds our churches accountable, we have Vision America that is trying to do that and other groups that are trying to do that, we desperately need that infrastructure if we’re going to win this. The other side has an infrastructure, that’s why they’re winning right now and we desperately need to rebuild the conservative movement and rebuild our infrastructure.

Judge Cebull Announces Retirement in Wake of Misconduct Investigation

U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull, who was investigated for misconduct by a judicial committee, will retire May 3rd. This represents a sudden, unexpected, and publicly unexplained change from his decision to continue hearing cases as a senior judge, which went into effect just two weeks ago. In response, People For the American Way president Michael Keegan released the following statement:

“After many months of investigation, Judge Cebull’s actions seem to have finally caught up with him. Cebull apparently hoped to avoid sanction by taking senior status before the misconduct investigation concluded. Fortunately, his gambit to avoid accountability was ultimately unsuccessful.

“Retirement was the only appropriate action for Cebull to take. He used his official email account to send an incredibly disgusting and racist email. When asked why, he said he sent it because he opposes the president.

“Americans expect the courts to be fair, impartial, and open to all. Cebull clearly demonstrated that he does not have the temperament to serve as a federal judge. His retirement, and the thorough investigation by the Ninth Circuit that precipitated it, are encouraging signs of a commitment to fairness and impartiality in the federal judiciary.”

###

Barber: Tolerance of Homosexuality Is 'a Cancer That Brings Down Societies'

On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Matt Barber and Mat Staver once again made their case against marriage equality, with Barber declaring that tolerance "of all forms of sexual deviant behavior" is "a cancer that brings down societies" and linking it to the strange theory that gay marriage was the catalyst for Noah's flood.

That prompted Staver to chime in and remind everyone about Sodom and Gomorrah, which God had to destroy because it "had gotten to the place where men were raping men for their own self-gratification" ... with Barber adding that "it was homosexuality and cross-dressing that were central to that":

Stemberger: Boy Scouts Will Face 'Physical Abuse' If It Doesn't Ban Kids Who Think 'It's Hip, It's Edgy To Be Gay'

Florida Family Policy Council head and anti-gay activist John Stemberger has created a new group, On My Honor, to oppose the “hyper-sexualization” of the Boy Scouts of America that he fears will take place if the group lifts its ban on gay members.

During an interview with Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd, Stemberger argued that if the BSA lifts the gay ban, the organization will experience a rise in “boy-on-boy” assaults and “emotional, sexual, psychological and physical abuse.”

He told Mefferd that kids these days all want to be gay and will then join the Boy Scouts to molest each other.

“It’s hip, it’s edgy to be gay and so they’re all saying they’re gay—they have no idea,” Stemberger said. “Well if scouting sends the message, ‘we’re open for gays,’ you’re going to have so much nonsense going on between older boys and younger boys.”

Mefferd: Now I know you are raising awareness as well about the dangers that open homosexuality within the scouting organization would present, what do you believe the biggest dangers would be if this policy were reversed and open homosexuality would be permitted in the Boy Scouts?

Stemberger: My personal opinion based upon my experience and talking to leaders all over the country and other scoutmasters, it is not going to be primarily adult gay men. Scouting has a very strict child protection program that requires two-deep leadership, that means that no adult can be alone with any child except with their own child at any time, they are extremely strict with it. So I don’t think the primary threat, although it could potentially be a threat, is going to be adults.

I think it is going to be boy-on-boy. My sister is a middle school teacher in Florida and she said, ‘John, everybody in the whole class is talking about ‘are you gay,’ ‘I’m gay,’ ‘I’m gender confused, what are you?’ It’s just like they don’t even know what they’re talking about. It’s hip, it’s edgy to be gay and so they’re all saying they’re gay—they have no idea. Well if scouting sends the message, ‘we’re open for gays,’ you’re going to have so much nonsense going on between older boys and younger boys, it’s just going to create a myriad of problems that really is going to result in further scandal, further disgrace to the scouts, not to mention just the tragedy of the emotional, sexual, psychological and physical abuse that will occur in the program. If even two children, even one child is going to be molested by another boy in the program, that is enough compelling in my judgment to say no, we are not going to do this, there is no reason for it whatsoever.

According to Stemberger, there really isn’t a ban on gays because you can still join as long as you are in the closet.

Later, Stemberger argued that the BSA should fear the example set by the Girl Scouts, which he claims is “being run by lesbians” and has “been really politicized and sexualized in a way that is inappropriate for children.”

Stemberger: Here’s an important point I want to make: currently there are people in scouting who are probably homosexual, there’s no litmus test, there’s no witch hunt to find out who they are; they’re discreet, they’re appropriate, they’re personal, they’re private, they’re not loud and proud, they’re not out there waving the rainbow flag and trying to make a big deal about it and trying to promote gay marriage and all this business. There’s no application question on what your sexual orientation is when you join scouting, the problem is what they’re allowing is open homosexuality. That’s a very different thing; that is promoting the gay agenda, that is promoting politics and it is just inappropriate. When it comes to children we think that sex and politics should stay out of the Boy Scouts, it should have no place in it whatsoever.



Stemberger: We have about two months to really make sure that this timeless institution is not transformed into something politicized thing like the Girl Scouts have, unfortunately where it is being run by lesbians and promoting Planned Parenthood, it’s just been really politicized and sexualized in a way that is inappropriate for children.

Mefferd: Yes, absolutely right.

Keyes: Gay Marriage Violates the Declaration of Independence

Alan Keyes isn’t done making anti-gay screeds, and this week writes in Renew America that LGBT equality is prohibited…by the Declaration of Independence.

He argues that according to the Declaration of Independence, America’s sovereignty relies on respecting God’s law, including the “rights of the God-endowed natural family.” Consequently, if the US doesn’t submit to divine authority, then the country will forfeit its sovereignty and be no more.

Keyes reasons that if the Supreme Court decides “to promote specious rights intended to supplant ‘the laws of nature and of nature’s God’ invoked in the Declaration of Independence” and “deny and disparage the natural rights of the God-endowed family” by approving of same-sex marriage, it would represent an “assault on the very root and source of our claim to decent liberty.”

Now, proponents of the Defense of Marriage law insist that the present occupant of the White House must simply "obey the law," even if he has reached the conclusion that it violates a constitutional right he is obliged by oath to respect. But their insistence violates the logic that substantiates the Constitution's constraining effect on the use of the U.S. government's powers. In the first instance, each branch has the duty to keep within the boundaries of the Constitution. The issue involved in Obama's refusal to defend DOMA is not, therefore, necessarily about his obligation to "obey the law." It is about whether or not, in this particular instance, his view that the law is unconstitutional is correct.



Because the elitist faction aims to overthrow constitutional government of, by, and for the people, they work to obscure or tacitly deny this fact. They want Americans to accept the notion that those who happen to wield the power of government at any given moment may decide, amongst themselves and without recourse to the people, what is constitutional and what is not. If and when the American people foolishly acquiesce in this oligarchic lie, they will thereby surrender their status as a free people.



As I recently pointed out, we learn the source and nature of these unenumerated rights from another "fundamental law" of the United States – the Declaration of Independence, which ascribes them to the Creator's endowment of all humanity. Most self-evident among them are the rights of the God-endowed natural family "rooted in obligations antecedent to any and all humanly instituted law or government." From this endowment, the people of the United States derive the sovereign authority to establish and maintain their self-government. Unless they are willing to subvert their own sovereignty, they are obliged, in their actions and decisions, to respect the source of authority that validates it.

In the weeks to come, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide to promote specious rights intended to supplant "the laws of nature and of nature's God" invoked in the Declaration of Independence. They may decide, in contravention of the Ninth Amendment, to deny and disparage the natural rights of the God-endowed family. It will then be for us, the people, to decide how to respond to their assault on the very root and source of our claim to decent liberty. If we respect the logic that reasonably, morally, and constitutionally justifies what their decision seeks to destroy, we will be able confidently to appeal, as America's founders did in the Declaration, "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." Then, whatever we face, we will have the courage to defend the institution that God made to be the living archetype of all the rest of our belongings.

Glenn Beck Wants to Share His Conspiracy Theories With Everyone, Except for Us

Glenn Beck has been on quite a roll the last few weeks, freaking out about Common Core and "System X," warning of Muslim Brotherhood conspiracies and the rise of Nazis, all while urging his audience to start hording cash.

And we had posted video of it all, but if you tried to watch any of these clips today, you would discover that they have all been removed thanks to several frivolous YouTube copyright violation complaints filed by The Blaze:

In fact, the last ten Beck videos we posted have all been yanked:

Beck is currently engaged in an effort to get his Blaze programming carried on television because every family in America needs "a source of news and analysis that you can trust and that doesn't betray your values":

This journey for truth that we are on is much bigger than you and I; the future of liberty is hanging in the balance. All of us have a choice to make: sit on the sideline, or get involved.

If we succeed then we change the media. If we change the media, we control the debate. If we control the debate, we change politics.

And if we change politics, we change the country.

Beck is trying to pressure cable providers into helping him broadcast his paranoid conspiracy theories into millions of homes across this country and apparently he does not appreciate our efforts to chronicle and highlight these same paranoid conspiracy theories, so this crusader for truth decided that the best course of action was to demand that nearly a dozen of our videos be removed.

We have already filed counter-notifications with YouTube on every one of these videos, pointing out that they are protected by Fair Use, so we expect to see them restored in the next ten days.

Brian Brown: 'Ours Is Actually a Libertarian Argument' To Ban Gay Marriage

Like Rep. Louie Gohmert, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage also participated in pastor Rick Scarborough’s Tea Party Unity conference calls back in March, where he made the “libertarian” argument against legalizing same-sex marriage.

Brown commended his anti-gay organization for having been able to “motivate a lot of the Tea Party groups” along with “African American and Hispanic folks” around their shared fear that gay marriage will undermine the Constitution and jeopardize “the future of Western civilization.”

After discussing how NOM is “working with leaders like Senator [Marco] Rubio or Ted Cruz,” he warned that marriage equality will grow the size and scope of government. If the state recognizes same-sex unions, Brown claimed, then public officials will “use the power of the state to punish, repress and marginalize” anti-gay activists.

He said that NOM’s opposition to marriage equality rests on the “libertarian argument” that if the state refuses to “recognize the truth that marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman” then “you’re giving the power to the state to call black white and white black, to put a falsehood into the law and a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.”

This is an issue where we can get new blood to support the Constitution, I mean that’s what’s at stake, Constitutionalism. When you have African American and Hispanic folks stepping up and saying that we will stand up for traditional marriage, we can make inroads there. I think the local Tea Party groups that have helped us with marches, helped us in any way they can, they’ve understood that this is about marriage, this is about the future of Western civilization, but this is also about our Constitution and whether judges can willy nilly create law out of thin air and I think that that has helped motivate a lot of the Tea Party groups.



We need leaders and we’re working with leaders like Senator [Marco] Rubio or Ted Cruz, or whoever they may be, who understand what’s at stake and will really lead the party and sort of counter some of these arguments. The second part of this is this false libertarian argument that somehow the state should just get out of marriage altogether. That is not going to happen. There is really one or two outcomes that’s going to happen in this: either we’re going to have the state embrace this new definition of marriage and use the power of the state to punish, repress and marginalize those of us that know that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, or we’re going to have the state recognize the truth about marriage.

Ours is actually a libertarian argument. We’re not arguing that the state create marriage, the state does not create marriage, but the state has to recognize the truth that marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman. When it abandons that truth, you’re giving the power to the state to call black white and white black, to put a falsehood into the law and a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.

Brown also fielded a question from notorious ant-gay activist Brian Camenker of MassResistance, who asked why NOM is not taking “a hard stance” against same-sex relationships and openly calling homosexuality “perverse” and “unnatural.”

Brown said that NOM tries to avoid making those arguments outright simply for tactical reasons as they are trying to sway Justice Anthony Kennedy and “it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.”

However, Brown said that other groups should continue “taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality.”

“Different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing,” Brown explained. “So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.”

Camenker: It’s concerning to a lot of people that the arguments being used in the various court cases concede that homosexual relationships are legitimate and not a perversion or what have you, we just don’t like them, and we wonder if there was more of a hard stance that they are not legitimate, that it is perverse, unnatural and what have you, that we might have some better success in some of the cases.

The second part of the question is I understand that you’re at CPAC, what is it like being virtually the only pro-family, pro-marriage guy there? I’m very disturbed at the way CPAC is being run this year.

Brown: Whenever I’m asked about what I think about homosexuality, I’m very clear, I believe and as a Catholic I believe in the traditional teaching of our church. I think that sex is reserved for marriage, period. As far as the legal arguments go we may differ. I think a lot of the legal arguments have been made in the Prop 8 case especially have been made to speak to [Justice] Kennedy and Kennedy has already found in the Lawrence case, for example, that states can’t ban sodomy. So it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.

I know some people think we need to focus more on homosexuality. All I’ll say is that when asked I state what I believe and many of the religious supporters that we’ll have at the march clearly will stand up and proclaim biblical truth on marriage, but I’m not sure whether legally that is the best strategy. Also, different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing. So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious