Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is warning that “the bullies at ‘Big Gay,’” the term he is now using to describe gay rights advocates, are “trying to go Ahmadinejad on Chick-fil-A, they want them wiped off the face of the map.” While comparing gay rights supporters to the Iranian president who wants to see Israel “wiped off the map,” Fischer said that gays don’t face discrimination but are actually oppressive, intolerant bullies.
Championing Mike Huckabee’s effort to encourage people to eat at Chick-fil-A restaurants as a way to reward the company for their long-standing anti-gay politics, he called on potential customers “to buy out every chicken sandwich that Chick-Fil-A makes on August 1, let’s have them run out of chickens, let’s send them out behind the restaurant with an ax to cut the heads off of more chickens to feed people because they are selling so many chicken sandwiches.”
And they’re trying to present themselves as these innocent little victims, helpless and hapless, being picked on across the fruited plain. And they’re not. They are bullies. They are intolerant, they are vicious, they are mean, and they are after people of faith. There’s no ‘live and let live’ with the bullies at Big Gay. They don’t know anything about tolerance. Tolerance is not in their vocabulary. They have no tolerance for those who support the institution of the natural family. None, zip, zero. They have no room in their so-called ‘diversity world’ for people who believe in natural marriage. They claim to be all about diversity, but there is no room in their world for anybody that believes in traditional moral values. They’re absolutely intolerant and they have no room, they’re anti-diversity. So I’m talking about this with regard specifically to Chick-fil-A. And I am pointing out specifically that the bullies at Big Gay are coming after Chick-fil-A. They’re trying to take them out, they’re trying to obliterate them, they’re trying to go Ahmadinejad on Chick-fil-A, they want them wiped off the face of the map.
Let’s make it our goal to buy out every chicken sandwich that Chick-fil-A makes on August 1. Let’s have them run out of chickens, let’s send them out behind the restaurant with an ax to cut the heads off of more chickens to feed people because they’re selling so many chicken sandwiches.
Vision America’s Rick Scarborough explained today that the movie theatre massacre in Aurora, Colorado, was a result of God lowering His hand of protection, adding that the shooter “only killed 12 because of God's intervention.” “The fact is that, as a culture, we have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind,” Scarborough explained, “If people of good will and conscience do not stand up and demand that God be acknowledged once again in the public square, we are destined to continue our slide toward Gomorrah.”
"Many in our society, and especially many liberals, refuse to recognize the existence of evil," Scarborough explained. "Since they believe individuals aren't responsible for their actions -- that everything is determined by heredity or environment -- they flail about for explanations to mass murder, like 'easy access to firearms, or impoverished environment, including lack of education or access to opportunity.' But in Aurora, like Columbine more than a decade ago, the shooter had every opportunity and was well-educated. Still, he chose to shoot innocent men, women and children, and only killed 12 because of God's intervention. A fact no one seems willing to acknowledge."
Scarborough continued: "Rick Warren stated the obvious when he tweeted within hours of the tragedy, 'When students are taught they are no different from animals, they act like it.' Congressman Louie Gohmert essentially agreed when he stated: 'People say... where was God in all of this? We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present.'"
"How did the mainstream media react to such truth?," Scarborough asked. "Both men are being maligned and lesser men are refusing to speak up. The fact is that, as a culture, we have sown the wind and are now reaping the whirlwind. If people of good will and conscience do not stand up and demand that God be acknowledged once again in the public square, we are destined to continue our slide toward Gomorrah."
Scarborough disclosed: "We know the man in custody for these horrendous crimes was, until quite recently, a student in the prestigious neuroscience doctoral program at the University of Colorado. But intelligence isn't a safeguard against evil. Some of the brightest men in Germany conceived and carried out the Holocaust."
"Christians understand that there is evil in the world, and that -- as society turns its back on God -- His hedge of protection is lowered and evil grows stronger," Scarborough explained.
"As our society has become more corrupt -- as Americans have rejected Biblical truth -- evil has flourished. The spate of these seemingly senseless mass murders -- Columbine, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, and Tucson -- are committed against a backdrop of 1.2 million abortions a year, 40% of all children in this country born out-of-wedlock and the ongoing war against our Judeo-Christian heritage."
Mitt Romney hasn’t yet publicly stated his view on the witch hunt against Muslim-Americans in the Obama administration supported by Michele Bachmann. But today his foreign policy adviser, former Bush administration official John Bolton, defended Bachmann and her allies in an appearance on anti-Muslim, anti-Obama conspiracy theorist Frank Gaffney’s radio show. Bolton told Gaffney, a birther who helped stoke the witch hunt, that he was “mystified” by the criticism of Bachmann and that she was “simply raising the question.” Bachmann, for her part, is beyond raising questions: last week she declared that “there has been deep penetration in the halls of our United States government by the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Gaffney: John Bolton, one of the hot house issues in Washington at the moment that speaks to this point you just made about American decline and aiding and abetting our enemies under the Obama administration involves the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s not just that we’ve helped bring them to power in Egypt and are otherwise emboldening them, you mentioned that they are a likely successor to Bashar Assad in Syria. But here at home as well, five congresspeople including Michele Bachmann have been pressing for investigations into the extent to which some of these policies that we’ve been adopting, both abroad and here, might have something to do with influence operations aimed at and actually successfully inside the wire in our government. What do you make of this controversy and particularly the criticisms, the vicious criticisms, that have been mounted against these folks for their warnings from within their own ranks?
Bolton: I’ve been subject to how many security clearance procedures and I must say as irritating as some people may find them I think they are absolutely essential to making sure that people who work in sensitive positions in the national security field in our government are entirely loyal to the United States. I just think that’s an absolute, fundamental prerequisite. Now people find them intrusive, they find them inconvenient, my response is, that’s just too bad. What I think these members of Congress have done is simply raise the question, to a variety of inspectors general in key agencies, are your departments following their own security clearance guidelines, are they adhering to the standards that presumably everybody who seeks a security clearance should have to go through, are they making special exemptions? What is wrong with raising the question? Why is even asking whether we are living up to our standards a legitimate area of congressional oversight, why has that generated this criticism? I’m just mystified by it.
Gaffney: I think it has a lot to do with both shooting the messenger and trying to deflect attention from what is a huge, yawning and very serious vulnerability of this president, especially now as this election gets down to the clinches.
This leaves Bolton opposed to Republicans including John McCain, Marco Rubio, Scott Brown, John Boehner, Mike Rogers, Jim Sensenbrenner, and even Bachmann’s former campaign manager, all of whom have spoken out against Bachmann’s McCarthyism.
Earlier in the program, Bolton suggested that Obama’s speeches that have been “patriotic and laudatory of our troops” are only a campaign tactic. The president, he says, is “comfortable with the decline of American influence in the world.”
Bolton: He’s realized he is in the middle of a very closely fought election campaign and suddenly the rhetoric is patriotic and laudatory of our troops. But the fact is his policies have cost the United States around the world, he has withdrawn combat forces from Iraq, he plans to do it from Afghanistan, the rest of the world sees an American retreat, the budget sequestration mechanism on top of the nearly a trillion dollars of cuts and defense spending that Obama himself imposed, I think even his own defense secretary said would cripple our military. We are in very grave shape and yet the president, as he has done consistently on economic or foreign policy, talks about doing the exact opposite of what his policies are and of course the media give him a free pass on it. Nobody should be under any illusions, this is a president comfortable with the decline of American influence in the world and he is watching it happen.
Gaffney: Well, I would argue he is accelerating it at every turn.
Right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton, who compares homosexuality to smoking and celebrates the fact that there isn’t a cure for AIDS, said today on WallBuilders Live! with co-host Rick Green that same-sex marriage is much like letting people marry horses or dogs. Discussing the Defense of Marriage Act, Barton warned that marriage equality proponents may try to “evangelize” their belief that “marriage shouldn’t be between a man and a woman” since “that’s unfair for two men who want to be together, or two women, or a horse and a dog, or whatever it is.”
Barton: Other courts, other areas started saying ‘well you know we can’t really justify this position anymore, marriage shouldn’t be between a man and a woman, that’s unfair for two men who want to be together, or two women, or a horse and a dog, or whatever it is,’ so at that point as it looked like the states were starting to mess around the problem you have is the contracts in one state are supposed to be honored by another. So if I make a business contract with you in Texas and we move to Oklahoma, that contract is going to be recognized in Oklahoma. Well on marriage, that’s a contract. So if one state suddenly says we want same-sex marriage and in Texas we say we don’t, just because you got married in Vermont and moved to Texas doesn’t mean we have to recognize your contract.
So that ability of saying one contract is going to be forced on another caused Congress to act in 1996 and say look the federal government and the states both have to deal with marriage, now here’s what we’re doing, on the federal level we are telling you marriage is a man and a woman and everything that deals with marriage on the federal level is going to be considered a man and a woman. They said as far as the states, you states are not going to be bound by the marriage decision of another state. Green: You do it the way you want to do it and don’t expect to be able to export that to another state.
Barton: Don’t use that to try to evangelize the other forty-nine states.
Green: And we won’t let the other states force it on you.
Barton: That’s right.
Ed Meese, who served as attorney general under Ronald Reagan, told Barton and Green that the legalization of same-sex marriage in several states “just shows how the culture has deteriorated over two centuries,” and asserted that same-sex marriage is an attempt to “defy nature.”
Green: It’s almost like they are making it up on the fly, the actual language of the Constitution doesn’t matter; it’s what these judges that happen to be on the bench at the time think it should mean.
Meese: The founders, we go back to the founders, the reason that they didn’t put something in the Constitution to say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman is nobody would have even thought at that time that there could be any other. It just shows how the culture has deteriorated over two centuries.
Green: You also mention that the Defense of Marriage Act should control what’s happening on the military side of things. How have they managed to push through so much with the military in the Obama administration on this issue working around DOMA?
Meese: Well that’s still an open issue and that’s why DOMA is very important. For example, whether chaplains should be required to participate in a homosexual marriage ceremony; whether that would be required as part of their duties, that’s where DOMA is a very important statute. This idea that somehow there is some obscure right in the Constitution to defy nature, as they do in homosexual marriage, is just ludicrous.
The Religious Right continues to applaud the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to reaffirm their ban on openly gay members. Today, Tradition, Family, Property Student Action director John Ritchie emailed members today to thank the Boy scouts for “resisting the encroachments of the pro-homosexual lobby” and “the ‘rainbow’ revolution” in order to “respect moral values and protect minors from potential abuse” and “exclude individuals who flaunt unnatural vice”:
Why is the homosexual movement targeting the Boy Scouts?
Here's the reason:
Because the Boy Scout Oath talks about honor, duty to God, and moral uprightness, which necessarily excludes sinful lifestyles.
You see, just last week the Boy Scouts of America confirmed a long-standing policy barring open homosexuality from its membership ranks. As a private organization serving 2.7 million boys, they have the RIGHT to make sound policies that respect moral values and protect minors from potential abuse.
Click here to thank the Boy Scouts for standing strong
Even the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts' right to exclude individuals who flaunt unnatural vice.
But the "rainbow" revolution – aided by the liberal mass media – unleashed a barrage of pressure against the Boy Scouts, as if it were a crime to stand firm on moral values and do what is best for our youth.
Thank you for standing strong! I applaud the Boy Scouts of America for resisting the encroachments of the pro-homosexual lobby. Please continue to hold fast to the virtues expressed in the Scout Oath: Honor, duty to God, and moral uprightness.
Gary Bauer of the Campaign for Working Families warned that the “militant homosexual movement” has revealed itself to be “extremely intolerant”:
I want to close today with a tip of my hat to the Boy Scouts of America. They have been quietly reviewing their policy over the years that bans homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters for obvious reasons. The organization has faced unrelenting pressure from the militant homosexual movement, left-wing politicians, Hollywood and even corporate elites to change the policy.
Yesterday a BSA spokesman told the Associated Press that an 11-member committee unanimously reaffirmed the ban as "absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts."
Not surprisingly, the so-called tolerant left is having fits, and is extremely intolerant of the Scout's decision to maintain their values. Please take a moment to encourage the Boy Scouts of America for standing firm.
Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action in her radio bulletin today also hailed the BSA for “protecting the boys”:
The decision is final.
Homosexuals will still not be allowed to serve as leaders in the Boy Scouts. That was the good news coming from the offices of the Boy Scouts of America last week. An 11-member special committee, formed by top Boy Scout officials two years ago, concluded that it would be best to reaffirm their longstanding policy of protecting the boys from leaders who favor or engage in same-sex relationships.
You may recall that an earlier challenge of their policy went the whole way to the Supreme Court, resulting in a decision twelve years ago affirming the exclusion of homosexuals from positions of leadership.
Please call the Scouts today at 972-580-2000 to express your support for a very good decision!
Mission America president Linda Harvey hosted Brian Camenker of MassResistance on her radio show this weekend, where the two lamented the growing number of schools that offer LGBT-inclusive clubs and curriculum. Camenker said that in Massachusetts LGBT rights advocates are “targeting school children,” even with lessons about sadomasochism, while Harvey claimed their “diabolical” programs are fostering “tragedies” and “abuse.”
Camenker: The homosexual activism in schools, targeting school children, started in Massachusetts in the late 80s and early 90s.
Harvey: With Kevin Jennings and GLSEN.
Camenker: Kevin Jennings, the first gay clubs in the schools were done by him in the late 80s and the early 90s, he was the one who was brought in by then-Republican Gov. Bill Weld to design the plans, to push this in the public schools and force it into schools across the state. That’s been the blueprint for bringing it around the country. Massachusetts, I believe, puts more money into pushing homosexuality into the schools than probably the rest of the country combined.
But if you want to see where your future is, this is the place. It’s very, very troubling; it’s not pretty at all. We are doing a multi-part series on what we’ve exposed and what we’ve seen, and it ranges from topics from sadomasochism—sadomasochism!—and transgenderism, telling kids that they can change their sex, it’s an absurd idea anyway, this whole range of things and people need to see.
Camenker: There’s no stopping with what these people want to do with your kids, there is an obsession there and it is very, very troubling.
Harvey: It is very troubling and it’s really diabolical, it really is. Our neglect and our benign acceptance of how they position it, ‘that this is just the way kids are, they are born that way and this is identity,’ is allowing all of these tragedies and this abuse to happen to our kids.
Camenker: Yes, absolutely.
Apparently, pushing a McCarthyite witch hunt against Muslim-Americans serving in the Obama administration is an act of great courage and valor, at least according to the anti-Muslim activist who helped push Michele Bachmann and four Republican allies to send letters to inspectors general — which were rejected — demanding investigations into a number of administration staffers. The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney, who yesterday warned about “an effort to demonize and take down” Bachmann, took to the Washington Times to praise the Minnesota congresswoman as “America’s Iron Lady,” akin to Margaret Thatcher.
Gaffney also criticized those who called Bachmann’s assertions “dangerous or baseless,” saying, “their authority on the matter must be questioned.” He must therefore question the authority of Speaker John Boehner, House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers, House Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Subcommittee Chair Jim Sensenbrenner, and the many other Republicans who have denounced Bachmann’s accusations.
Lady Thatcher’s partner in dispatching that toxic ideology to the “ash heap of history,” Ronald Reagan, famously declared in 1961 — at a time when the USSR was still very much a going concern — that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” Today, it is threatened by another totalitarian ideology that some have aptly described as “communism with a god”: the supremacist Islamic doctrine known as Shariah.
Fortunately, it turns out that as we confront our time’s most imminent threat to freedom, we have found America’s Iron Lady: Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Her Thatcheresque qualities are evident in the fearless and visionary leadership she is providing in opposing Shariah’s most formidable champions, the Muslim Brotherhood.
In particular, Mrs. Bachmann’s training as a tax attorney has prepared her well for the painstaking business of studying and mastering arcane organizational, financial and other relationships that are at the core of the stealthy subversion the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.” Her experience raising 28 kids, counting her own and foster children, has steeled her against the name-calling and worse that have met her efforts to bring those skills to bear to expose and defeat the jihadists, wherever they may be.
With respect to efforts to dismiss as dangerous or baseless concerns about a possible, far larger problem with individuals who have connections to the Muslim Brotherhood shaping U.S. policy toward that organization and enabling its rising power, what can one say? There is abundant evidence that indicates such concerns are warranted. Until the critics — on Capitol Hill, in the media and elsewhere — perform the sort of due diligence that has characterized the approach taken by Mrs. Bachmann and her colleagues, their authority on the matter must be questioned.
Yesterday, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association blamed liberals for the movie theatre shooting in Colorado:
But Fischer is not alone in assigning blame to the left.
R. Emmett Tyrrell, the founder and editor of The American Spectator, spoke to Fischer yesterday about the Colorado shooting and told the Religious Right talk show host that “a country that is being forced to turn away from God because of the liberals gets things like the Colorado massacre in abundance.” Tyrrell described liberals as “bloodless,” “cold-blooded” and “brain dead,” while Fischer said that “they cannot be reasoned with” and only rely on “very strong feelings” instead of facts or logic.
Tyrrell: These liberals are bloodless, they are just cold-blooded people. They ought to open their hearts to conservatives, frankly. In writing this book, ‘The Death of Liberalism,’ I came to the conclusion that they are dead—they are brain dead—they simply can’t look at anything that contravenes their value system, they turn their back on it…
Fischer: It’s been interesting to me in talking to liberals, and I’m sure you’ve had this same experience, the conclusion I’ve come to is that they cannot be reasoned with because logic means nothing to them, facts mean nothing to them, history means nothing to them, reason means nothing to them. They just have these very strong feelings and the strength of those feelings in their minds is all they need to validate the positions they take. So I’ve just come to the conclusion that liberals cannot be reasoned with they can only be defeated.
Tyrrell: A country that is being forced to turn away from God because of the liberals gets things like the Colorado massacre in abundance, and we will have more of them if we don’t return to God.
On Friday, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer attempted to link the end of public school organized prayer to the Aurora, Colorado movie theater massacre, arguing that state-sponsored religious education would have prevented the shooting (even though James Holmes belonged to a San Diego church for 10 years). Similarly, AFA News Director Fred Jackson connected the media and progressive, gay-affirming churches to the massacre. Today on Focal Point, Fischer specifically blamed liberals and opposition to posting the Ten Commandments in public schools for the shooting, lamenting, “we’ve tried it the liberals’ way for sixty years now and what do we got? We have massacres in Aurora.”
It was only a matter of time before Michele Bachmann’s allies tried to play the victim following the backlash against her latest conspiratorial witch hunt, this time focusing on Muslim-Americans serving in the Obama administration. Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, who helped launch the attacks on Sec. Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin and whose report Bachmann and four other Republican members cite in their letters to the inspectors general, spoke today with David Bossie of the right-wing group Citizens United to defend the witch hunt.
Bossie said that Bachmann’s main problem was naming Abedin in the State Department letter, which was rebuffed by the inspector general, when she should have tried to “name her without naming her.” He claimed that people are attacking Bachmann because she tries “to defend our freedoms” and represents a “danger” to their nefarious plans. Gaffney, who has made a career disparaging people like Abedin and even conservatives such as Grover Norquist, lamented that there is “an effort to demonize and take down” Bachmann.
Bossie: These five members of Congress led by Michele Bachmann, because they just hate her so, because they just have this natural desire to attack her at every turn because she’s decided to pick up a weapon and stand a post, she decided that she was going to defend our freedoms at every turn for many years. So certainly if I was in her camp, would I have said ‘hey let’s ask these questions, let’s do all this without putting a staffer’s name in it,’ because as a former staffer, as a guy who was the chief investigator for Congress during the ’90s and somebody who investigated the Clinton’s relentlessly and whose name was in letters like this all the time from the left, Republicans stood tall for me at every turn because members didn’t like members picking on staffers, at least how it’s presumed. So you could see how that could be perceived. I would have probably said, ‘let’s name her without naming her,’ that’s one way to solve what potentially happened.
But they want to attack Michele Bachmann for what is really an oversight in my opinion by naming her, but they want to attack her because she’s been a leader against the Muslim Brotherhood, against radical Islam, for the last four years that she has been in the House of Representatives and they see her as a danger, as a leader who is dangerous in their pursuits.
Gaffney: That’s the point. It’s really an effort to demonize and take down, if they can, a formidable political adversary in Michele Bachmann.
If Bachmann really was the courageous leader that Bossie and Gaffney described, it’s hard to see why she literally ran away from a CNN reporter who was asking her questions about the letters, and if people are only criticizing Bachmann because they detest her attempts to “defend our freedoms,” then leading Republicans like John McCain, Marco Rubio, John Boehner and Mike Rogers must be included on that list.
Bossie also took to Politico to defend the congresswoman and her Republican allies, saying they “should be applauded for their letter and be regarded as patriots”:
The inspectors general should absolutely investigate whether individuals with associations with the Muslim Brotherhood are contributing to the adoption of policies that favor an organization that poses a threat to national security. The Muslim Brotherhood is the driving force behind the effort to impose a totalitarian ideology it calls “shariah.” During the Obama presidency, the Brotherhood has made huge strides towards achieving its goal in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, as is made clear in their own documents – specifically a strategic plan introduced into evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism financing prosecution in our nation’s history – the Muslim Brotherhood also has as its goal “destroying Western civilization from within.” This goal is being pursued via what the Brothers call a stealthy “civilization jihad” that involves, among other techniques, gaining access to and influencing government agencies.
It is not McCarthyism to state these irrefutable facts. Neither are requests by members of Congress seeking, through the appropriate formal channels, to establish whether the Muslim Brotherhood has gained a foothold and legitimacy – especially in light of the adoption of Brotherhood-friendly policies by the Obama Administration. These are absolutely legitimate and necessary questions because of the stakes for our national security.
Far from being criticized or suppressed by America’s elites and politically correct police, Reps. Bachmann, Gohmert, Franks, Westmoreland and Rooney should be applauded for their letter and be regarded as patriots.
On AFA's "Today's Issues" program this morning, host Tim Wildmon interviewed Phyllis Schlafly about her new book "No Higher Power: Obama's War on Religious Freedom," which seems to basically be a catalog of the Religious Right's various complaints and allegations about President Obama's supposed hatred of Christianity and Christian values.
During the discussion, Schlafly and Wildmon falsely claimed that Obama removed the word "Creator" whenever he quotes from the Declaration of Independence and that he was the only President in history not to celebrate the National Day of Prayer before Schlafly speculated that Obama might eventually order the removal of all the crosses from Arlington Memorial Cemetery:
Schlafly: For example, every time he quotes from the Declaration of Independence, he omits the word "Creator." That's very strange; we all know what the Declaration says and he just omits that.
Wildmon: I remember the first year he was in the office, he did not recognize the National Day of Prayer in a proclamation - oh, excuse me, he didn't have any kind of public ceremony ...
Schlafly: That's right, he didn't have anything at the White House, which all the other presidents have done and he said he would pray in private.
Wildmon: So he didn't want to publicly acknowledge the God of our fathers, which has always been done by all presidents in the White House up until President Obama. President Obama says "I'm not going to recognize God, the Christian God, I'll pray in private." Well, that's not a leader!
Schlafly: You were talking a minute ago about Arlington Cemetery; if you haven't been there, I'm sure you've seen pictures of all the crosses there and I just wonder if the day is going to come when they want to take down all those crosses.
As for the National Day of Prayer, it didn't even exist until 1952, and President George W. Bush was the only president to organize regular White House events, so it is also false to claim that events were hosted "by all presidents in the White House up until President Obama."
Jerry Boykin talked about his new job as the executive vice president of the Family Research Council with FRC president Tony Perkins on Friday’s Washington Watch Weekly, where he said he will work to stop the Obama administration’s plans to “to penetrate this last bastion of morality and ethics, and that being the institution of the military, with its social experiments.” “If we allow the penetration of our military to continue,” Boykin added, “not only will our national security suffer but our culture as a whole will be in great jeopardy.” Boykin and Perkins later agreed that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will have devastating long term effects (despite all existing evidence) and that it undermined the sense of fellowship and camaraderie among service members.
Boykin: The administration has been on a campaign, I think, to penetrate this last bastion of morality and ethics, and that being the institution of the military, with its social experiments. So I’m very concerned and obviously as you and I have talked, one of my main focuses here will be trying to protect and defend and work with our military to try and maintain the values that our military has always had. I think it’s a warning to America that if we allow the penetration of our military to continue, not only will our national security suffer but our culture as a whole will be in great jeopardy.
Perkins: The history that we, you and I, have developed really goes back to when the administration wanted to overturn the policy that prohibited open homosexuality in the military and we pulled together a number of retired generals and there was some active duty individuals in there as well that were part of just advising and consulting. But that is so significant in terms of something that’s inconsistent with military service, readiness; the seeds have now been planted, while some are saying ‘it’s been almost a year and the military hasn’t imploded,’ that’s unrealistic, the effects of this are a number of years down the road, we’re already, however, seeing the erosion of religious liberty and religious freedom. Those are issues that folks who serve can’t speak to so they need a voice on the outside.
Boykin: Well, that’s right. People need to understand that when you are a member of the military service you do lose certain First Amendment rights and I don’t disagree with that, I lived with it for thirty six and a half years, but somebody has to speak for them. Tony, I think it’s important for us to remember, I don’t care and I know you don’t what people do behind closed doors in the privacy of their own bedroom, but as an institution the military is based on brotherhood, it’s based on camaraderie, it’s based on the strength and the character of the individual organizations that make up our military. No one has demonstrated that this in anyway is going to enhance the camaraderie, the fellowship, the brotherhood, nor is it going to enhance the war fighting capabilities. At the end of the day, the military’s only mission is going to fight and win the nation’s wars, and no one can show that this is going to help us.
A few weeks ago, we wrote a post featuring a video of Bryan Fischer rewriting American history in order to claim that the American Revolution was not a "rebellion" because, according to the Bible, all governing authorities have been established by God and therefore rebellion against them is rebellion against God.
Barton: A lot of people get lost over the American Revolution, they say there is no way America could ever be blessed because it was born out of rebellion, they rebelled against God. No, not if you understand civil disobedience and what the Biblical issues are. Now, if you went to a public school and you were told that the Revolution was only about taxation without representation, then you can say, yeah, that was rebellion. But that's not the only issue that was there and that's one of the things that public schools are not taught is the other twenty-six clauses of the Declaration.
There is a reason that the first national motto proposed ... was "rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." There's a reason for that. We're not trying to disobey but obedience to God causes us to rebel against tyrants who tell us to do the opposite of what God said.
Rick Green: So even that phrase that they used really was encapsulating the philosophy and the Biblical foundation of when it's okay, when it's right, actually when you should say "no" to government.
Barton: If you have a tyrant that's telling you that you can't do what God told you to do, then rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. And that's what they said; they said we're not in rebellion, we're in complete submission to God on this.
On his daily radio bulletin, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins joined other Religious Right activists in condemning Google for its Legalize Love campaign to advocate against laws criminalizing homosexuality. “Thanks to a new campaign, Google's approach to traditional values is to search—and destroy,” Perkins said, and later baselessly claimed that companies which favor gay rights “take a financial hit” and warned that Google “shouldn’t be surprised by the blow back” for its decision. After defending countries that criminalize homosexuality, Perkins said that “political neutrality is what most users are searching for,” even though the FRC lauds and commends companies like Chik-fil-A which get involved in political efforts opposing gay rights.
After years on the Internet, Google is stepping into a different domain—politics. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington. Thanks to a new campaign, Google's approach to traditional values is to search—and destroy. The web giant just kicked off a worldwide push called "Legalize Love," aimed at breaking down the barriers to homosexuality around the globe. Their biggest targets? Countries that have moral objections to same-sex relationships. "We want our employees who are gay or lesbian or transgender to have the same experience outside the office as they do in the office," said a spokesman. That means actively fighting laws in other countries that aren't as gay-friendly as Google would like. After watching Target and J.C. Penney take a financial hit after endorsing same-sex marriage, Google should know better. They can push to "Legalize Love," but they shouldn't be surprised by the blow back. Because when it comes to Google, political neutrality is what most users are searching for.
According to the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios, the 2010 health care reform law may be “the beginning of dhimmitude.” Rios, who spent much of her Friday radio program defending Michele Bachmann’s remarks on her show about Muslim Brotherhood “deep penetration” of the US government, warned that Muslims intend to “overpopulate and overtake” communities in order to establish “dhimmitude.” After discussing a tax that Christians and Jews could pay to receive protection and religious autonomy under Muslim rule, Rios claimed that the health care reform law “says that Muslims will be exempt from the government mandate to purchase insurance.”
Of course, this is not true.
According to FactCheck.org, the law does include religious exemptions for groups that are “currently considered exempt from Social Security payroll taxes,” such as the Amish, and “no Muslim group, and indeed no non-Christian group, has ever qualified for an exemption under the statue used to define exempt religious groups in the health care law.”
Do you know what dhimmitude is? I wish I could see your hands. How many of you know what dhimmitude is? Dhimmitude is the system under Islam where Muslims go into communities and at first operate within a system and then overpopulate and overtake, and when they become the majority they begin to exercise dhimmitude, which means dhimmi, which means that everybody—the other—anybody that’s not Muslim will be subservient to them in terms of taxes that you would have to pay, taxes as non-Muslims in exchange for being allowed to live there with them, so that’s part of dhimmitude. I’ve heard this before but somebody just sent it to me again, on page 107 of the Obama health care bill it says that Muslims will be exempt from the government mandate to purchase insurance because they believe insurance is gambling and risk-taking, so they will not have to buy it but the rest of us will, and the accusation is that this is the beginning of dhimmitude.
Indeed, the only group arguing for a religious tax appears to be…the American Family Association, as AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer endorsed a tax on non-churchgoers: