Matt Barber: Voting For Gay Marriage 'Cancer' Has Brought 'Great Shame And Great Embarrassment On The Irish People'

Matt Barber is predictably unhappy that the residents of Ireland overwhelmingly voted to legalize gay in their country, declaring on Liberty Counsel's "Faith and Freedom" radio program today that Ireland is now in rebellion against God and has succumbed to the "cancer" that will ultimately destroy western civilization.

"What we saw happen in Ireland was clearly a mass rebellion against God's design, clear design, millennia-old design for the institution of marriage," he said. "As history has shown over and over again, any society that abandons monogamous man-woman marriage as a central aspect of that culture and embraces sexual relativism as they have now done in Ireland, that culture and that society is not long for the world."

Barber went on to say that not only has this vote brought "great shame and great embarrassment on the Irish people," but it also signals that the cancer of moral relativism is sweeping across western civilization.

"I don't know how much longer we can expect [to survive]," he said. "Certainly, this novelty of so-called gay marriage is going to be one of the primary, I believe, drawbacks that end up potentially leading to the end of western civilization as we certainly know it now, at least."

 

Alan Keyes: Voting For Gay Marriage Like Voting For The Holocaust

Conservative activist Alan Keyes says that Ireland’s decision to approve marriage equality in a national referendum is just as wrong and unjust as “if the people of Germany voted tomorrow to renew the Holocaust. 

[W]ould the cardinal say the German state is duty-bound to re-open the death camps?” he asks, referring to a Roman Catholic cardinal who said that he would respect the vote. Respecting the marriage equality law, Keyes writes today in WorldNetDaily, is the “kind of spurious legalism” that “helped goose-step Germany into Hell in the last century.”

Keyes adds that the Nazi Holocaust comparison is not off-base since “misleading millions of people into mortal sin will be a spiritual holocaust.”

“It’s déjà vu all over again.” In an article at LifesiteNews.com, I read that, in response to the referendum in Ireland favoring homosexual “marriages,” Walter Kasper, a German cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church, said: “A democratic state has the duty to respect the will of the people; and it seems clear that, if the majority of the people wants such homosexual unions, the state has a duty to recognize such rights.” So if the people of Germany voted tomorrow to renew the Holocaust, would the cardinal say the German state is duty-bound to re-open the death camps? That kind of spurious legalism helped goose-step Germany into Hell in the last century. Do German cardinals now propose to do the same to the Roman Catholic Church in this one?



Surely misleading millions of people into mortal sin will be a spiritual holocaust, with quite possibly eternal consequences. Does Cardinal Kasper think those spiritually deadly consequences are unreal? We learn from another Lifesitenews report that one of Cardinal Kasper’s liberal co-conspirators, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, is “well-known for his support for the ‘Kasper agenda’ and a prominent defender of the ‘value’ of homosexual unions.” Of course, the term “value” is valueless except in the context of some standard of judgment. Given the Catholic Church’s reliance upon natural law as an expression of God’s will, it’s reasonable to assume that both these cardinals still uphold that standard.

So what value does God assign to homosexual relations? For males, the Old Testament scroll of the law calls such relations an abomination (Leviticus 20:13). That term suggests a negative value, as does the death penalty the Torah prescribes for homosexual behavior.



Finally, when he asserts that it is right to follow the majority’s will when they purport to approve as lawful what God condemns as odious under the law, Cardinal Kasper is following the trendy idolatry of self-willed freedom, wrongfully abused, that now defames the name of right. By doing so, he casts away God’s standard of natural right. And he accepts an understanding of sovereignty that even pagan philosophers rejected. A sovereign act must always take account of the common good. When that good is not being respected, sovereign authority is not in play.

In such a circumstance, the will that purports to wield the sovereign power is not an exercise of sovereign right. It is a wrongful abuse of power that people of good will have, in principle, a duty to resist, not to obey. And this is true whether the specious exercise of sovereignty is that of the Irish people, the U.S. Supreme Court or the people of the United States, however assembled.

Right Wing Round-Up - 6/4/15

  • Warren Throckmorton: David Barton’s Unreal Appearance on Family Research Council’s Washington Watch.
  • Media Matters: IA Radio Host Mickelson: I Assume "You're Not Here Legally" If Your Name Is Hispanic And You're Involved With Police.
  • Evan McMurry @ Mediaite: Even Fox’s Dr. Keith Ablow Thinks the Duggars Blew It.
  • Catherine Thompson @ TPM: Duggar Endorsements Disappear From Huckabee's Campaign Site.
  • Joe Jervis: Hate Group Leader Kayla Moore Passes Along Fake Story About Hillary Clinton.
  • Jeremy Hooper: Man who's in court defending 'ex-gay' therapy says Satan is behind gay rights.
  • TFN Insider: How Did the Tea Party/Religious Right Lose So Badly on LGBT Discrimination in the Texas Legislature?

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 6/4/15

  • Rest assured that the National Organization for Marriage has a plan in place "in the event the court rules against us, illegitimately deciding that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is somehow unconstitutional."
  • Rick Perry has become the latest Republican to announce that he is seeking the 2016 presidential nomination.
  • Ted Baehr is not supportive of Caitlyn Jenner's transition: "Bruce is clearly suffering from the delusion that 'changing' one’s sex will make one happier. This is akin to the alcoholic thinking that one more drink will help get him through the day, the drug addict thinking that one more drop of acid will make him feel better, or the adulterer thinking that leaving his wife for his mistress will make his life much better."
  • FRC prays for a desperately needed "spiritual awakening and moral renewal" in America.
  • Finally, Jan Markell says that "somebody has to pave the way for the anti-Christ, and I believe Barack Obama is doing that."

Savage: Obama's A Terrorist And Jews Who Support Him 'Want To Die'

Yesterday, Michael Savage responded to David Axelrod’s claim that President Obama described himself as “the closest thing to a Jew that has ever sat in this office.” According to Savage, Obama is not far off … but only when it comes to the Jews who are “fools” and “idiots.”

“He’s right, liberal Jews in the Upper East Side of Manhattan and he are one in the same,” the right-wing talk show host said. “Yeah, he’s the best friend Jews ever had, self-hating Jews who want to die. No question about that.”

After all, Savage believes that Obama is “the terrorist in the White House” who is destroying America and who wants to bring in “the criminals and the perverts and the rapists and the terrorists.”

He continued: “So if an enemy were to break our borders, we would say he’s a terrorist, right? What if an enemy were to debase our language? What if an enemy were to destroy or decimate our culture? You would say he’s a terrorist, wouldn’t you?”

Savage: Obama 'Injecting' Immigrants 'Like A Virus' Into 'All-White Communities'

On Tuesday, right-wing talk show host Michael Savage criticized President Obama as a “con man shyster” who has the “nerve to make believe that he has suffered from white privilege, he has suffered from the things of slavery.”

Savage continued, saying that Obama is attempting to destroy America by “injecting, like a virus, Muslims from Syria into all-white communities in America” and taking “infected children from Honduras and put[ing] them in every school district that he could.”

The radio host continued that Obama wants to bring about “Section 8 housing on a national level,” hoping to “inject low-income troublemakers” into “an all-white suburban community” and “then you let the games begin.”

Why Hasn’t Obama Asked For Donald Trump's Secret Foolproof ISIS Plan?

Likely 2016 make-believe presidential candidate Donald Trump is offended that nobody from the Obama administration has called him up to ask for his “beautiful” and “foolproof” plan to beat ISIS, which he says he wouldn’t actually give to the Obama administration because “they’re all a bunch of clowns.”

Trump first teased his “beautiful” but secret anti-ISIS plan in an interview with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren last week, and returned to the subject in a conversation with Iowa talk radio host Simon Conway yesterday:

Saying that Generals Douglas MacArthur and George Patton “must be spinning in their grave” at the Obama administration’s handling of ISIS, Trump said that, in contrast, he knows of “a way of beating ISIS so easily, so quickly, so effectively, and it would be so nice.”

“I know a way that would absolutely give us guaranteed victory,” Trump told Conway, adding that he doesn’t want to say his “foolproof” idea because, “number one,” people will forget it was his idea and “number two,” it would tip off the enemy.

When Conway asked if he had run his idea “past any generals, any SEALs, anybody with military experience,” Trump replied that he “ran it past two or three people” who of course “love it.” But, he lamented, nobody from the Obama administration has called him to share this brilliant idea, which he compared to the invention of the paper clip.

“So simple. It’s like the paper clip,” he said. “You know, somebody came up with the idea of the paper clip and made a lot of money and everybody’s saying, ‘Boy, why didn’t I think of that, it’s so simple.’ This is so simple, so surgical, it would be an unbelievable thing. Now, I’ve been around saying this, you would think somebody from the administration would at least call me and say, ‘Hey, could you tell us what it is?’ It happens to be a great idea. But at the right time, I guess I’ll give it. “

He then added that he’d be reluctant to share his idea with the Obama administration anyway, because “they’re all a bunch of clowns.”

 

Glenn Beck Laughably Claims That Nobody Has Objected To Caitlyn Jenner's Transition

It is obvious that Glenn Beck lives in a very isolated bubble and that if certain information and/or events do not happen to penetrate that bubble, then he is confident that such information and/or events do not exist.

This was perfectly demonstrated on his radio program today when he and his co-hosts had a discussion about Caitlyn Jenner's gender transition and Beck absurdly proclaimed that nobody thinks it is a big deal and even conservatives have no problem with it.

"I wish you happiness," Beck said. "I don't hate Bruce or Caitlyn and I don't know anybody who does. What's so striking here is, if you're a liberal, you would expect there to be a massive outrage, especially since he came out and said he was conservative ... Have you heard any push back from any conservative? You didn't hear any of that."

This is laughable, especially since we have written several posts in just the last few days of Religious Right activists doing just that.

Bryan Fischer said Jenner's transition is a sign that America is "morally corrupt" and on the verge of destruction, while Alex McFarland has called it "demonic" and Sandy Rios said it was "a human tragedy." Michael Savage said that Jenner belongs in a straitjacket, and Beck's good friend Ted Nugent said that Jenner was mentally ill and a "Bizzarro World Planet of the Apes over the cuckoos nest clockwork dayglo orange Mad Magazine spoof on life."

Heck, even Dana Loesh, who hosts a show on Beck's own network, made it very clear that she was "not welcoming Bruce Jenner into the sisterhood."

If Beck has not heard "any of that" sort of talk about Jenner, it is only because he hasn't been paying attention.

Ann Coulter: Birthright Citizenship The 'Invention Of One Mentally Delusional Supreme Court Justice'

One of Ann Coulter’s new favorite talking points, which she uses in her new anti-immigrant book “Adios America!” and has repeated in various media interviews, is that the U.S. has “taken in one-fourth of Mexico's entire population."

Earlier this week, Politifact gave that claim a “Pants on Fire” rating , noting that Coulter is comparing the number of people of Mexican heritage living in the U.S. — including people who’s families have been in the country for generations — with the current population of Mexico, which is kind of like saying that the large population of Irish Americans means that the U.S. has “taken in” Ireland’s population seven times.

But this, of course, is all part of the media’s persecution of Ann Coulter, at least according to her friend Joyce Kaufman, a conservative radio host in Florida, who cited the Politifact story in an interview with Coulter yesterday as an example of the media “going crazy trying to debunk facts.” The Mexican-American citizens Politifact mentions, Kaufman said, are “anchor babies” and therefore “should not count” as being Americans.

Coulter agreed, saying that granting birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants — something consistent with the history of the 14th Amendment — was an “invention” of the “mentally delusional” Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in the 1980s.

“This doesn’t go back to the 14th Amendment,” she said, “this is the invention of one mentally delusional Supreme Court justice. And he’s turned the most precious possession in the universe, citizenship in this wonderful country, into a game of tag with the border control. If they don’t catch you, you get to drop the baby and say, ‘Ha ha ha, I just had the baby and you can’t do anything!’ It’s madness.”

Larry Pratt: 'The Second Amendment Was Designed For People Just Like The President' And 'Democrats Who Want To Take Our Rights'

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, spoke to Roger Fredinburg on his far-right radio show in April about the attempt by Congress to restrict armor-piercing bullets. Pratt, responding to Fredinburg’s theory that the left wants to take away everyone’s rifles, said “we figured that’s kinda what they were up to.”

“The Second Amendment was designed for people just like the president and his administration,” Pratt said. “And yes, if the New York Times and the Rolling Stone, and whoever else wants to have a hissy fit, yes, our guns are in our hands for people like those in our government right now that think they wanna go tyrannical on us, we’ve got something for ‘em. That’s what it’s all about.”

“The Second Amendment,” he continued, “is not about hunting, it’s not about target shooting, it’s about Democrats who want to take our rights.”

Fredinburg, building off of the tyrannical Democrats theory, argued that “if you’re a Christian or subscribe to traditional Judeo-Christian values today, you’re considered a hate monger...if you’re a pervert, a deviant, a derelict, you know someone who’s captured by a decadent lifestyle, whatever, your rights are protected. But the good people, their rights are not being protected.”  Pratt, agreeing that the left hates guns and religion, replied, “What a rhetorical sleight of hand, isn’t it?  They say they’re for diversity, they say they’re for freedom of speech, and ‘you’re free to say anything you’d like as long as you agree with me.’ What hypocrites!”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious