Jeffress: Homosexuality Like Plugging a TV into the Wrong Outlet and Blowing It to Smithereens

Televangelist Robert Jeffress appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network’s flagship program Praise the Lord last week to discuss the opening of his new $130 million megachurch campus and the controversy surrounding Tim Tebow’s scheduled but since cancelled appearance. Jeffress, who has a history of using virulently anti-gay rhetoric, argued that homosexuality violates God’s design for sex.

“Think about this one time in heaven God was sitting up there with his sketch pad and he said, ‘you know I’m going to design human beings and would it be fun of they started doing this together with one another,’” Jeffress explained. “God dreamed up sex, He thought it up for our enjoyment, He gave us the equipment to enjoy it with.”

He went on to claim that homosexuality is like plugging a TV into a 220-volt power outlet rather than the recommended 120 outlet “because those are antiquated instructions” and “it’s my TV and I can do whatever I want to with it.”

“Well it is my TV to do what I want to with it but I’m going to blow that TV into smithereens if I put it in a 220 outlet,” Jeffress said.

Watch:

Ben Shapiro's Groundbreaking Advice for the GOP: Demonize Obama

Breitbart News Editor-At-Large Ben Shapiro is out with an innovative and pioneering game plan for Republicans: attack Democrats. Shapiro spoke to Pat Robertson today on the 700 Club where he maintained that Republicans lost the last election because they didn’t try to demonize President Obama, who “painted Mitt Romney as the worst guy since Stalin.”

That’s right, according to Shapiro, Republicans were simply too afraid to criticize Obama during the campaign.

Shapiro offers even more brilliant advice later in the interview, where he told Republicans to respond to allegations of racism by calling Democrats “racist for boiling racism down to anything with which you disagree; what that does is it demeans racism and makes racism into something that means nothing and that’s something that Republicans need to do on a more regular basis.”

He said that unlike conservatives, liberals “don’t have facts or evidence to back their positions.”

This revolutionary strategy is on display at Breitbart News, which recently ran an “exposé” on the nonexistent Friends of Hamas and cited a satirical article claiming Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy.

Watch:

Beck: John Wilkes Booth, Adolf Hitler, & Michael Bloomberg

Last night, Glenn Beck kicked off his program by showing off a couple of historical artifacts that he has acquired, including a handwritten copy of a speech delivered by John Wilkes Booth and an early edition of "Mein Kampf" signed by Adolf Hitler ... which he then tied to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's effort to ban the sale of sodas over sixteen ounces.

According to Beck, just as Booth and Hitler believed that they knew the proper solutions to the "crisis" they believed their nations faced, so too Bloomberg believes he is doing the right thing in trying solve the "crisis" of obesity.

"A lot of people have come in the past and said 'there's a crisis,'" Beck said, pointing to the Booth and Hitler documents, "We have to do something.  We have to do something. That always leads you to bad places":

Rep. Hultgren: Unlike 'Dangerous' Sex-Ed, Abstinence-Only Programs Have 'Incredible Success Records'

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-IL) appeared on Washington Watch yesterday with Family Research Council Tony Perkins to discuss his legislation that “would spend $110 million a year for the next five years on grants to abstinence programs around the country,” funding that would have otherwise gone towards comprehensive sexual education. He claimed that while the Obama administration backs “very dangerous and experimental education programs,” programs pushing abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum have “incredible success records.”

Far from having “incredible success records,” abstinence programs have a history of failure. Reports have consistently found that there is no evidence to support the claim that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs reduce premarital sex or teen pregnancy; on the other hand, studies show that comprehensive sex-ed decreases the rate of teen pregnancy and STDs.

Perkins: What you’re doing is you’re redirecting money from a program that has negative consequences and redirecting some of it into one that has proven to have positive outcomes.

Hultgren: That’s right, yes. Like you said, this has changed dramatically under President Obama and his administration and Kathleen Sebelius. Basically they see it as a slush fund that they can use however they want to and they are putting it into some very dangerous and experimental education programs for younger and younger children. What this would do is money that is already there would put it into programs that we know work. You look at the track record for abstinence education, incredible success records, kids really want to make good choices and if we give them good information it will just help them make these good choices.

Remembering Jennifer Carroll: America Needs 'Christians to Step Up and Lead This Country'

The news broke this morning that Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll has resigned from office over her ties to an organization that ran a series of "internet cafes" in the state that is now at the center of a racketeering investigation. According to reports, Carroll had close ties this organization and even appeared in a commercial for it in 2010.

These "cafes" are often borderline casinos that exist in a legal gray area by claiming that they are merely offering "sweepstakes" to customers.

So it is just a little too perfect that back in 2011, Carroll was a featured speaker at a Faith and Freedom Coalition event ahead of a Republican presidential debate in Florida, organized by none other than Ralph Reed, where she declared that America needs "good, solid Christians to step up and lead this country on a proper moral path":

You know the Bible says faith is believing in what is not seen, today unfortunately many in the media would like nothing better to ridicule Christians: they promote 'The Da Vinci Code,' they place doubt in the public’s mind that Christ was not risen and they condemn the 'Passion of Christ,' yet they sensationalize stories that call for the end of prayer in school and removing the name of God from our country’s pledge. Ladies and gentlemen, these are very sad times when we allow the minority to poison the minds of the majority. This is exactly what dictators and socialist rulers did.

Man does not have all the answers, some of our political leaders bow down to scientists and let them have the stage to push their evolution, but there’s nothing, nothing a scientist can make, that is exactly like what God creates.

Trust Him to give you the strength to fight back against those who want to take God out of our country. Trust Him to give you the wisdom to speak out against injustice and blasphemy of His name. Trust God to guide your path to bring about a righteous government. …

Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity is in a fight and it is one of the greatest trials we have seen in modern times. Without a doubt, America and her people are in grave need of prayer, divine guidance, protection, to have good, solid Christians to step up and lead this country on a proper moral path. I firmly believe that if we magnify God, our problems will be minimized.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/12/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 3/12/13

  • Ralph Reed wants you to get your tickets now for the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s 2013 "Road to Majority" Conference.
  • Sarah Palin is writing a book about Christmas which, ironically, nobody will ask for next Christmas.
  • Christian apologist Alex McFarland says "the survival of America depends on a revival of Christianity."
  • Right-wing blogger John Hawkins helpfully offers up a list of "10 Hollywood Celebrities Who Should Be Blacklisted By Conservatives."
  • Finally, in trying to encourage people to attend the upcoming "March for Marriage," NOM is comparing the upcoming Prop 8 and DOMA cases to Roe v Wade: "If you could go back to 1973, would you participate in a march to save society from the scourge of abortion? Would you go to Washington to show the Supreme Court that you are one of a multitude of people who are demanding that they not use our constitution to create a great moral and civic wrong?"

DeMint: 'Secular Socialistic' Obama Orchestrating Crises for Political Gain

Former U.S. Senator and current Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint appeared on Today’s Issues with American Family Association head Tim Wildmon where he reiterated his “no compromise” mantra by arguing that President Obama and his allies are so extreme that there is no point in working with them.

When Wildmon asked if Obama even “has a conscience,” DeMint pointed to a 2008 quote by Rahm Emmanuel, whom DeMint mistakenly called “Raul Emmanuel,” about the financial crisis to suggest that Obama and his allies are deliberately creating crises in order to implement sweeping policy changes.

“What they understand on the liberal side is that the failures of their policies actually have empowered them to actually advance their policies,” DeMint told Wildmon, “A financial/economic crisis allows the president to reconfigure our whole economic and cultural system to redistribute the wealth the way he wants.”

After blaming the left for the 2008 financial crisis, DeMint argued that Obama has a “secular socialistic view” and that his “policies hurt people.” Consequently, people with a “faith and freedom view” shouldn’t even bother working with him.

Listen:

David Barton Continues to Peddle Falsehoods

It has become pretty obvious by this point that David Barton simply does not care that various claims he makes as part of his standard presentation are demonstrably false; he will simply continue to repeat them as fact because they are useful in promoting his right-wing political agenda.

As we have noted five times already, Barton repeatedly insists that the Constitution is filled with multiple "direct quotations" out of the Bible, insisting that anyone who doesn't see them is simply "biblically illiterate;" an assertion he made again while speaking at Fellowship Reformed Church in Hudsonville, Michigan over the weekend:

And if you know the Bible and you know and read the Constitution, you will see Bible verses and Bible phrases all over the Constitution.  It quotes Bible phrases everywhere.  People today say 'oh, it's a godless Constitution, it's a secular document.' If somebody tells me it's a secular document, I know that they're biblically illiterate. They don't recognize a Bible verse when they see one because the Constitution is loaded up with direct quotations out of the Bible.

Of course, the only person who is illiterate here is Barton himself, as he is apparently unable to comprehend what the phrase "direct quoation" since none of the evidence he provides represent, in any way, "direct quotations."

But Barton wasn't done spreading falsehoods in this presentation, as he also repeated the claim that the Supreme Court ended mandatory Bible reading in public schools because it was causing brain damage to students:

[In 1963] the Supreme Court said no more Bible in schools. Now why would they do that?  We have 320 years, literally, of the Bible in school; the Supreme Court itself said this is without any historical precedent.  There is no historical precedent in our history for not having the Bible in schools, but it's time to take it out.  Why would they take it out?

Well, the Court explained why they would take it out.  As a matter of fact, they called on the testimony of a psychologist - they didn't have any historical precedent, they didn't have any legal precedent, but Dr. Solomon Grayzel told them what was going to happen if kids read the Bible in schools and they said 'that's what we thought.' And so here's the quote the Supreme Court pointed out in its decision on why we took the Bible out of schools; they said 'if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child.'

We've now discovered the Bible causes brain damage; we can't let you kids suffer brain damage, we've got to stop the brain damage.  That's the reason given by the Supreme Court on why the Bible went out of schools; it was psychological harm to children.

As we pointed out before, if you actually read the ruling in the case, you will find that the Supreme Court did not cite this as the reason for ending mandatory Bible reading in schools, rather the Court was merely describing the road the case had taken through the court system, noting that Dr. Grayzel's testimony had been heard during the initial trial.

Beyond that, Barton intentionally misrepresents the point of Grayzel's testimony itself, which was to note that forced Bible reading from a Christian perspective in public schools was potentially damaging to Jewish students:

Expert testimony was introduced by both appellants and appellees at the first trial, which testimony was summarized by the trial court as follows:

Dr. Solomon Grayzel testified that there were marked differences between the Jewish Holy Scriptures and the Christian Holy Bible, the most obvious of which was the absence of the New Testament in the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Dr. Grayzel testified that portions of the New Testament were offensive to Jewish tradition, and that, from the standpoint of Jewish faith, the concept of Jesus Christ as the Son of God was "practically blasphemous." He cited instances in the New Testament which, assertedly, were not only sectarian in nature but tended to bring the Jews into ridicule or scorn. Dr. Grayzel gave as his expert opinion that such material from the New Testament could be explained to Jewish children in such a way as to do no harm to them. But if portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be, and, in his specific experience with children, Dr. Grayzel observed, had been, psychologically harmful to the child, and had caused a divisive force within the social media of the school.

In both of these cases, it has been demonstrated time and again that the claims Barton is making are irrefutably false, but he simply does not care and continues to repeat them as truth as he delivers his pseudo-historical presentations to conservative audiences all across the country.

FRC: No Right to Have Sex Outside of Marriage, Society Should 'Punish It'

Family Research Council senior fellow Pat Fagan appeared alongside Tony Perkins, the head of FRC, on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his article which claims that Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 case that overturned a Massachusetts law banning the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people, may rank “as the single most destructive decision in the history of the Court.”

Fagan argued that the Supreme Court decision was wrong because it effectively meant that “single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.” “Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever,” Fagan said.

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have.



It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious