Fighting the Right

MRC's Gainor Says 'Complete and Utter Scumbag' Jon Stewart Is Leading the War on Christmas

The Media Research Center’s professional hyperventilator Dan Gainor appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to warn conservatives that they are losing ground in the “War on Christmas” as the media and liberals have teamed up to stop Christmas celebrations everywhere! He channeled Bryan Fischer in arguing that the “War on Christmas” is really a “war on Christ” and part of the left’s evil plot to “eradicate” and “destroy” religion.

Gainor: If you are a person of faith in this country, any faith unless it’s Islam, the media are out to get you. They are particularly after Christianity, Judaism as well, any sort of traditional values religion, they don’t want your values, they don’t want your faith on TV, they don’t want it in the media and the left is out to eradicate it.



Mefferd: How much worse would you say that it is getting, this War on Christmas, compared with previous years? How much is it ramped up?

Gainor: I think it’s ramped up a lot. I think the left smells blood in the water and they have all year. This is not just a War on Christmas, that’s the point that everyone listening needs to understand, this is a war on faith, this is a war on Christians, this is a war on Christ. So when we saw the Chick-fil-A war, that was just one battle, it wasn’t a Chick-fil-A war, it was just one battle in a greater war where if you come out and express belief in traditional values, particularly traditional faith, the media and the left will seek to destroy you.

Gainor called The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart a “complete and utter scumbag” over a manger scene joke and falsely claimed he never makes jokes about Islam, adding that no one should make jokes about Islam either. In fact, Gainor’s own group is dedicated to attacking positive portrayal of Islam and negative stories on Islamophobia in the media.

Ironically after attacking people who boycotted Chick-fil-A, he called on people to “systematically target” broadcasters and advertisers of programs like The Daily Show and to boycott the Girl Scouts because it is “destroying young women” and the Salvation Army, purportedly for not saying “Merry Christmas.” If that is the Salvation Army’s greatest offense, then Gainor and Mefferd should join the Chick-fil-A boycott, as the fast food chain only uses the phrase “Happy Holidays” as well.

Gainor: The Huffington Post today, I think there is the ’27 Gayest Christmas Songs,’ they are all trying to undermine the holiday to make it their own lefty craziness. Then they say, ‘well you know it’s still Christmas.’ You’ve got Jon Stewart—let’s face it, Jon Stewart is very funny but he is also a complete and utter scumbag. He did a manger scene and this could be delicate to talk about on radio and he did this on TV, I’m trying to dance around this this being radio, but he did a manger scene that was displayed in the nether regions of a naked female, and he got wildly abused for this. Well you know Jon Stewart doesn’t celebrate Christmas so he doesn’t care, it’s not seen as a religious offense.

Mefferd: But there’s not that respect for other people’s religious beliefs.

Gainor: You don’t see him making fun of Ramadan the same way and he shouldn’t and I like to think I don’t. I have a neighbor who is Muslim, I respect him, he’s frankly one of my neighbors I get along with best. We shouldn’t be calling for them to start attacking other religions too. No what we should be saying is you have to have some respect here and if you don’t, we’re going to systematically target your broadcast outlets, we’re going to target your advertisers and we’re going to retaliate. That’s what I meant about Salvation Army, if a Christian organization is afraid to say ‘Merry Christmas’ then I’m done with them with my holiday money and I love giving to Salvation Army. But look I’ve defunded the Girl Scouts because as much as I love the cookies and I do, they are a lefty organization that is destroying young women in America now and I will not give them a penny. Even though one of my coworker’s has a daughter in Girl Scouts and he no longer can successfully sell cookies in our office.

Hutcherson: 'God is Going to Really Turn Loose Judgment on us' over Gay Rights

Peter LaBarbera and John Kirkwood hosted fellow anti-gay activist Ken Hutcherson on Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Radio Hour to criticize Rick Warren over his interviews with Piers Morgan and Marc Lamont Hill. The three even agreed that Warren should not be giving money to organizations doing HIV/AIDS work that don’t condemn homosexuality because, according to Kirkwoood, it puts Warren “in fellowship with darkness.” They encouraged Warren to donate to ex-gay groups instead, but not Exodus International because they’re not anti-gay enough.

Kirkwood: Rick Warren went on to say how many millions of dollars he’s given to the cause of HIV/AIDS and how he’s worked closely with gay organizations on that. My comment on that is you could give millions of dollars for that cause without having to be unequally yoked and be in fellowship with darkness, without having to work with organizations that openly boast about their sexual perversion.

Hutcherson: There are so many organizations out there, Exodus International, I don’t know if they are continuing to hold on to their strong point but he could’ve given millions of dollars at the time to Exodus International.

LaBarbera: Well we wouldn’t support that now because they are starting to slide. John makes a good point, even a lot of AIDS groups, it’s like the point of faith, it’s not really faith of course, is pro-homosexuality.

Kirkwood: I think he was trying to establish his street cred with homosexuals because then he came out and said, ‘I have many, many homosexual friends.’ Marc Lamont Hill said, ‘I get the love part about AIDS but what about this’?

Hutcherson: I think the correct statement would be one that we make: we’re friends with many, many ex-homosexuals. That should be the statement because homosexuals are not going to stay around me if they don’t want to change.

Hutcherson said that if evangelical leaders like Warren and Americans do not begin to denounce homosexuality more fervently then God is going to get “sick and tired of America” and “really turn loose judgment on us.” LaBarbera added that Morgan is “obsessed” with homosexuality and that it is a religious “sacrament” to him, and Hutcherson explained that Morgan and others “promote homosexuality” and seek to “destroy God’s plan.”

Hutcherson: God does not have the same consequence for the same sin, bro. We’ve got to understand that as Christians and we better wake up soon because I think that one of the things God is showing us is that He’s getting a little sick and tired of America, he’s definitely having a holy throw up fest with his bride, we need to really stand back up and get this unity going or God is going to really turn loose judgment on us.



LaBarbera: You can tell what Piers Morgan’s religion is and one of the sacraments is homosexuality, I mean he is obsessed.

Hutcherson: Secularism. They know that if you really want to destroy God’s plan, promote homosexuality.

LaBarbera: Why is that?

Hutcherson: Because that is the sin that God says when you’ve turned a man over to his own lust, there is no hope.

Hutcherson warned that not only is God’s judgment coming but also that the Republic may collapse if the Republicans begin to abandon their anti-gay views, which Kirkwood likened to Republicans in the mid-1800s deserting their strong stance against slavery in order to win Southern votes.

Kirkwood: Ronald Reagan spoke about the three-legged stool and one of those legs was the social—pro-life, and back then it wasn’t even an issue the same-sex marriage thing—but if we abandon that leg of the stool we are no longer the Republican Party, we’d be the Whig Party again. The Republican Party was born on principle, the principle that all men are created equal. Yeah we could have picked up a lot more Southern votes if we didn’t believe that way when we were founded but if we start to believe that way now to prostitute ourselves for votes, they’re going to lose thirty percent of the Republican Party.

Hutcherson: What you’ve got to understand is it’s not just that we’re losing the Republican Party when you eliminate those legs, we’re losing America bro. If you cannot have a moral backing for our Republic, our Republic cannot stand.

Liberty Counsel is Now the NHCLC's Official 'Legislative and Policy Arm'

We have been asking for years now how Samuel Rodriquez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, has been able to maintain his reputation as a moderate evangelical leader - someone who is regularly invited to the White House and presidential events - despite being a full-blown Religious Right activist

So we are hopeful that this latest announcement revealing the deepening partnership between the NHCLC and the radical anti-gay bigots over at Liberty Counsel will finally put an end to this myth, especially since Liberty Counsel has now become "the legislative and policy arm for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference:"

The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC) has named Liberty Counsel as the senior sponsor of its Life Directive. Liberty Counsel and Liberty Counsel Action will also become the legislative and policy arm of the NHCLC. The largest Hispanic evangelical association with 40,118 evangelical Hispanic churches, the NHCLC is committed to support life from conception to natural death.

“Liberty Counsel is honored to be the legislative and policy arm for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Our liberty is based on the unalienable right to life that comes from our Creator. The right to life is the right of all rights. No other right has meaning without life,” Staver said.

The mission of the NHCLC is guided by seven directives, among them promoting a culture of life, encouraging the biblical design for marriage as one man and one woman, working with youth, education, and more.

Few groups operating today can match Liberty Counsel in terms of unmitigated hostility toward gays and Muslims and those with whom they disagree or in terms of overall general craziness ... and it has now officially become the NHCLC's "legislative and policy arm."

WND Promotes Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill

Rick Santorum must be proud that his new employer, WorldNetDaily, is promoting pastor Scott Lively’s endorsement of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Lively helped craft the original bill, which called for the death penalty for gays and lesbians, but ultimately distanced himself from the legislation that made homosexuality a crime punishable by death. This week Lively, who has always supported the criminalization of homosexuality, came out in favor of a proposed version of the bill that swaps out the death penalty in favor of life in prison for gays and lesbians. It would also criminalize advocacy of equal rights. Lively argues that the bill would prevent the “homosexualization of Ugandan culture.”

First, the Bible has always defined homosexuality as a crime, and not just in the Mosaic Law. Homosexuality was condemned by God long before Moses declared it a capital crime (by God’s own instruction), and God’s condemnation of it was reaffirmed repeatedly in the New Testament. Preceding Moses, there is the account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, and a somewhat similar account in Judges 19. According to Rabbinic tradition, even the Great Flood of Noah in Genesis 6-9 was precipitated by homosexual sin. In the New Testament, Chapter 1 of Romans not only condemns homosexuality as “depraved,” but reaffirms the death penalty for it as well (verses 18-32). I Corinthians 6:9-11, the “ex-gay” passage, both condemns homosexuality and reports that some of the Corinthians to whom the letter was written were themselves recovered homosexuals who had been healed and delivered by faith in Christ. These are just a few of the numerous Bible passages addressing homosexuality, all of which condemn it in unequivocal terms.



Second, in all the media-driven hysteria about the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill, one glaring fact has been consistently omitted (despite my having pointed it out to nearly every “journalist” who has interviewed me). The fact is, Ugandan law is typical of most African law in that it tends to be very harsh in the letter, but very lenient in the application. I doubt very much that anyone arrested under the new law (if it passes) will receive anything close to the jail terms allowed for in the bill.

Third, and most importantly, there is one easy, guaranteed method of protecting oneself from ever being subject to the anti-homosexuality law in Uganda: Don’t commit sodomy! We all seem to forget, in the dense propaganda haze of American popular opinion, that homosexuality is defined by voluntary sexual acts. Homosexuals are no more compelled to commit sodomy with each other than a married man is compelled to cheat on his wife.

In my opinion, the Ugandan anti-homosexuality bill is still too harsh in the letter. I would prefer something closer to the approach several American states have taken toward marijuana: Criminalize it, but minimize the penalty and turn a blind eye toward discrete violations. Indeed, this would be my prescription for dealing with homosexuality (and all sex outside of marriage) in the United States. This would preserve basic freedom of choice for people who choose to inhabit various subcultures out of the mainstream, yet provide the larger, marriage-based society with the legal power to prevent sex activists from advocating their lifestyles to children in the public schools or to flaunt their sins in “pride” parades through the city streets.

However, since I didn’t write the Ugandan bill and have no power to redraft it on my own terms, and since the alternative to passing this bill is to allow the continuing, rapid, foreigner-driven homosexualization of Ugandan culture, I am giving the revised anti-homosexuality bill my support.

Dobson Broadcasts Sermon on America's Imminent Destruction

James Dobson’s radio program Family Talk today aired a sermon by Pastor Laurence White, who has worked with conservative figures like Rick Perry, Glenn Beck, David Barton and Rick Scarborough as founder of the “Texas Restoration Project.” The Dobson-endorsed sermon blamed the Holocaust on the separation of church and state and warned of America’s imminent destruction mainly as a result of homosexuality and abortion, arguing that “God will destroy and God should destroy America” if the U.S. does not ban abortion. Despite White’s address, abortion rates are actually higher in countries where the procedure is banned.

Once again the nation is being led down the path to destruction and once again by and large God’s people are looking the other way. I don’t have to tell anyone in this room tonight how far that path to destruction we’ve already traveled. You see the evidence in families that are fractured and marriages that are broken; in young people that lose their way and often their lives in a maze of alcohol and drugs; in a culture that can no longer distinguish between lust and love; that is willing to tolerate the vilest perversion as an “alternative, acceptable lifestyle” while pestilence stalks the land; in public schools that have become facilitators for fornication and procurers for the abortionist knife; in a nation that has lost the moral will to distinguish between that which is right and that which is wrong: we know all too well how far down that road to destruction we have already gone.



We can win the next election or the next ten elections, we can balance the budget, we can reduce the deficit, we can bring down taxes and build the mightiest military machine on the face of the earth, but if we do no stop abortion then God will destroy and God should destroy America.

For the Fifth Time, David Barton Falsely Claims the Constitution is Full of Direct Quotations Out of the Bible

We are really starting to wonder if David Barton literally does not understand the meaning of the phrase "direct quotation" since he continues to falsely claim that the Constitution contains dozens of direct quotations from the Bible.

Barton repeated the lie for the fifth time when he spoke at the ProFamily Legislators Conference shortly after the election, which aired today on "WallBuilders Live":

I could take you through most clauses of the Constitution, but it's interesting when you look at the Constitution and the clauses, if you know the Bible - and a lot of people don't; they look at the Constitution and say "oh, that's cool language."  If you know the Bible, you go "that's a direct quote out of a Bible verse."

That's why so many Bible verses are directly cited in the Constitution.  When people tell me the Constitution is a secular document, that tells me they're biblically illiterate because if you know the Bible, you'll instantly recognize these verses in Constitutional clauses.

As we have pointed out time and time and time and time again, not one of the Constitutional provisions he cites as evidence actually directly quote the Bible in any manner whatsoever, yet Barton continues to make this same false claim while insisting that anyone who points out the fact that he is lying is just "biblically illiterate."

Fischer: New Theory Suggests 'Homosexuality is the Result of a Birth Defect'

Yesterday it was reported that a group of scientists had put forward a new theory that epigenetic marks may play a key role in determining why people are gay.  According to press reports, these "epi-marks" determine how genes are expressed and are normally "erased" between generations, but in cases where they are not erased, they may be passed on from a mother or father in a way that can lead to a child becoming gay.

Which means, according to Bryan Fischer, that homosexuality might be a "birth defect" which could lead prospective parents to choose abortion:

As I have said before, I suspect that not even homosexual activists today want the gay gene to be found, even if it exists, because of advances in prenatal genetic testing. It is now possible to routinely screen for 3500 genetic defects while a child is still in the womb. 

So these activists rationally fear that preborn children who are detected with this gene will be aborted before they even have the chance to be born. After all, if 90% of babies in the womb who are diagnosed with Downs syndrome never draw their first breath, what are the chances that parents disposed to abortion will not exercise the same choice with regard to the gay gene? 

The scientists in Koebler’s article, in my view, are now resorting to genetic subterfuge and are coming dangerously close to saying that homosexuality is the result of a genetic defect, a genetic abnormality. In other words, read from one angle, these same scientists are saying that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect.

...

So in other words, when something goes wrong genetically, and these markers are not erased, the epi-markers which provide an evolutionary advantage to parents instead do evolutionary damage to their offspring.

Now these researchers are quite at pains to avoid saying anything like this, but the logic to me seems inescapable: Homosexual children, on this theory, are born evolutionarily and genetically disadvantaged. They have been overexposed or underexposed to testosterone because something has gone wrong in the process of genetic transmission. In other words, they are the product of a genetic abnormality at best, a birth defect at worst.

...  I expect many abortion-minded parents will want to know exactly how strong this epi-marker is in their unborn children so they can decide whether or not to exercise reproductive choice. 

In fact, I expect that if this theory gains some currency, it will not be long before we have legislation from the homoexual lobby prohibiting “sex-selection” abortions on any child carrying this epi-marker.

UPDATE: Fischer reiterated many of these same points on his radio program today:

Brad Dacus: Overturning DOMA May Legalize Incest

Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus warned today that if the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) then the U.S. will likely legalize polygamy and incest “as society continues to slip down that slippery slope.” While speaking to Jim Schneider of VCY America’s radio show Crosstalk, Dacus also agreed with George Will’s assessment that “quite literally, opposition to gay marriage is dying,” alleging that teachers unions and Hollywood have spearheaded the “indoctrination” of youth.

Dacus: If the Supreme Court rules that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, then we’re basically going to have an open heyday for homosexual marriage as well as other kinds of “marriage” being introduced and being protected through this case law precedent, such as polygamy, perhaps adult incest and who knows what else will be attempted to be added on.



Schneider: This past Sunday syndicated columnist George Will appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and said that the opposition to same-sex marriage is “quite literally dying” he said because opponents tend to be older Americans. What are your thoughts on this?

Dacus: Unfortunately, I have to agree with George Will on this. The polls show and the stats show that older people are the number one supporters of traditional marriage, they are older people and they are literally dying. The people who are the biggest proponents of homosexual marriage, they’re young people, they’ve come out of our public schools, the teachers unions have been establishing this agenda and this indoctrination through our public schools for quite some time. So they’ve succeeded in this indoctrination process in many of our public schools across the country for a new way of thinking, a new perspective. Along with Hollywood, we have a whole new mindset and in fact young people are overwhelmingly, I think it is 2:1, in favor of legalization of homosexual marriage. Of course, that number could easily change to include other forms of marriage as society continues to slip down that slippery slope.

Barber: Gay Rights Advocates are 'Throwing Children Under the Bus'

Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show this week to report on his group’s so far unsuccessful lawsuit against California’s new law prohibiting the use of ex-gay therapy on minors. Barber asserted that “anecdotal, unsubstantiated, politically motivated claims of suicidal thoughts” that frequently result from the unsafe and degrading therapy techniques “have nothing to do with science.” “Simply on the science alone they just don’t have a leg to stand on,” Barber said.

But as we’ve reported before, the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers and American Psychiatric Association have all found that sexual orientation conversion therapy is a dangerous sham.

Barber, who just yesterday he claimed that nearly half of all gay people are victims of sexual abuse as children, doesn’t really care about the findings of the country’s leading medical organizations, he just cares about preserving extremely harmful practices under the pretense of defending children against the supposed gay menace.

“The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast” intent on “throwing children under the bus,” Barber claimed. He warned that gays are working to “turn our public schools into indoctrination centers” and “using these kids as pawns in a dangerous and selfish political game of chess.”

Barber: I know from personal experience dozens and dozens of former homosexuals, typically it’s through a relationship with Jesus Christ that they are able to come to a full and complete freedom from their unwanted same-sex attractions. We know the untold thousands of people who have left homosexuality, those results speak for themselves. You match that up against these anecdotal, unsubstantiated, politically motivated claims of suicidal thoughts and so forth, we see that this is clearly a political move; it has nothing to do with science or helping these children. They are using these kids as pawns in a dangerous and selfish political game of chess.



Barber: We’ve seen, as I mentioned before, thousands of people who have left homosexuality but they have to be able to establish that it’s fixed for legal purposes so that’s what it all boils down to, it’s all about the legality. We’re confident even the Ninth Circuit will hold that clearly this is an overreaching law that is politically motivated, intended to silence opposition to homosexuality and that simply on the science alone they just don’t have a leg to stand on.

Mefferd: You look at how the LGBT activists are operating in California and it just seems like there is no limit to what they want, it’s just one thing after another out there, they get one thing and then they move on to the next thing and they move on to the next thing and with great vigor.

Barber: That’s right. The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast, as I’ve often said before. They do want everything that we’ve said that they wanted and that is not just affirmation of homosexuality but celebration of homosexuality under penalty of law, they absolutely want to turn our public schools into indoctrination centers and the narrative that people can and do leave homosexuality does not align with their political, cultural and legal goals so they are throwing children under the bus here—in order to try ends justifies the means agenda here.

Matthew Hagee: To Accept Gay Marriage is to Divorce Society from God

On this week's "Hagee Hotline," Matthew Hagee answered questions from congregants and viewers, including one from "Zack" wondering why there is such a focus on homosexuality when the Bible says that everyone is a sinner and that all sins are equal.

Hagee replied that while it is true that all sins are equal, "all sin is not equal in its consequence."  While lying or stealing do not separate others from God, Hagee warned that when a society accepts an "abomination" like gay marriage, it means that society has divorced itself from God:

Eagle Forum: 'Non-Whites, Non-Christians and Non-Marrieds' will 'Tear Down Traditional American Culture'

After warning that a decline in the white birth rate will lead to the demise of American culture, Eagle Forum is now attacking racial and religious minorities for supposedly trying to “tear down traditional American culture” and “undermine Americanism.” As Kyle noted yesterday, Roger Schlafly (son of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly) is taking a page from Bill O’Reilly in blaming President Obama’s re-election on Democrats who have been “badmouthing traditional American values” and “increasing government dependence.” Schlafly, who earlier claimed that people should fear that “immigrants do not share American values” and “will not be voting Republican,” writes that Republicans and WASP culture are the last bastions of “traditional American values” against “non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds.”

America was founded by WASPs -- White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They had nuclear families, attended church, and believed in the Protestant work ethic. Republicans are seen as believing in traditional American values.

Democrats campaign largely by badmouthing traditional American values, and convincing various demographic groups that they are outside the Republican base, and hence better off voting Democrat. So non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds vote Democrat out of group identifications. That is, they see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture.

Democrats never persuade voters based on reason or logic. They gain voters by increasing government dependence and by promoting changes to immigration policy, family law, and schools that increase the population wanting to undermine Americanism.

We used to have independent voters who decided elections by voting for who they thought were the better candidates. This election has convinced everyone that now elections are determined msinly [sic] by demographics.

NOM Leader Warns of 'War on Women's Fertility'

Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage-affiliated Ruth Institute says there is not a “war on women” but a “war on women’s fertility” as a result of easily available contraception and women being encouraged to go into the workforce after college rather than getting married and having children:

"We are allowed to participate in a labor market, and in education, as long as we agree to chemically neuter ourselves during our peak child bearing years. When our children are the smallest and most vulnerable, we agree to place them in commercial care, that is if we're lucky to have any children. And if we're unable to conceive when we're finally ready, professionally and financially, we agree to submit our bodies to the trauma of artificial reproductive technology, including the over stimulation of our ovaries," Morse explained.

Alternatively, Morse described a potential career path designed for a female body this way: "Go to college for a liberal, not a vocational, education. Get married. Have your kids. Let your husband support you. It won't kill him, or you. Then go back to school, maybe, for an advanced degree after the kids are grown. Go to work. Then help support the kid's college in your joint retirement. And since we women live longer than men, we can be working longer than they are and let them relax a little bit."

Morse said she is not opposed to and finds nothing objectionable with women choosing not to have children. She also believes, though, that a pro-woman policy would insist that the education system and labor markets adapt to the needs of women who do not want to delay childbirth.

Morse provided several anecdotes, along with the empirical evidence, demonstrating that society views fertility as a problem to be solved rather than a gift to be embraced.

The Department of Health and Human Services' recent birth control mandate, requiring employers to provide birth control in their health plans, for instance, referred to birth control as "preventative care." The implication, Morse said, is that pregnancy is a disease or illness.

"I deeply resent the implication that the normal healthy functioning of my body is considered an illness," Morse implored. "The mandate itself is offensive and is evidence of a war against women's fertility."

Morse also complained that Medicaid, a government health insurance program for the poor, has many anti-fertility policies. Contraception is required, for instance, by program participants and made available to minors without parental consent.

Morse does "not accept that government has an interest in directing the fertility of poor people because there are too many." Indeed, Morse views the anti-fertility policies as an admission to the moral and fiscal failures of the welfare system.

"Change welfare policies to make them more sustainable and compassionate," Morse said, and "stop viewing the children of the poor as a problem for policy makers to solve by preventing their existence."

Morse also appealed to her Christian faith in defense of her position.

The typical secular feminist viewpoint, Morse said, replaced stability in marriage with stability in the workplace, and resents sex differences, "viewing them as some kind of cosmic injustice."

"Modern secularists insist that love, sex and reproduction be separated from each other for the sake of making men and women equal. But that view places men and women at odds with each other and encourages us to use one another – men using women for sex and women using men as combination sperm banks and wallets," Morse complained.

Michigan Pastors Speak Out Against Anti-Labor Law

Michigan members of People For the American Way Foundation’s African American Ministers Leadership Council spoke out today against so-called “Right to Work” legislation that was signed today by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

Rev. Frank Raines III of Farmington Hills, a member of the African American Ministers Leadership Council, said:

“Our state has a long and proud history of a strong middle class backed by a strong labor movement. This so-called ‘Right to Work’ legislation is nothing but a politically-motivated attempt to weaken the labor movement at the expense of working people. As faith leaders, we feel it is our duty to stand up for those who are the most vulnerable, those who work hard to care for their families, those who band together for fair wages and fair treatment. We’re disappointed that our legislature and governor have chosen to stand instead with big corporate interests out for political gain.”
 

###

Kincaid: Republicans should take after the English Defence League

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media has some words of advice for the defeated GOP: follow the English Defence League. The EDL is a radical UK-based group strongly linked with violent actions and whose members terrorize Muslims and often espouse Nazism. But for Kincaid, they are a model for the Republican Party, which he fears is gradually becoming more supportive of gay rights and ignoring the increasing “persecution of social conservatives.”

As American conservatives contemplate the future of the Republican Party in the face of President Obama’s Marxist onslaught and reelection, the rapid deterioration of the British Conservative Party stands as proof that the situation could get far worse. British conservatives lead the British government as members of a coalition and are pushing legislation for what they euphemistically dub “Equal Civil Marriage”—gay marriage. They think this is the key to being politically relevant and winning elections.

Here in the U.S., former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman took to the pages of The Wall Street Journal on November 21 to make the “conservative case” for backing gay marriage. But there can be no “conservative case” for gay marriage, unless the term “conservative” is redefined as the British Conservative leaders are trying to do.

Mehlman, a former lieutenant to Karl Rove, came out of the closet and announced that he was a homosexual in August of 2010. He has since launched a “Project Right Side” to make the “conservative” case for gay marriage. He points to Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger at The Washington Post, who has declared that social conservatives have “lost” the battle over gay marriage and should just “move on.” Rubin has also attacked conservative Senator Jim DeMint, who is resigning to take over the Heritage Foundation, in a column headlined, “Good riddance, Mr. DeMint.”

Another conservative in the liberal media, George Will, said on ABC’s “This Week” show, “the opposition to gay marriage is dying. It’s all old people.” He had previously endorsed gays in the military and had smeared supporters of the Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion policy as unintelligent.

The same “strategy” would also mandate that Republicans should “move on” by abandoning the pro-life cause and opposition to legalization of drugs. That would leave the GOP in the position of running purely on economic issues, in order to draw a contrast with the Democrats. Romney’s stunning defeat is an example of what happens when that strategy is followed.



According to this logic, American conservatives should applaud the fact that, on December 1, the first same-sex couple was “married” in the West Point Cadet Chapel of our nation’s military academy. This is a consequence of Obama’s gays-in-the-military policy.

The real lesson from what is happening in Britain is that if the Republicans go down this road, conservatives will revolt and the GOP will suffer an even more significant decline than we saw on November 6, when a number of social conservatives sat out the election. Surrender could also lead to more persecution of social conservatives.



This British Conservative Party has watered down traditional conservatism to such an extent that some conservatives have formed an alternative, the English Defense League (EDL), which has spawned the British Freedom Party.

This group has been strongly attacked in the media, here and abroad, as “far-right” or worse. But I had the opportunity to meet their leaders, Kevin Carroll and Tommy Robinson, at the 9/11 conference in New York City sponsored by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer which was designed in part to organize resistance to global Islam and safeguard our right of free speech against the advance of Sharia, or Islamic law. You can watch the speeches by Carroll and Robinson and draw your own conclusions. Carroll and Robinson want a patriotic alternative to the British Conservative Party that will promote traditional values.

American conservatives and their media should take a hard look at what is really happening in Britain. We had to turn to a relatively new conservative channel in Canada, Sun TV, for important news and information about how Carroll and Robinson and their supporters are being targeted by the “conservative” government there. Carroll was actually imprisoned for exercising his political rights. Robinson is still in prison on charges that he entered the United States illegally and has sent Pamela Geller a letter about his plight, which is published on her website.

MacArthur: Obama is 'Evidence of God's Judgment'

Pastor John MacArthur, who before Election Day warned that the Democrats are an “anti-God party” that has “made the sins of Romans 1 their agenda,” delivered a post-election sermon in which he declared that President Obama himself is a judgment of God. “We have the President, we have as a judgment from God, that is a judgment from God, he is an evidence of God’s judgment,” MacArthur said, and went on to doubt Obama's Christian faith and reiterate his claim that God is abandoning America to “sexual sin.”

We have the President we have as a judgment from God, that is a judgment from God, he is an evidence of God’s judgment. Because of Romans 1, God has given us over, ‘when those who know God glorify him not as God and do not like to retain God in their knowledge,’ which is what the Democratic platform said originally, get God out. By the way that’s a big change, four years ago McCain and Obama interviewed at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, both affirmed to be Christians, both affirmed to believe in Jesus Christ, that all went by the board and God was removed four years later because that wasn’t going to be popular this time around. So that kind of an accommodating religion has been unmasked. But the bottom line is Romans 1 says that if you do not retain God in your knowledge, if you do not glorify him, his wrath is unleashed. It’s talking about the cycle of history, Acts 14: God allows all the nations to go their own way. We’re going our own way; we’re going the way of our own choices. When the wrath of God is in motion, God gives them over—this is his wrath in motion—to sexual sin, that’s what we’ve got, sexual sin which is rampant. Over fifty percent of adult women are single and men as well, this kind of single life with promiscuous behavior everywhere is what this generation wants. That’s an evidence of wrath: the smashing and crushing of the family. Then the next one, verse 26, he gave them over to homosexuality. Now we are not only tolerant but advocates of that. Then he gave them over to a reprobate mind and that includes murder and all kinds of other crimes, which would include abortion.

He also argued that gay marriage and abortion rights will grow the size of government and persecute the church.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future there are less and less and less freedoms that people in America enjoy, right now they are willing to make that exchange for two reasons: they are willing to make it number one for the sake of money in their pocket and number two for the sake of immorality. If the government will let them have free sex, homosexual marriage and abortion, they are fine, they are okay with that. As we pointed out to you before the election when you have a platform of a party being remove God, affirm free sex and government provided contraception, homosexual marriage and abortion, when that’s the platform you know how far that nation has gone into immorality. And when the people vote it into power again, that either means they advocate that kind of life or they are indifferent to it as long as you keep giving them what they want. So there is a real tipping point I think that’s happened in our country. I don’t mind the darkness getting darker, I don’t mind the illusion of morality going away, I don’t mind the darker environment in the sense ‘that darker the night the brighter the light.’ But the church has to step up and be the church and proclaim the Gospel and confront the culture, that’s what we have to do. And when we do that what’s going to happen is persecution. They are already talking about hate speech and the categories of hate speech are going to escalate as the immoral country begins to try to defend itself and isolate itself and not face the reality of its immorality.

Glenn Beck on Gay Marriage: 'I Don't Care'

Today on his radio program, Glenn Beck declared that he is not opposed to gay marriage, provided that nobody tries to destroy his marriage or his church.  But, Beck claimed, that is exactly what "the Left" is always trying to do, which is why the issue of marriage equality is so controversial:

Bachmann: Obama wants to 'Lift up the Islamists' and Impose Sharia Law

Earlier this year, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that Muslim Brotherhood agents had penetrated the Obama administration, which she claimed was attempting to “enforce Islamic speech codes.” While Bachmann was roundly mocked and criticized for the baseless remarks, they were a hit in conspiratorial right-wing circles. Bachmann took her crusade against the supposed Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the government to Jan Markell’s radio show this weekend, where she again claimed that Obama is “aiding and abetting” radical Islamist groups.

Markell is an End Times broadcaster and a close ally of Bachmann, who attended her “Understanding the Times” conference this year. She has previously claimed that Mattel’s Little Mommy Cuddle ‘n Coo doll is promoting Islam to children, demanded the government begin monitoring mosques and in 2007 predicted a terrorist attack as a result of a Hindu prayer in the U.S. Senate. Markell has also suggested that a tornado in Minnesota was a “warning from God” meant to punish the Lutheran Church for affirming gay pastors and alleged that the deadly 2011 earthquake in Japan was divine judgment.

Markell charged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and Eric Barger said that the supposed rise of Sharia law in the U.S. is proof that the Antichrist is coming.

Markell: Hillary, she’s a woman from Arkansas who used to be an attorney and rose to the White House, why would somebody like Hillary Clinton let herself get embroiled in things that are so Islamic? I’ve done entire programs on her assistant Huma Abedin connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. Why do you think someone like Hillary is getting so enmeshed in all things Muslim Brotherhood that this is absolutely a danger to the nation at this point because of the intricate nature of Muslim Brotherhood, Washington D.C., homeland security, national security, the State Department and the rabbit trails just keep going, and everybody is wondering who has looked into these kinds of issues, what is in the mind of somebody like Hillary Clinton that she is willing to sacrifice the safety of the nation by getting so embroiled in Muslim Brotherhood?

Barger: Jan, it is simply baffling to me. To be honest with you, I’ve thought about that so much and I’ve been living with this research now for several weeks that we’re using on the air. Somebody has her ear, obviously; maybe she is convinced that she can be a catalyst for world peace. You know, if you understand Islam at all you understand that the goal is not world peace, this is world domination, they have said it over and over; it’s in the Koran.



Barger: Can you imagine Sunday sermons across our land soon being scrutinized by a panel by religious examiners to see if the words used pass the left-wing litmus test or the Muslim litmus test or however it’s viewed, to see if they become hate crimes or to see who would be called a renegade preacher is really just inciting his people? That’s where we’re going and eventually that’s the case Antichrist will make against people who disagree with him and who would stand against him and stand against everything that he will stand for. The thought police have now moved to the mouth and I think we need to see that and understand it. How soon will our legal ability to witness and defend the faith and preach the unadulterated Gospel be hampered or stopped? This is the important question, you see.

During the interview, Bachmann warned that Israel and the American people are in grave danger due to President Obama’s purported support of radical Islamists: “President Obama, if you look at nearly every decision he has made about this issue, it is to lift up the Islamists and to take down Israel.”

She also claimed that the Obama administration’s supposed “Islamic speech codes” could be “deadly for the American people.”

Bachmann also told Barger that everyone who is not an Islamist will “lose their right of speech and expression” as there is “no tolerance for dissent or disagreeing in any way with the goals or the beliefs of the Islamists.”

Bachmann: Not just verbal speech, but written, a cartoon, a painting, whatever it is, if it is in any way construed as being against Islam that is where the confrontation comes from the Islamist world and they want to stop anyone in the world from saying anything negative about Islam. Which means there is only one free speech right and that would belong to the Islamists. Everyone else would lose their right of speech and expression.

The reason why this is important is because this is the whole game, it is game over if we who are in the non-Islamist world lose the right to criticize what the Islamist does, because the Islamist tries to advocate Islamic Sharia law and so anything that we would say in the future, once you criminalized anti-Islamic speech, anything that we would say that would be critical in any way of anything Islam does would be considered criminalized. That’s why I say it is game over; the Islamists will have won everything. That’s why they are willing to put ten years into achieving this objective of silencing any form of dissent to Islam.

Barger: That goes right along with the idea that in Islam you are either a member of the house of peace or the house of war, there is no live and let live or peaceful coexistence.

Bachmann: There is no tolerance. There is no tolerance for dissent or disagreeing in any way with the goals or the beliefs of the Islamists, there is only one way.



Bachmann: Once you take away people’s ability to be able to speak, this is not a small right, this is everything, it is game over because then all of the power and authority has been given over to the Islamist. The Islamist is the only one who gets to dictate what we can say and what we can do, and what we can print and what we not print, and who can assembly and how they can assemble, because at that point Sharia Islamic law in effect becomes the law of the land because the Islamist gets to have the authority, not anyone who opposes Islam. This is a very, very important issue.

She accused the Obama administration of supporting the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s advocacy of blasphemy laws, which the U.S. unambiguously opposed. Bachmann said that Americans must study Islamic materials in the same way people studied Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf during WWII and alleged that a letter from Muslim-American groups [PDF] regarding anti-Muslim instructional material is “proof positive” that the Obama administration wants to introduce Sharia law to the U.S.

Bachmann: That’s what I spent my whole year doing was talking about this issue of what the OIC was trying to do with their ten year plan and all of these efforts in the Obama administration. The only conclusion you could make is that they are embracing the ten year plan and are supporting it and that’s why this October 19 document is so important because that is proof positive that every piece that is put into place is leading to one direction, this isn’t deviating it’s leading to one direction, and that ultimate goal it seems to be is to allow for mandating, following, every demand of the Islamist and we know what their ultimate demand is.

Barger: Sharia law.

Bachmann: That’s right. That’s why we need to know what their belief system is; we need to know what they truly believe. That’s why the most important thing a person could do in WWII was to read the book that the leader of Germany wrote.

Barger: Mein Kampf.

Bachmann: Because he laid out very clearly what his intention was, he wasn’t hiding it, the Islamist does the same thing. They do not hide it, they lay it out very clearly. But what we’ve never seen before is the United States aiding and abetting that goal.

Bachmann concluded by making the absurd claim that Obama and Clinton are going to do away with people’s First Amendment rights and “take away the free speech rights of the American people.”

Barger: We know that our Constitution certainly doesn’t match what the OIC and the Muslim Brotherhood want, nor what the United Nations seems to be doing with Resolution 16/18 and with some other things that are going on there. How much should we worry about executive orders and how they might become, instead of the legislation that should be passed through Congress, might become the law of the land that way?

Bachmann: We’ve already seen that President Obama has given himself a very free hand at writing any executive order that he wants because he said it himself that if the United States Congress won’t agree with him, he’ll just take matters into his own hand and he’ll become his own Congress and he’ll sign his own executive order and thereby put into practical effect a law that he wants to see passed. This is completely against our Constitution.

But even more importantly, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton she helped to formulate and write and pass UN Resolution 16/18, which calls for the criminalization—anti-free speech measures. This is very concerning that she went down that road. It doesn’t specifically say Islam, it talks about religious speech, but let’s face it there is only one religion that the OIC—the Organization of Islamic Cooperative [sic]—cares about and that’s Islam. Hillary Clinton was involved from the very beginning in writing this resolution. She’s already signed this. While a UN resolution doesn’t bind United States law, how in the world could the President allow the Secretary of State to sign a resolution that indicates that we are willing to take away the free speech rights of the American people?

This is game over, as I’ve said before, because when you limit the right to dissent from the American people, the Founders made this the First Amendment because they understood this is our most sacred right, our right to speak, our right to practice our faith the way that we want to, the right to publish what we want to publish, the right to assemble and talk about whatever we want to talk about. That’s freedom, that’s the essence of freedom, that’s the First Amendment, and that is what UN Resolution 16/18 which Hillary Clinton signed, presumably with the affirmation of President Obama, and that’s the first step in a big step for taking away from you and me and all of your listeners our right of free speech and expression, religious practice, freedom of assembly, freedom of the printing press but even more importantly, it will empower the Islamist to use that against us.

Either Bachmann never read UN Resolution 16/18 or is simply misrepresenting it, as the resolution [PDF] actually defends the freedom of religion while at the same time expressing “deep concern” over religious intolerance, discrimination and violence.

Human Rights First also debunks the assertion that the resolution somehow curtails freedom of speech:

Myth 1: The U.N. resolution opens the door to limiting freedom of speech.

Wrong. The resolution acknowledges the language of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), notably that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” It calls on states to take measures “consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents.”

The United States has a reservation to that provision, to the extent that it violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so it is not bound by the obligation. In fact, the U.S. has the highest threshold of free speech in the world, and the U.S. government has expressed no intention of lowering those standards. However, that does not exempt all other states from their legal obligations to fight “incitement, hostility or violence” according to article 20 of the ICCPR. After all, that is what they signed up to, so they have an obligation by law to honor their commitment.

In all respects though, the implementation of Article 20 must not infringe Article 19, which reasserts everyone’s right to freedom of expression. Rather than imposing new restrictions on freedom of speech, which it does not, the new consensus resolution opens the door to an action-oriented approach to fighting religious intolerance. That is very consistent with the U.S. policies and practices – combat violence, discrimination and hatred without restricting freedom of speech. Resolution 16/18 urges states to train government officials to address religious tensions, to harmonize actions at local and national level, to raise awareness of negative stereotyping of persons, to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue, to foster religious freedom and to speak out against intolerance (among other recommendations. The only limitation on speech that is in the operative part of the resolution is incitement to “imminent violence”, which is in accordance with US law.

No, Linda Harvey, Marriage Equality Will Not Make Jesus Get Gay Married

Linda Harvey is not happy with the recent vote in Washington state in favor of marriage equality and she is even less happy with the decision by the state to revise its marriage licenses to add an option for "spouse," in addition to "bride" and "groom," allowing those who are getting married to choose which they prefer. 

In Harvey's eyes, this change undermines the "legitimacy of man-woman marriage" and, even worse, creates confusion about the Christian imagery in which Jesus one day returns to earth to marry his "bride": the church.

Well now, even though truth has not changed; marriage is still, in reality, one man and one woman, the voters' decision prompted health department officials to propose a change in language until enough people objected.  The words "bride" and "groom" were going to be replaced with "spouse A" and "spouse B" or "person A" and "person B" on marriage licenses, according to the original proposal.

That's right; on official marriage documents, the words "bride" and "groom" were going to disappear.  When advocates of homosexual marriage say how would two men or two women being allowed to marry change your marriage, here's one way.  Nonsense like this starts showing up and the legitimacy of man-woman marriage is automatically on defense against pretenders to the throne.

...

Homosexuality, far from being marriage, is always a grave sin in Scripture.

Then, speaking of brides and grooms, there's another Christian concept that illustrates the unchanging standard of man and woman as the model for marriage: in the New Testament, Jesus is referred to several times as the "bridegroom." And when he returns, he will return as a bridegroom seeking his bride: the church, which is the body of all believers, also called the Bride of Christ.  It's a beautiful analogy.

What happens to such a concept in a same-sex marriage?  Does Jesus as bridegroom seek another groom?  No, that would be a twisted and frankly offensive spin on a profound and marvelous concept.

As Christians, we must never accept the idea of same-sex marriage.  It certainly doesn't work as sound Christian doctrine and it will be shown before long not to work as revolutionary secular law either.

Wilson Uses Bogus Story to Warn that Liberals Will Put Pastors in Jail

American Family Association’s Buster Wilson yesterday warned that gays and liberals are trying to “elevate hate speech [laws] above the freedoms of our precious first amendment,” citing a case in Canada where he says a “pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached against homosexuality.”

As we think about the basics of Biblical morality, today we will discuss the issue of hate speech and the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of Speech.

While most Americans refuse to believe anyone could ever be imprisoned simply for something they said, the examples of it actually happening are abundant.

In our neighbor to the north, Canada, a local pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached about homosexuality. A member complained to the hate speech council and he was found guilty and jailed.

Now for certain, that’s in Canada. But the hate speecher’s in this country are modeling their efforts on those successful hate speech laws in Canada.

The left wants to control the speech of the right, and if left to themselves, they will find a way to elevate hate speech above the freedoms of our precious first amendment!

If a pastor was sentenced to jail for eighteen months in Canada, don’t you think there would be a single news story about it?

We couldn’t find a single one, but Wilson seems to be citing a decision by the Alberta Human Rights Commission which fined a pastor over an anti-gay letter to the editor which preceded an attack on a gay youth. But the ruling was overturned because it violated Canada’s constitutional protection of free speech. Even Canadian Baptist leaders have rebuffed claims that pastors in their country can go to jail over their stance on homosexuality.

So basically, a Canadian judge tosses out a fine against a pastor and reaffirms his free speech rights, but Wilson claims that he “spent 18 months in jail” and therefore hate speech laws are coming to the U.S.!

Barber: Almost Half of Gay Men Were Sexually Assaulted by Pedophiles as Children

When not fighting the "war on Christmas," Mat Staver and Matt Barber continue to fight the California law that bans the use of sexual orientation conversion therapy on minors, which they have now taken to calling "Jerry Sandusky laws" on the grounds that children who are sexually abused will now become gay because they will not be allowed to get therapy to help them deal with the abuse. 

In fact, Barber falsely claimed that almost half of all gay men "were sexually assaulted by a homosexual pedophile" and that abuse is what pushed them into a lifestyle filled with disease, depression, and alcoholism. 

For Staver, the basic goal of laws seeking to ban the use of conversion therapy is simply to force people to accept homosexuality "as good and normal, when it is not":

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious