While civil rights leaders are denouncing the 5-4 Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is cheering. In an email alert sent at the end of the day on Tuesday, Perkins says, “With help from the U.S. Supreme Court, America may finally be turning a page on the racial politics that have haunted our last 50 years.” Oh, yes, giving a green light to the kind of blatantly discriminatory voter disenfranchisement efforts that we’ve seen in recent elections is certainly going to help America “turn the page” on racial politics.
Like other Religious Right leaders, Perkins loves to denounce “judicial activism” when judges uphold reproductive choice or legal equality for LGBT people. But he happily embraces this ruling in which a narrow Court majority rejected a huge bipartisan congressional vote that reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 on a matter in which the Constitution specifically and intentionally gives Congress wide discretion. Perkins complains that “Congress insisted on reauthorizing a Voting Rights Act that was rooted in one of the darkest chapters of U.S. history.” And he claims that “In recent days, the Voting Rights Act has been a tool for a liberal and politically-motivated DOJ to shape laws to its advantage.”
Perkins seems deeply concerned about “the red tape of the Voting Rights Act” that he said has been “unnecessarily handcuffing” states whose history of disenfranchisement meant that they had to have changes in voting procedures pre-approved by the Justice Department or by a three-judge District Court in the District of Columbia. In contrast, Perkins seems utterly unconcerned about more recent voter disenfranchisement campaigns waged by the GOP and its allies.
Perkins cites Chief Justice John Roberts’ disingenuous suggestion that the court was not acting in a way that would encourage discriminatory disenfranchisement. "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting," Roberts insisted. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."
Is there anyone who thinks Roberts and Perkins actually want the federal-government-hating Tea Party Republicans who are calling the shots in the House of Representatives to support the creation of a new formula that would subject more states to federal oversight? Perkins makes his thoughts on that point abundantly clear with this comment about the Justice Department: “And in an administration as corrupt as President Obama's is proving to be, the less power it has over the states, the better!”
Family Research Council head Tony Perkins yesterday chatted with Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association on Today’s Issues to discuss the Supreme Court’s imminent decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Perkins warned that if the Proposition 8 is overturned, then the “legitimacy of the court” will be called into question.
Despite all evidence pointing to overwhelming support for marriage equality among young voters and heaviest resistance among seniors, Perkins said in reference to gay rights advocates that “time is not on their side.”
“They need the court to impose this on the entire nation, because the more time that it takes them to push their agenda, the more Americans will realize the unintended consequences of it,” Perkins claimed. “It’s going to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in our country.”
After Perkins bizarrely argued that marriage equality supporters are in a race against time, Wildmon wondered if opponents of gay marriage would be “hauled off to jail” in a few years. Perkins added that anti-gay activists may be “prosecuted by our government” soon as marriage equality eviscerates freedom.
Perkins: I would think they’re going to be hard-pressed to overturn California’s Prop. 8. That would have serious ramifications, I think, for I really think the legitimacy of the court to undermine what the voters of California did.
Perkins: There’s this idea that this is inevitable, that’s what they want to present, this idea that this is inevitable, I think certainly to influence the court and the American people. The reason they’re trying to make it appear to be inevitable is because time is not on their side. They need the court to impose this on the entire nation because the more time that it takes them to push their agenda, the more Americans will realize the unintended consequences of it. This is not just about the marriage altar; this is about fundamentally altering America: religious liberty, parental rights, free speech, all of that goes by the wayside if we embrace this notion of redefining natural marriage.
Wildmon: For the next year or two, three years perhaps, in terms of the Christian community in this country that wants to defend natural marriage and believes in Romans 1 among other biblical verses that homosexuality is sin, are we going to be able to believe that teaching anymore without being hauled off to jail?
Perkins: Well you certainly can believe it. I do think there is coming a choice, whether or not that happens immediately, that we have to choose between not only believing scripture but living according to it and being prosecuted by our government, the time frame in which that happens I’m not certain. But clearly we’re already saying those who hold to a biblical view of morality are being marginalized and stigmatized with the intention of silencing them in the public square. It’s going to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in our country.
Columnist Mychal Massie is convinced President Obama is turning kids into gay street thugs through public school brainwashing…and it probably goes without saying that the venue he has chosen to publicize this revelation is WorldNetDaily. In his column, Massie compares Obama to “the serpent that beguiled Eve in the Garden” and one of the snakes Saint Patrick drove out of Ireland, before pouncing on the bogus claim that Obama made comments attacking parochial schools while visiting Northern Ireland.
“True to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy, he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church,” Massie writes, adding that “Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up with instruction about homosexuality” and learn “about abortion and birth control devices.”
Besides learning about homosexuality and abortion, according to Massie, kids won’t learn much else in Obama’s schools: “He wants children to grow up in failing schools with poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves had received…. Having children brainwashed into believing they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we want for our progeny.”
Saint Patrick may have been recognized for driving the snakes out of Ireland, but this past week one of them slithered back in. Obama is the personification of an elapid that is now without the appendages some believe the serpent that beguiled Eve in the Garden had possessed before it was made to slither upon the ground. That said, he has not shed the character of the personage incarnate in that first serpent.
But Obama sees Catholic schools as the bane to social stability and antagonistic toward his worldview and social order. He said, “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden – that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”
I am convinced that his words were carefully chosen and intended to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church while providing him a thin veneer of deniability.
Obama is deeply resentful of the stand the Catholic Church has taken against his health-care legislation. And true to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy, he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church before the audience he did.
Obama had his educational purview shaped by the Marxist pedophile Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright. That does not mean we should allow his views to corrupt ours.
Catholic-school education remains one of the finest educations children can receive. I applaud the verbiage of the archbishop when he said, “Catholic education provides young people with a wonderful opportunity to grow up with Jesus.” Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up with instruction about homosexuality. He would rather have children grow up as his daughters (according to the words from his mouth), learning about abortion and birth control devices. He wants children to grow up in failing schools with poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves had received.
But for those of us who believe that the Word of God is final and that Christ-centered education is critical, the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33 are undeniable truth. Paul wrote, “Be not deceived: evil company corrupts good morals.” Having children brainwashed into believing they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we want for our progeny.
Just when we thought we were done hearing Nazi comparisons today, Pat Buchanan is now arguing that the new military policy opening up combat and special unit roles to women is so wrong that even the Nazis wouldn’t have considered it. In his column, “The Pentagon’s Surrender to Feminism,” Buchanan argues that “even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle.”
He writes that putting women in combat positions “violate[s] common sense” and “thousands of years” of human civilization, even insisting that “the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology” will encourage rape and displace men. He also cites mass murderers and violent criminals to prove his point that “men are bigger, stronger [and] more aggressive” than women.
This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology.
This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men.
But if this were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?
In the history of civilization, men have fought the wars. In civilized societies, attacks on women have always been regarded as contemptible and cowardly. Even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle, but old men and boys.
Sending women into combat on equal terms seems also to violate common sense. When they reach maturity, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive. Thus they commit many times the number of violent crimes and outnumber women in prisons 10 to 1.
For every Bonnie Parker, there are 10 Clyde Barrows.
Is it a coincidence that every massacre discussed in our gun debate – from the Texas Tower to the Long Island Railroad, from Columbine to Fort Hood, from Virginia Tech to Tucson, from Aurora to Newtown – was the work of a crazed male?
Undeniably, some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?
Carry this feminist-egalitarian ideology to its logical conclusion, and half of those storming the Omaha and Utah beaches should have been girls and women. Is this not an absurdity?
We have had Navy ships become “love boats,” with female sailors returning pregnant. At the Naval Academy, three midshipmen, football players, allegedly raped an intoxicated classmate. For months, she was too ashamed and frightened to report it.
An estimated 26,000 personnel of the armed forces were sexually assaulted in 2011, up from 19,000 in 2010. Obama and the Congress are understandably outraged. Such assaults are appalling. But is not the practice of forcing young men and women together in close quarters a contributory factor here?
Among the primary reasons the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA, went down to defeat three decades ago was the realization it could mean, in a future war, women could be drafted equally with men and sent in equal numbers into combat.
But what appalled the Reaganites is social progress in the age of Obama. This is another country from the one we grew up in.
Congressman and US Senate candidate Paul Broun (R-GA) told conservative talk show host Steve Malzberg yesterday that comprehensive immigration reform “will destroy our country” and “destroy our constitution and limited government.”
Broun agreed with Malzberg’s claim that Republicans “will never win another election” if a reform bill passes because liberal groups won’t ever be satisfied with the law and “the CBO says 40 more million immigrants in twenty years, 95 percent of them are going to vote Democrat; to me it’s political suicide.”
“You’ve got that just absolutely correct,” Broun said, “I don’t understand why Republicans are embracing this.”
On today’s edition of the 700 Club, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) pushed the discredited conspiracy theory that the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling arms to suppress Americans, asking Christian Broadcasting Network reporter Jennifer Wishon: “Why do you need all this protection? Are you about to force something on the American people you know they’re going to get upset about?”
Host Pat Robertson, who earlier this year alleged that Homeland Security is treating Americans as “the enemy” and preparing to “shoot” and go to war “against us,” blamed the Bush administration for creating the “bureaucratic monstrosity” of the DHS. “This was wrong and we’re beginning to see the price,” Robertson said. “They are stockpiling hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, they’ve got armored vehicles traveling the roads of America, whoever heard of such nonsense?”
Televangelist Pat Robertson warned today that America will face divine punishment if it doesn’t recriminalize abortion, telling 700 Club co-host Wendy Griffith today that only anti-choice laws can “avert the wrath of the Lord, but it will come upon this nation unless we do something.” Robertson and Griffith discussed a puff piece about a Pennsylvania program backed by Republican Gov. Tom Corbertt to fund anti-choice “crisis pregnancy centers,” which frequently offer misleading and inaccurate information to women.
Robertson hailed Corbett and hoped that his leadership could end the “holocaust” of abortion, which he said is worse than anything done by Adolf Hitler. Griffith called legal abortion “insane” and Robertson warned “we’re going to have to pay a price one of these days for what we’re doing.”
Robertson: Wendy, we have fifty-five million babies that have been aborted in this country since Roe v. Wade, fifty-five million, that is a holocaust. You figure, Hitler at the height of his monstrous evil killed six million people, six million; we have in this land of the free and home of the brave, we have killed fifty-five million.
Griffith: And we’re doing it legally, you know, it’s insane.
Robertson: Exactly. The Supreme Court says, hey you have a right to, constitutionally. We’re going to have to pay a price one of these days for what we’re doing. Let’s hope that governors like Corbett and others, the tide will begin to turn and we can avert the wrath of the Lord, but it will come upon this nation unless we do something.
Just as the GOP’s hyperventilation and grandstanding over Benghazi turned up empty, so are their claims that the IRS has been targeting right-wing groups. New reports show that the IRS did apply extra scrutiny to groups with phrases like “Tea Party” in their names…but the agency also applied the same scrutiny to groups with “progressive” or “occupy” in their titles. This backs up an earlier story from The Atlantic which also found that liberal groups had been targeted.
But for some reason we don’t think this will stop right-wing activists from alleging that President Obama directed the IRS to go after political opponents as part of his plans to create an all-powerful, totalitarian government.
The IRS story has made its way into five right-wing conspiracy theories that we don’t expect to go away any time soon, despite being totally ungrounded in reality.
1) IRS May Deny Medical Care To Conservatives
Rep. Michele Bachmann led the way in giving credence to a claim that the IRS, through Obamacare, might attempt to “deny or delay” access to medical care for conservatives. After embracing the WorldNetDaily-inspired conspiracy theory, she told Fox News that the IRS may deny or delay health care “based upon our political beliefs.” Even Rand Paul latched onto the debunked conspiracy theory.
Right on cue, James Dobson’s son Ryan alleged that his father may be denied medical treatments under Obamacare, and Janet Porter said that the IRS may use the reform law to “target individuals on whether or not they have the ability to exist as a live human being” by denying people “lifesaving treatment” based on their “political views.”
2) Obama’s The New Hitler
Glenn Beck reacted to the IRS story by warning that the government could “shut down” and “scoop up” Tea Party members much like how Adolf Hitler persecuted Jews. “This is the way totalitarian states are created,” Beck argued. “We will be remembered as the most evil nation in the history of the world, we will dwarf what Germany did.”
World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder agreed, maintaining that “Concentration Camp Obama” may “shove you in a cattle car” and take you “‘camping’ in a very real sense” if you are part of the conservative movement, all by “using the IRS as a presidential goon squad.” Todd Starnes of Fox News even pointed to the IRS controversy to claim that conservatives “could be facing a 1930s Germany here,” while End Times radio host Rick Wiles used the IRS as proof that Obama is leading a “modern day Nazi regime” and the “Fourth Reich.”
3) Obama Committed Impeachable Offenses
Naturally, right-wing activists brought impeachment into the debate over the IRS. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice said Obama may face the same impeachment charges as Richard Nixon as a result of the “misuse and abuse of the IRS.” Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said that the “IRS scandal is much worse than Watergate” and agreed that “there are many reasons why Obama should be impeached.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry similarly drew a comparison to Nixon and said that the “scandal” may “reach the level of criminal activity” and reveal “a pattern of abuse of power.” Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner went even further and asserted that Obama is “ worse than Nixon” and added it to his long list of supposedly impeachable offenses, while Alan Keyes demanded that the GOP’s “cry should be ‘IMPEACHMENT NOW!’” Not to be outdone, Glenn Beck argued that “if there aren’t impeachment hearings” then America is “already operating under tyranny.”
4) Obama Would Have Lost If It Wasn’t For The IRS
Even though conservative outside groups greatly outspent their left-leaning counterparts in the last election, the IRS controversy has led some to allege that conservatives groups were not allowed to get off the ground and that must have been why Obama won his race for re-election.
Janet Porter reasoned that “the elections were affected” because “every Tea Party group and every conservative group…weren’t allowed to exist” or “inform their members of what’s going on and what’s at stake.” John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, a champion of suppressive voter ID laws and voter purges, told Fox News that “the real voter suppression in the 2012 election was done at the IRS” and “suppressed the vote” to the point that it “may have played a role in the outcome of that very close election.”
The American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis even made the dubious claim that 5-8.5 million voters didn’t vote last year due to IRS actions. Dean Chambers, whose “unskewed” polls predicted Obama’s defeat, claimed he was right all along, alleging that the “systematic and wide-scale suppression of Tea Party and conservative activity and votes, via the IRS targeting of those groups” had “clearly denied Mitt Romney the election that [he] clearly would have won by about the very margin I predicted on November 5 of last year.”
5) Demonic Forces Behind IRS Scandal
Larry Klayman said that “felonious liberal Jews” have used the IRS to attack conservatives to undermine “our proud Judeo-Christian roots and heritage,” but televangelist James Robison took it one step further, arguing that “Satan himself” had a role: “He and his demonic forces are fiercely focusing their fury against God’s kingdom purpose and anyone committed to it. What you are witnessing daily in news reports concerning Washington’s bad practices and policies related to the gross abuse of power by the IRS, along with unconstitutional checks on the free press, reveals satanic intent to take away freedom.” Rick Wiles also saw a demonic role in the IRS pseudo-scandal, stating that the IRS is creating the “Fourth Beat as foretold by Daniel in the Holy Bible.”
Conservatives seem to have developed a belief lately that the First Amendment's right to free speech also entitles one to immunity to criticism or repercussions for the things that one might say.
This theory was once again on display on Glenn Beck's television program last night when he opened with a long monologue defending the importance of the First Amendment by blasting the on-going fall-out surrounding comments made by Paula Deen, seemingly taking the position that Deen, and everyone else, ought to be able to say anything they want without having to worry about suffering any sort of consequences ... because apparently the possibility of there being ramifications for actions is nothing more than McCarthyism.
Beck literally compared the practice of "discouraging people from speaking their minds" to putting explorers like Magellan and Columbus in jail or preventing Martin Luther King from standing for civil rights, saying that the Food Network's decision not to renew Deen's contract has "contributed to the growing un-American atmosphere of fear and silence; hello, Joseph McCarthy!"
Somehow, this is all related to Nancy Pelosi being booed while speaking at the Netroots Nation conference last weekend, which Beck cited as proof that "eventually progressives run out of people to blame and they go after anyone, anyone who's not in power, and they'll go after liberals as well; welcome to the America that you've helped create":
Stan Solomon interviewed antifeminist icon Phyllis Schlafly last week to rail against the women’s movement. When Schlafly repeated her claim that feminists “control the Obama administration,” it gave Solomon the opportunity to go one step further: “Barack Obama is a wussy guy who throws a ball like a girl, who everyone knows was involved in homosexuality and I think he is the stereotypical—if he could get away with it he’d be in drag. I don’t think he’s a man at all and he leads a whole group of men that are that way.”
Schlafly, whose son is gay, didn’t address Solomon’s, er, colorful claims, but criticized Obama for “catering to the gay political agenda” and said that an unsuccessful marriage equality bill in Illinois was a “defeat for the gays” and their fight against “real marriage.”
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) chatted with Steve Deace last week where he applauded Deace’s column, in which he calls immigration activists “bratty” and “entitled.” The congressman agreed with Deace’s claim about immigrants’ “sense of entitlement” and wondered if it comes from “the false allegation that somebody took the southwest away from them and now they are getting it back in better condition than they left it.”
King, who earlier this month tweeted that “20 brazen self professed illegal aliens have just invaded my DC office,” told Deace that one of the young activists disrespected his office by charging his cellphone, which he thinks “might have been an ‘Obama phone,’” by using “the wall outlet to charge the battery as if they lived there and paid the rent.” Of course, King doesn’t pay for his office either, but apparently this is proof positive that immigrants are smug and entitled, as he went on to deride the “attitude of entitlement that came along with it and of course they are pressing us now to finish out their education and fund their college education and grant them a job.”
But King wasn’t done, as he then implied that many young immigrants were smuggling drugs into the country: “we know that they aren’t all the unwitting, innocent little babes that were brought across by their parents; there were a lot of them that came across that border and that fence with a pack on their back and we all know what’s in that pack on their back.”
He concluded by asserting that the DREAM Act would “exempt people from the decisions made by the parents,” warning that such a move could lead to the end of the family as it would “equalize all parenthood and that means that you can’t let children be raised by a mom and a dad in a home.”
It’s a good observation that you make about that sense of entitlement, the false allegation that somebody took the southwest away from them and now they are getting it back in better condition than they left it. Here’s a vignette from just this past week when I had twenty self-professed illegals came into my office, they were wearing graduation gowns and mortarboard caps, and they were a little bit verbally competitive for the most part though they weren’t abusive. But they came in and filled my office and I was busy in the judiciary committee room arguing immigration issues and they insisted that they wanted to see me and they wanted apparently to talk me into their position. One of the things that happened just as soon as they came in that one of them got out their—it may have been an ‘Obama phone’—but their cellphone and plugged it into the wall outlet to charge the battery as if they lived there and paid the rent. Just that attitude of entitlement that came along with it and of course they are pressing us now to finish out their education and fund their college education and grant them a job, apparently, and it is so wrong to think there is an entitlement that goes along with this.
If their parents broke the law by bringing them in here, no one is talking about putting their parents back in the—well the people that are for these open borders or for the DREAM Act, they are not talking about putting the parents back in the condition they were in before the parents broke the law, they say the parents are at fault but they’re not holding them accountable and they want to give a pass to the children. I would argue that first of all we know that they aren’t all the unwitting, innocent little babes that were brought across by their parents; there were a lot of them that came across that border and that fence with a pack on their back and we all know what’s in that pack on their back. We are all beneficiaries or we are sometimes disadvantaged by the decisions made by our parents. We cannot exempt people from the decisions made by the parents. If we did that, then we’d have to equalize all parenthood and that means that you can’t let children be raised by a mom and a dad in a home.
Anti-gay talk show host Steve Deace is still reeling about Jason Collins’ decision to come out of the closet, and on the Friday edition of his radio program, even fantasized about assaulting him. Collins had been engaged to a woman when he was closeted and while his former fiancée Carolyn Moos said that she was “shocked” by his announcement, she hopes Collins can be “happy” and “stay true to who he really is, inside and out.”
But Deace had a much uglier response, saying that if was her father, it would be a good thing we “have a waiting period to buy a handgun” and saying that Collins would have “an indentation from the side of his face, permanently ensconced on my knuckles.”
He then turned right around, did a fundraiser with Michelle Obama and now is doing LGBT promotion, and that’s really what this in the end is all about. If a guy was having sex with your daughter for years while he was also having sex with other guys, asked her to marry him, then called off the wedding but then said he wanted to stay engaged to get married at some point in the future, and engaged in this behavior for six, seven, eight years, hey dad, would that guy be a trailblazing hero to you? No, he’d be a real good reason why maybe we have to have a waiting period to buy a handgun, that’s what he’d be. He’d be an indentation from the side of his face, permanently ensconced on my knuckles, that’s what he’d be to most dads. That’s what Jason Collins did to his girlfriend, but he’s a hero, when Jason Collins does it, we call him a hero.
Thanks to RWW reader Matt for the tip!
On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton and Rick Green were joined by Rep. Louie Gohmert for a discussion about the dangers posed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the organization's "indoctrination" of students.
Predictably, Green, Barton, and Gohmet all repeated the absurd right-wing talking point that the SPLC has been "linked to domestic terrorism," but Gohmert seemed primarily dismayed by the idea that kids might be learning about sex.
Kids don't need to learn about these things, Gohmert insisted, because "mankind has existed for a pretty long time without anyone ever having to give a sex-ed lesson to anybody" but now such instruction is commonplace in public schools ... and it all reminds him of the Soviet Union:
Let the kids be innocent. Let them dream. Let them play. Let them enjoy their life. You don't have to force this sexuality stuff into their life at such a point. It was never intended to be that way. They'll find out soon enough. And, in fact, ... mankind has existed for a pretty long time without anyone ever having to give a sex-ed lesson to anybody. And now we feel like, oh gosh, people are too stupid to unless we force them to sit and listen to instructions. It's just incredible.
And there is a natural law that parents should be involved in education, they should know about, they should be part of the training - that's a law of nature; Alan Keyes was just talking about it this weekend when we were together. That is such an important part of nature and yet that is the very thing that some of these liberals want to take away.
And it reminds me so much of the summer that I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union back in the Seventies and I was shocked when they were saying 'no, the children don't belong to parents, they belong to the state.' And if any parent said anything in front of their children negative about the wonderful Soviet Union, then we will take their children away and give them to somebody more deserving. And I just thought how horribly shocking that was, that of course parents were the ones who love the children, not the state. And I thought thank God that we don't have that in our country.
And now I've seen this coming with a lady from MSNBC saying "hey, children belong to the state" ... and it just sent chills because it took me back to the Seventies when that's what the Soviet Union used to say and we know how well that worked out.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins joined MassResistance president Brian Camenker in condemning the Boston Red Sox for hosting a “Pride Night,” which included Jason Collins throwing out the ceremonial first pitch. Red Sox fans gave Collins a standing ovation, despite Perkins’ erroneous claim that “most parents object to” gay rights. Perkins quoted Camenker in calling homosexuality “destructive” and called on fans to tell the franchise not to “bombard families with a controversial message.”
This month, the Red Sox are delivering a new pitch--for homosexual rights. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. The Red Sox may have won their game on June 6th, but they sure struck out with some fans. People who paid to watch baseball had to sit through a celebration of homosexuality, too. For the first time in franchise history, Boston decided to host "Pride Night" and bombard families with a controversial message. Jason Collins, the openly gay NBA player, threw out the first pitch. And the Sox even donated a portion of the proceeds to a radical LGBT group. Unfortunately for parents, the team kicked off its "Calling All Kids" program the same night, meaning that a lot of children were exposed to an agenda--and a topic--most parents object to. "For a professional sports team to promote behavior that's destructive," said conservative Brian Camenker, "... is problematic." Let's hope the Sox hear from a lot of fans who tell Fenway that's no way to run a franchise!
While Perkins was upset that the Red Sox welcomed gay fans, he thanked a Florida museum that discriminated against a family headed by same-sex partners by revoking their “family membership.” He even accused the parents of persecuting the museum:
At a Jacksonville children's museum, they've got one thing on display: religious conviction. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. When it comes to the family, there are no substitutions. That's what a Florida children's museum tried to explain to a lesbian couple, who wanted a family discount. We're sorry, the director said, but the museum's policies are very specific about families needing a mom and a dad. So is Florida law, which defines marriage as a union of a man and woman. So when a mom put her name where the application said "dad," the office was justified in saying no. The difference was only $10, but that didn't matter to the woman, who shouted down the director and threatened to sue. In a statement, the museum said it did nothing wrong by making a policy consistent with their religious beliefs. These days, people care more about political correctness than right and wrong. And if America isn't careful, this museum's freedom will be just another relic from a bygone age.
In December, Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver told conservative radio host Janet Parshall that a Supreme Court ruling favorable to marriage equality “could cause another civil war” or even a second revolution. While speaking to Parshall last week, Staver argued that the court’s decision would have “a catastrophic consequence” for freedom, liberty and even “human existence” itself.
The Liberty University law school dean, who said that Obama will introduce “forced homosexuality,” went on to say that the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to civil and criminal penalties for opponents of same-sex marriage, such as losing one’s job. As a result, anti-gay activists “cannot acknowledge that decision as being a legitimate one” and should treat the Supreme Court as “an illegitimate institution.”
If the court goes the wrong way within the next week on these issues, it will become an illegitimate institution and we should treat it as such. It is that dire. It is exactly as simple and as plain as you said it: God said marriage is between one man and one woman, and some civil institution says no it’s not. That has a catastrophic consequence for our religious freedom, for the very function of the family, for marriage, for our human existence, for civil society and for any area of our liberty, it is a catastrophic game changer and it will be more destructive than Roe v. Wade. Why? Because Roe v. Wade, as destructive as it is and it is destructive, does not force you to have an abortion. Now Obamacare is forcing us now to fund abortion. But this will not just simply say, ‘ok same-sex marriage, I don’t agree with it but I can go on and live my life,’ no. You want to work in the DOJ? You’ve got to support it. You want to work in any other area? You’ve got to endorse it. This will not be coexistence, this will not be the government’s got a bad policy, this will be the government’s got a bad policy but you must advance it, you must support it; if you don’t, you will be punished, you won’t have your job, you will be punished in some other civil or even criminal way. That’s why it’s going to be more coercive than Roe v. Wade, it is a line—I’m telling you, I’m hoping people understand this—that we cannot cross. If we cross that line, we have to push back; we cannot acknowledge that decision as being a legitimate one.
Last week, the Frederick Douglass Society hosted a Junteenth Celebration in Michigan at which Gary Glenn of the American Family Association spoke.
During his remarks, Glenn declared that the Republican Party had been formed for the express purpose of fighting slavery and defending marriage, which inspired him tie Martin Luther King's famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" to the forthcoming Supreme Court decisions on marriage equality by calling on Christians and the governors of the states which have outlawed gay marriage to ignore any ruling that might strike down those laws.
"With the heritage we have from the freedom fighters and the Freedom Riders who came before us," Glenn declared, "God forgive us if we fail to stand. But if we do, as Martin Luther King said we should do to fulfill our Christian duty, we will threaten those, we will over come those who threaten our faith and freedom. And we will be proud to stand with you in that struggle for our faith [and] we will be blessed for doing so":
Christian Action League head Mark Creech is mourning the collapse of the ex-gay group Exodus International today in the Christian Post, arguing that Christians should not believe that sexual orientation exists as it is merely “a broad term developed in modern times to provide credence for the growing number of sexual perversions.”
Creech urged people to dismiss claims from gay people who believe that their orientation was shaped by biological factors, just as they would refuse to affirm a person who thinks they are really a squirrel: “if one felt that he or she was a squirrel, would that qualify as proof that one was justified in risking life and limb by climbing trees and eating only nuts?”
But Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, takes umbrage with Chambers' apology, arguing: "I think there is a tendency to see Exodus folding as a parable of Christian capitulation and ethic. That is not what is happening. Instead what you have is an organization that has some confusion about its mission and purpose…What is not happening here, is an evangelical revision of a biblical sexual ethic."
Peter LaBarbera, who leads Americans for Truth About Homosxuality [sic], would agree with Moore. When OneNewsNow recently asked LaBarbera about Exodus shutting down, he said, "I think Alan Chambers, who basically ruined the organization, had no choice because the affiliates were leaving. All the people who support the truth that homosexuals can change and overcome this perversion through Jesus Christ were leaving Exodus."
LaBarbera, who called Exodus' closing one of the greatest tragedies he had witnessed in the pro-family movement, also shared where he believes the ministry made its fatal mistake. He said, "Homosexuality is about behavior, and behaviors can be changed with the help of God and through Christ…That's what Exodus used to be about. But once they started talking about so called 'gay sexual orientation,' as if this is the inherent state of somebody's being, they got in trouble."
It's interesting that the concept of "sexual orientation" is based strongly upon one's feelings. How does one know that one is gay? Conventional wisdom says because of the way one feels. Numerous are the individuals who have said, "I've felt that I was gay since I was a child." But if one felt that he or she was a squirrel, would that qualify as proof that one was justified in risking life and limb by climbing trees and eating only nuts?
To those who would contend the Bible is silent about "sexual orientation," let it be said this is because no such notion is based in truth. It is a broad term developed in modern times to provide credence for the growing number of sexual perversions.
Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union today penned an “if I were the devil” column, inspired by radio commentator Paul Harvey. As you probably already guessed, he claims Satan is pushing marriage equality to attack religious people, convinced the Boy Scouts to “commit suicide” by including openly gay scouts and expanded healthcare access through Obamacare.
Knight, while writing for the Unification Church-tied Washington Times, called the Episcopal Church a “subsidiary” of the Devil and claimed the government is becoming a Satanic tool to “throttle freedom of speech, religion and association,” to use same-sex marriage to “unleash the power of the state against all those ‘religious’ folks” and convinced the Boy Scouts to “commit suicide.”
If I were Beelzebub, I’d work to destroy Western civilization, because its chief religions, Christianity and Judaism, have a timeless book that reminds people of my existence. I’m most effective when unacknowledged.
To this end, I’m working to do away with institutions that are in the way of my goal of destroying humanity. These pesky confederations include churches, observant temples, private groups and governments that support so-called traditional values such as honor, fidelity in marriage, strong families, personal responsibility, civic pride, charity and patriotism.
When these things are compromised, I move on to the game board’s next square — economic freedom, which I cannot abide and which cannot thrive without the virtues imparted by those irritating groups just mentioned. For a look at one of my greatest successes, take a walk through what used to be Detroit.
Once free enterprise is broken to the saddle of the state, I can throttle freedom of speech, religion and association, using some of the giant corporations spawned in the unprecedented liberty created by America’s system of constitutional rights, including private property.
In fact, I used some of those firms just the other day to induce the Boy Scouts of America to commit suicide, one of my prized outcomes. Under corporate-donor pressure, the Scout leadership threw aside the common-sense rule preventing open expression of homosexuality. This pretty much did the trick in Canada. It may take a few years, but the Scouts in the United States are finished, believe me. If you like what you see in the inner cities among fatherless boys, you’ll thank me later.
In 1993, the Girl Scouts USA opened their leader ranks to lesbians and atheists and adopted a policy allowing girls to substitute “Allah” or “Buddha” or perhaps “Elvira” in the Girl Scout promise, “On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country.” Most of the girls and their local leaders peddling cookies are blissfully unaware of such fundamental ferment at the top, and I’m determined to keep it that way. So keep this under your hat, will you?
Other projects going smoothly include weeding Christians out of the U.S. armed forces, concentrating ever more power in Washington, D.C., through Obamacare, expanding the Infernal Revenue Service (no, it’s not a typo), opening the floodgates of pornography even wider, and pushing for universal preschool to get the tykes away from bothersome parents sooner.
Over the next couple of weeks, I’ll be finishing up perhaps my most important project since World War II: Using the Supreme Court to wreck the most vital, irreplaceable institution in society — marriage. If I can persuade one more justice that the Constitution harbors the “right” to abolish marriage through radical redefinition, I can unleash the power of the state against all those “religious” folks who cling to their, well, religion.
But not all of them.
One of my subsidiaries, the Episcopal Church USA, is doing marvelous work muddying up what the Bible clearly says is right and wrong. I’m thinking of upping their budget to purchase a new, improved smoke machine.
Larry Klayman has not been shy about warning that armed rebellion might be necessary to fight President Obama's efforts to enslave every American, and so it was not much of a surprise when he sat down with WND to discuss his various lawsuits that he declared that, if the courts don't rule in his favor and stop the government efforts to "make us its prisoners," this will be the last opportunity to "try to take the country back."
"The American people are being pushed up against the wall," Klayman warned, "and unless our judicial institutions start working and representing the American people, there's going to be catastrophe in this country":