Lively: 'The Widespread Acceptance Of Homosexuality By Society Is The Harbinger Of The Wrath Of God'

Last night, virulently anti-gay activist Scott Lively joined fellow activists Peter LaBarbera and John Kirkwood for a discussion on the supposed persecution of Christians in the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.

Predictably, the conversation was filled with dire warnings and over-the-top language, such as when Lively declared that America has "entered into a time of apostasy" as evidenced by school shootings and "the barbarianistic behavior that is manifested so much on the internet."

But worst of all, he said, is the acceptance of homosexuality, which is the most abominable of all sins because, according to the Bible, "it's the only sin associated with the incineration of four cities."

"The widespread acceptance of homosexuality by society is the harbinger of wrath of God," he said. "It's the only sin that is associated with the reprobate mind, the worst state that a person can have and then the apostate culture that derives from that ... [If you read Romans,] you see what God believes about this and what he warns about. Even AIDS and these other diseases, it says they receive in themselves the penalty of their error, which is appropriate. It's plain, simple Scripture, stated as clear as could possibly be done and that's manifest before our eyes in the way that these people are now struggling with all these diseases that are associated with their conduct."

"The heart of it is malicious deception," Lively concluded, "which is the satanic goal, isn't it?"

Linda Harvey: Transgender People Are Possessed By Demons

Mission America’s Linda Harvey is outraged that many journalists refer to transgender people by their preferred pronouns, telling readers of her weekly WorldNetDaily column that they must fight back any time they “hear a so-called journalist or government official refer to any male like Bruce Jenner as ‘she’” because “our children deserve a heritage of sane pronouns.”

Harvey, attacking the media for “inventing gender fables,” calls the use of preferred pronouns “untrue, inappropriate, cruel, disrespectful and hypocritical.”

She claims that such “naked propaganda” is suppressing the truth that trans people are really just possessed by the Devil: “There’s one tragic explanation for such pervasive delusion: Demonic deception may be active in the lives of these people and their advocates. Prayers are needed instead of lies.”

The next time you hear a so-called journalist or government official refer to any male like Bruce Jenner as “she,” please scream, then blast an email to demand that truth be told.

Our children deserve a heritage of sane pronouns.

If reporters aspire to a higher plane than naked propaganda, they need to stop inventing gender fables and describe objectively verifiable attributes of actual people.

Responsible journalists don’t make up the street addresses and ages of people for news reporting. Why invent gender? This popular mythology is no more justifiable than picking new names for people, variable facts in a police investigation, or inventing witnesses to crime who don’t exist.



Bruce Jenner is a guy. So is American traitor Bradley (not “Chelsea”) Manning. So are “Laverne” Cox, confused star of “Orange is the New Black,” and “Jazz” Jennings, teen TV personality. These are males – and the use of female names and pronouns is untrue, inappropriate, cruel, disrespectful and hypocritical.

Chastity Bono is a woman, not a troubled “man” called “Chaz.” There is no “he” in the reality of this person’s life, only in her public mask.

What is the problem with claiming one’s authentic sex? There’s one tragic explanation for such pervasive delusion: Demonic deception may be active in the lives of these people and their advocates. Prayers are needed instead of lies.

Right Wing Round-Up - 8/18/15

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 8/18/15

  • Some helpful advice from Michael Youssef: "It is time for those within the homosexual movement to reassess their fight against Christians and evangelicals. And more importantly, it is time for them to seek to know the Savior. By coming to the Savior with repentance and faith—just like the rest of us have done who have come to the Savior—He will have mercy on them and deliver them."
  • Phyllis Schlafly fumes that the "Army favors gays over patriotism."
  • Janet Porter says that "Governor John Kasich must either support the pro-life Heartbeat Bill or quit calling himself pro-life."
  • FRC is joining the anti-Planned Parenthood rallies this weekend.
  • Finally, Todd Starnes will be honored as the "National Hero of Faith" at Vision America's annual gala next month.

Mike Huckabee Jokes About Clinton Murder Conspiracy Theories, Hillary Leaving Nuke Codes At Chipotle

Earlier today, Newsmax host Steve Malzberg asked former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee if a joke he told about living to tell the tale of defeating the Arkansas “Clinton machine” had anything to do with the persistent rumors from the far right that Bill and Hillary Clinton are behind several murders (including that of a cat).

While Huckabee refused to make the connection directly, Malzberg kept pushing him on whether he was referencing “the people who didn’t survive to talk about it.”

“I’ll let the listener decide, but I think most people when they heard me say that knew that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek,” Huckabee replied. “I’m not making reference into anything in particular. Whether I was speaking metaphorically of political surviving or otherwise, I will leave it to the listener.”

Huckabee later said that Hillary Clinton is “an ideal person to run against for the Republicans” since she is “such a damaged and wounded candidate without credibility or trust.”

“So let’s hope she stays in [the race], I don’t see how she can convince the American people that they can trust her with the nuclear launch codes when she might leave them at a Chipotle restaurant sitting at the table,” he added.

Rand Paul Claims That His Personhood Bill Is Merely Meant To Start A 'Debate'

Sen. Rand Paul was the chief sponsor in the last Congress of a “personhood” bill that would have granted full constitutional rights to zygotes, thereby banning all abortions, in-vitro fertilization, and even possibly common forms of birth control. But for someone who champions an unambiguously anti-abortion plan, Paul has been curiously unwilling to talk about it in a straightforward manner.

In his communications with anti-abortion activists, Paul has taken a hard line, writing in a fundraising email for one pro-personhood group that his Life at Conception Act would “collapse” Roe v. Wade without even needing a Constitutional amendment and telling another Religious Right group that American civilization won’t “endure” without ending all abortion.

“Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over,” he enthusiastically declared in an email for the pro-personhood National Pro-Life Alliance. “Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.”

But to the mainstream media, Paul has been more circumspect, claiming that the no-exceptions abortion ban he sponsored would have “thousands of exceptions,” saying that the country is too divided to change any abortion laws, and opining that laws about the very procedure that his bill would attempt to ban nationwide would be best left up to the states.

Paul took the obfuscation tack again in an interview last week with the Catholic television network EWTN, responding to news anchor Raymond Arroyo’s question about his Life at Conception Act by saying that the goal of the bill is to merely “drive the debate about when life begins” and to make liberals talk about abortion.

“We get trapped by the other side, the liberals who always want to talk about the very beginning of gestation,” he said. “And I think it’s important to want to talk about and make them express their opinion that a six-, seven-, eight-pound baby has no rights. But I believe for religious and scientific reasons that life begins at the beginning, otherwise we just keep finding an arbitrary time.”

Paul has won praise from anti-choice activists for trying to turn criticism of his extreme anti-abortion policies back on liberals. But he can hardly claim to be starting a “debate” when he won’t even cop to what his true policy position is.

Wait. Is Ben Carson Pro-Choice?

Ben Carson has made a point of courting Religious Right voters, suggesting that God called on him to run for the GOP presidential nomination and perfecting the right-wing persecution narrative about how conservatives are being repressed by a Nazi-like government and politically correct culture. It seemed that it went without saying that Carson would emerge as a staunch opponent of abortion rights.

However, as Politico’s Katie Glueck pointed out in an article today, Carson and his campaign have been using the exact same language used by a good many supporters of abortion rights, saying that while abortion may be objectionable, it should not be outlawed.

The attention to Carson’s ambiguous position on abortion rights comes after it was revealed that Carson once used aborted fetuses in his medical research, to which he offered an incomprehensible explanation. Back in 1992, he disavowed an anti-choice campaign ad that featured his remarks, telling the Baltimore Sun at the time that he did not believe in legal sanctions on abortion and had referred patients to doctors who offer abortion services:

“As a physician who does not believe in abortion, when faced with a patient who has severe medical problems, I would refer someone for an abortion,” Carson told the Baltimore Sun in September of 1992. “I believe that person needs to hear both sides … I would never advocate it’s illegal for a person to get an abortion. I think in the long run we do a lot of harm when we bludgeon people.”

In an interview with Glueck, a spokesman for Carson’s campaign made a similar argument, saying that while Carson personally opposes abortion, he doesn’t think the laws should be changed to take away that choice. 

We can’t imagine that this position will sit well with Carson’s enthusiastic Religious Right fan base. But we also aren’t sure that Carson’s campaign even knows what his position on abortion rights is.

“He believes in quality medical care, No. 1, and secondly, he believes in people making their own decisions based on facts and information,” said Carson communications director Doug Watts, when asked whether Carson stands by his previous decisions to refer women whose fetuses had genetic defects to doctors who provide abortions. He does, Watts said.

“He believes people ought to have all the facts available to them, but he is steadfastly opposed to abortion,” Watts continued. “Referring it on does not mean he is advocating it, he’s advocating they are getting qualified medical supervision. He has always believed that the battle over abortion had to be waged in the hearts and minds of Americans, that you cannot legislate morality. But he also believes we’re winning the debate.”

Many pro-abortion rights politicians also personally have qualms about the procedure, but don’t feel it’s their role to pursue legal restrictions on the measure. Pressed repeatedly to name a legal restriction Carson supports, Watts demurred even as he stressed that the candidate is adamantly anti-abortion.

“It’s not a matter of legality, because there is legal abortion, but you’re asking for his point of view, where his restrictions are,” he said in a follow-up call. “Restrictions are not necessarily in his mind determined by laws. He believes that life begins at conception and that he is opposed to abortion after that.”

Carson has, in fact, come out in support of a bill in Congress that would ban abortion at 20 weeks, and he has said that cases in which giving birth endangers the life of the mother are rare — but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. But Watts reiterated that the legal realm is not Carson’s focus.

“It is legal,” Watts said of abortion. “And as I say, he does not think the issue is one that can be legislated as much as having to win the hearts and minds of people, to discover the morality or immorality of abortion. He is unequivocally, completely, positively opposed to abortion.”



He thinks it is not something that is legislated,” Watts said of reining in abortion. “There’s been all kinds of laws over the years on abortion, some far more harsh than we have today, some less harsh. But what’s going on, to properly address the issue in his mind, is speaking to people in their hearts and minds so they realize the immorality of the act.” (emphasis added)

'I Was Born That Way': Bryan Fischer Claims He Was Born Christian, Repulsed By Homosexuality

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer argued that he and others like him were "born a Christian" and repulsed by homosexuality and so they ought to be entitled to have their associated rights respected and protected by the government.

Fischer took a call from "Terry in Macon, Georgia," who argued that he didn't have a choice about being a Christian because he was made in God's image and was therefore born that way. As such, he wanted to know why he has "fewer rights" than gays who also claim to have been born that way.

"I think, actually, that's a good argument," Fischer replied. "The way I am, I was born this way. And you know, you think about it Terry, who would choose, at this time in our nation's history, to be a Christian? You're ridiculed. You're mocked. You're made fun of. You get fired ... I mean, who would choose a lifestyle where you are the unending subject of ridicule, mockery, and contempt by liberals in society, by elites, by professors, on the media, by politicians? Who's going to choose that? So our defense is, hey, I was born that way."

After admitting that this was really nothing more than a facetious argument because "we know that our faith is a matter of choice," Fischer went on to assert that being repulsed by homosexuality was actually something most people were born with.

"I think that most of us have an instinctive, I think revulsion is not too strong of  a word, to the act of homosexuality, what actually happens when homosexuals come together and engage in sexual congress," he said. "We look at that and there is just an inner revulsion to that."

"God has the same reaction that you and I do," he continued, "but that instinctive revulsion that we have when we think about homosexuality, I was born that way."

Oath Keepers, Preparing For Obama-Provoked Race War, Say They'll Arm Ferguson Protesters. What?

The Oath Keepers, the group that helped provoke the heavily armed standoff with federal officials at the Bundy Ranch last year, made some news last week when they showed up in Ferguson, Missouri, wearing body armor and carrying assault weapons. Now, the head of the group’s St. Louis County chapter says he’s angry that his men were “discredited” by the county police chief – he called their presence “unnecessary and inflammatory” – and the Oath Keepers are planning to signal their displeasure by arming 50 black demonstrators with AR-15 assault rifles.

To prevent those protesters from being shot by police, the Oath Keepers will “surround the black demonstrators as protection.” Sam Andrews, the county Oath Keepers leader, says the event will be an iconic event like Martin Luther King, Jr.’s March on Washington.

Martin Luther King? Let’s step back a minute, and encourage any Ferguson activists who might be thinking about partnering with the Oath Keepers to do the same, and remind ourselves who the Oath Keepers are and why they were in Ferguson.

At an abstract level, the idea behind the Oath Keepers sounds reasonable, almost noble – getting military and law enforcement officers to pledge to uphold their oath to protect the Constitution, and to declare that they will not participate in acts that would violate Americans’ constitutional rights, such as warrantless searches. Some members of the group have denounced excessive use of force by police. In reality, though, the group’s lofty mission statement hides a far-right, anti-government ideology and a strong dose of race-based paranoia. Stewart Rhodes, the founder of Oath Keepers, promotes the kind of wild conspiracy theories that have thrived since the election of Barack Obama as president, including the idea that Obama is trying to provoke a race war as an excuse for declaring martial law and discarding the Constitution.

Rhodes is fond of talking about civil war. In December he said that a 2013 Connecticut law banning some assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would lead to an attempt at door-to-door confiscation and “civil war.” Rhodes said last year that if Congress didn’t impeach Obama for his executive actions on immigration, “then they will lose all credibility, and throw us into a TRUE constitutional crisis, because they will have failed to do their jobs, leaving the people with the necessity of pursuing ‘other options’ to stop him.” In May, he said Sen. John McCain should be tried for treason and then hung.

As Right Wing Watch reported, Rhodes gave a speech to the Oath Keepers’ New York chapter in June, in which he “encouraged his group’s members to organize and stock up on food in order to resist the government’s plan to institute martial law after bringing down the country with an economic collapse, a race war, ISIS attacks and unchecked immigration.” From his speech:

I think that keeping with that communist agenda of a fourth-generation warfare assault, the intent is to use an economic neutron bomb — doesn’t destroy the buildings, but it kills the people eventually, it starves you out — cause chaos, and in the middle of all that chaos, spark a race war, and in the middle of that, unleash these ISIS cells that are now all over the country. And they don’t just ignore the influx of these cells, they cultivate it, they give them fertilizer, water and fresh air and make them grow.

Rhodes said “the leftists in this country hate this country, they hate it, and they will get in bed with radical Islamists because they have a common enemy, western civilization.”

The Oath Keepers’ concern for the Constitution doesn’t seem to apply to the constitutional rights of gay people. Mike Koeniger, vice president of the Virginia state chapter, declared last month that a couple hundred sheriffs could defy the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling if they were backed by Oath Keepers:

Imagine that we only had 200 sheriffs that stood in the gap, and behind every one of those sheriffs there were 2,000 Oath Keepers, being civilian or prior military or whatever, imagine the power of 200 sheriffs…

We’d win. We’d win with just 200 sheriffs and 2,000 people behind each of those sheriffs. And then we win the war.

That’s not the only time the Oath Keepers have waded into issues involving gay rights. Earlier this summer, Rhodes accepted an invitation from James David Manning, a Harlem-based pastor who says gays should be stoned to death, to speak at a July 4 event in Gettysburg that Manning hoped would draw attention to “attempts to divide the races.” Rhodes’ contribution to racial healing at the event was claiming that liberals want to divide Americans by race and prompt another civil war. Manning, for his part, called Obama the “son of Satan” and asked the crowd to join him in yelling, “Sodomites, go to Hell!”

But didn’t Oath Keepers say they were in Ferguson to promote unity? Where’s unity, and where’s the Constitution, in all this?

Take the standoff at the Bundy Ranch, at which heavily armed Oath Keepers and other assorted “patriots” sided with a millionaire rancher who was refusing to pay fees that he legally owed for grazing his cattle on federal land. There’s certainly no constitutional right to break federal law or refuse to pay your bills – unless you adopt rancher Bundy’s radical-right refusal to acknowledge the authority of the federal government altogether. During the Bundy standoff, Oath Keepers founder Rhodes warned that Attorney General Eric Holder had authorized a drone strike on the compound. When that turned out to be false, the group claimed that the rumor itself had been an example of psychological warfare by the federal government.

More from the Bundy episode:

Noting that a number of military veterans joined the armed anti-government protest at the Nevada ranch, Rhodes said that “the politicians and the would-be dictators in Washington, D.C…have to worry if they go too hard, if they drop the hammer too blatantly on Americans like at Bundy Ranch, that the Marine Corps would flip on them. And I think it would. And same goes for the tip of the spear in the Army, Army Airborne, special forces, your Navy SEALs, all of those groups out there, the more hardcore they are as warriors, the more likely they are to look at something like that and say, ‘that’s it, I’m done’ and join the resistance.”

Last year, an Oregon mine owner called in the Oath Keepers to prevent government officials from closing him down before a court could hear his appeal. But the mine owner soon decried the “absolute bullshit” being circulated on social media and said the situation had “taken on a life of its own.” He pleaded with activists to stop calling and threatening the Bureau of Land Management personnel.

Back to Ferguson and the protests that were being held around the anniversary of Michael Brown’s killing. Oath Keepers initially said they were there to protect “journalists” working for Alex Jones’ InfoWars. The connection to Jones is not surprising; he is probably the country’s most energetic promoters of outrageous anti-government conspiracy theories, including his claim that killings at Charleston’s Emanuel AME church were part of a government plot to foment a race war and persecute conservatives.

“This is all a set-up.” Jones agreed: “Oh it is. Look at the priming, look at the preparations…. You can see all of the preparation building towards this, this is the big move, it’s a race war to bring in total chaos and then total federalization with this evil Justice Department, they even got rid of the other attorney general who had baggage, they put the new one in for the political persecutions of conservatives and Christians. They’re dropping the hammer.”

At a 2013 Washington, D.C., rally that right-wing activist Larry Klayman convened for the purpose of forcing Obama to step down as president, an Oath Keeper speaker said that the Department of Homeland Security was behind the Boston bombing and committed murder to cover it up.  

Rhodes said this spring that the military exercise called Jade Helm 15 – which right-wing activists warned was going to impose martial law on conservative states – was “conditioning and assessment and vetting” of politicians and members of the armed forces to identify who is willing to go along and “drop the hammer on us.”

Given all this history, Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told Gawker’s Andy Cush that he doesn’t buy Oath Keepers’ recent claims to have been in Ferguson to protect protesters.

“I think they realized rather quickly that very few people looked on them kindly, and all of a sudden they became defenders of black protest against police violence,” Potok said. “The reality is they’ve never said anything like that in their entire history. I think it’s ludicrous.”

 

For more on the Oath Keepers, see the Southern Poverty Law Center and Mother Jones magazine.

 

Rand Paul: 'So Much Of Our Population' Lacks 'Work Ethic'

In an interview with the Catholic television network EWTN last week, Sen. Rand Paul said that the main problem that must be addressed in the immigration debate is that we have “almost defeated the work ethic in our country” and “we’ve destroyed the ethic of work in so much of our population.”

When EWTN anchor Raymond Arroyo asked the Kentucky Republican about the 250 Disney employees who were let go after training their replacements who came to the U.S. on temporary visas, Paul said the U.S. must “look very carefully at how many people we need.”

But he added that immigration is a “two-fold problem” because “we’re rotting from the inside” thanks to unspecified “people” who lack a work ethic.

“We also have almost defeated the work ethic in our country,” he said. “And so, for like picking crops, hard work, if we didn’t bring in migrant labor, we’re rotting from the inside. We have people who really — we’ve destroyed the ethic of work in so much of our population.”

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious