Sandy Rios Warns Gay Rights Lead to 'Fascism' and a 'Lack of Freedom'

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios today warned listeners that gay rights advocates are promoting a form of “fascism” and that gay equality will result in a “lack of freedom.” 

Rios: We all watched the inauguration recently of the President and we saw on the platform where things lie. We know that if you think that homosexuality is a problem you will not be allowed into public service hardly in any way. If you think that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt, if you have a problem with that, then you are out of the adoption business. I think it is fascism personally; I would go to that extreme and say that, it’s a lack of freedom.

Her guest Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union also criticized gay rights supporters and argued that any shift in the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay membership “would destroy the Boy Scouts,” and later called for a “new board of directors” who would not “entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals.”

Knight: What they are saying is they are going to leave it up to parents and local councils and Scout troops on whether to allow homosexual leaders and members in. This would destroy the Boy Scouts, let’s cut to the chase, what parent would put their young boy under the authority of men who are attracted to males and take them camping and swimming, etcetera. It’s not designed to make the scouts fairer it’s designed to destroy the Boy Scouts as we know them.



Rios: There’s really no pressure in the courts and the financial pressures they were facing earlier had subsided so this is like a new assault on them, isn’t it? Now they are coming out because of the corporate angle.

Knight: Yeah and I think what people have to do is say the Boy Scouts need a new board of directors if they are going to entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals. This is about getting corporate money so they can keep their fat headquarters in Texas. Think about it, Scout troops raise money locally they can survive just fine without corporate donations, but not the people at the top, they are the ones who ought to be replaced.

Right Wing Round-Up - 1/29/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 1/29/13

  • Bryan Fischer warns that “homosexual pedophiles already seek to infiltrate scouting because it provides a target rich environment for their twisted desires. Abolishing the sexual orientation standard will turn every Boy Scout in America into vulnerable prey for the sexually deviant.” 
  • Peter LaBarbera claims the BSA’s “proposal opens the door to the sexual and spiritual corruption of boys.”
  • Lindsey Graham continues to be the biggest troll in the Senate. 

Fischer: 'Big Gay' Will Cause Your Daughters 'To Be Sent Into Combat to Die'

As we noted earlier today, the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has  claimed that both the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the end of the ban on women serving in combat positions will deter so many volunteers that the military will be forced to reinstate the draft.

On Focal Point today, Fischer drew a direct line between “Big Gay” and women in combat. “Malicious” and “sinister” gay rights activists, he claims, are “trying to destroy the military,” which will ultimately mean “they’re going to have a tough time filling their ranks with qualified soldiers. So they’re going to have to go to the draft, and that means your daughters are going to be pulled into the draft and they could be sent into combat to die, whether they want to do it or not, because of Big Gay.”

Watch:

Buster Wilson Claims Gays in the Boy Scouts Will Lead to Abuse, Death and the Destruction of America

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson is a B-list version of Bryan Fischer, but he does a good impersonation in his latest rant against the Boy Scouts of America for considering a change in their ban on gay members. Wilson claims that gay men sometimes have “as many as a hundred or more partners” and will put Boy Scouts in “compromising” situations. He even argues that a ban on gay scouts is a good thing because excluding them will prevent them from being bullied and contemplating suicide:

There is no mistaking the fact that homosexuals are known, by their own admission, to have multiple sexual partners, sometimes as many as a hundred or more partners. Shocking, I know! But you see we make a dreadful mistake when we think of the homosexual relationship in the same vein as we would think of the average heterosexual relationship. They are not the same and they do not function the same.

I know that all homosexuals are not pedophiles. But, are you willing to take a chance with the life of your son that a homosexual that has been placed in the position of a Scout Leader, will not, will never put your son in a compromising situation? Really? If you do, you’ve redefined “faith” in a whole new way for me. The Scout oath requires a Scout to commit to “God and Country” to be “morally straight.” I don’t see how a Scout could ever make an oath before God to be morally straight when he has submitted himself to be led, trained, educated and modeled after one whom God has already described as immoral.

The gay community is very concerned about gay children being bullied and wrestling with suicide. I am dreadfully worried about those issues as well. No one, including me wants a child to be bullied and certainly we would never want a child to wrestle with much less choose suicide. But what could happen when you place a gay kid in a group of straight kids in a closed environment such as Scouting: is there not an increased worry of bullying and rejection that might cause a child to think of suicide?

Wilson makes it quite clear that he believes gay Scout leaders will molest children:

Imagine with me a troop of young boys, ranging in ages from 12-16. These young boys are going to be out in the woods, away from their parents. Not just away from their parents but away from any contact with their parents. Back in my day, there were no cell phones. And today, most camps sites are out cell range.

They would be out in the woods for 2-4 days, nights, depending on what time of the year it was. They will sleep in pairs or threes, in sleeping bags, in tents or out in the open. They will shower and wash in the creeks or lakes that outline their camp site. It would be nothing for boys to wonder about with their shirts off, or sometimes just in their underwear or swim suit because they had just been to the latrine or to the swimming hole. These will all be under the direction of the Scout leader who led them there.

Now, you could say that I am setting up a scenario that is just my own. That there are no reports of the kind of activities that my evil mind is conjuring up, that our homosexual friends want nothing more than to lead these young men to maturity and personal growth and I’m evil for believing that such horrible thoughts could actually become reality. But then, I would refer you again, to my friend Bryan Fischer’s latest article where he reminds us all of the Jerry Sandusky story.

Seeing that Sandusky is married to a woman, he would not have been barred by the BSA’s current ban on gays.

He goes on to argue that children will be “challenged” and “compromised” by gay Scouts as they will not “be safe in that environment.” After smearing gays as child molesters, Wilson naturally accuses gay people of trying to “denigrate” and “smear” others.

There will be multiple occasions for them to be out in the woods alone—without you mommy and dad, without any way to get a hold of you mom and dad—and you’re going to send them out there in the woods with a man who is an avowed homosexual? You really have safe that they are not going to be challenged or compromised? Then I say you have a faith that redefines the whole issue of faith as far as I’m concerned. How you would ever believe that your child would be safe in that environment. And why the Boy Scouts are doing this? I can tell you why they’re doing it. They’re doing it for the same reason that every other organization or area of American life would succumb to the demands of the homosexual lobby: they’re doing it because of political correctness and they’re doing it because of the Alinsky-style opposition that is in place, if you oppose homosexuality they will mock you, they will denigrate you. They will belittle you, they will smear you and talk about you being intolerant and unloving and un-Christ-like. If you are a Christian organization they will call you a hate group.

Wilson even warns that if the U.S. continues to “succumb to the pressure of political correctness from the forces on the side of the homosexual agenda,” then God may “rain down destruction” on America as he did to Sodom:

There’s also this level of understanding this as a bad decision spiritually. I’m a Bible-believer, I’m a Christian and I think many people who listen to this program are and in our Bible we see God rain down destruction on an entire city and people group because of the wickedness of homosexuality. I don’t want to continue to see every area of life in America succumb to the pressure of political correctness from the forces on the side of the homosexual agenda. I am worried about what God will do with this nation if we are not careful.

Schlafly Says 'Feminist Ideology' Unfairly Blames Men for Sexual Assaults

As the Obama administration continues to be a complete nightmare for antifeminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, the Eagle Forum president is out with a new column attacking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta over his decision to end the ban on women in combat. She claims the policy shift is “lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists” and even makes a bogus analogy to the NFL.

Schlafly said that the rate of sexual assaults “will skyrocket” if the ban is removed and also attacked the “feminist ideology” for blaming men for such incidents: “Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims.”

In a newsworthy act of political cowardice, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ran through the Pentagon’s exit door as he announced he is striking down the 1994 Combat Exclusion Law. His timing means his successor, presumably Chuck Hagel, will inherit the task of defending the order to assign women to front-line military combat.

Of course, Panetta doesn’t want to be grilled about his order. It’s lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists.



Military women are already complaining about increased sexual assaults, and of course those problems will skyrocket. Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims. [emphasis added]



How do you answer the fact that women do not have an equal opportunity to survive in combat situations, and did you consider the fact that women in the military get injured at least twice the rate of men? Please explain why the National Football League does not seek diversity or gender equality with female players.



A lot of people have a very sanitized view of what battlefield fighting is all about. They seem to think it means a quick gunfight and then returning to the base with separate shower and toilet facilities and a ready mess hall.

Donnelly: 'Lives Are Lost' if Military Drops Women in Combat Ban

The last few years have been tough on Elaine Donnelly, as the Phyllis Schlafly protégé appears to have lost the battle over her group’s two main priorities: maintaining the ban on openly gay service members and excluding women from combat positions. Donnelly, the head of the Center for Military Readiness, appeared on Secure Freedom Radio last week with Frank Gaffney to demand that Congress intervene and block the Obama administration from permitting women to serve in combat.

She predicted that “lives are lost” if women have the opportunity to serve in such units, which she arged would make the military’s mission “more difficult [and] more dangerous.” “This is the political agenda of the President,” Donnelly said, “we see the outgoing Secretary of Defense planting on the Pentagon the flag of feminism right next to the LGBT gay activist flag.”

Gaffney: What does it mean for the war fighting capabilities of the United States that we are relaxing the standards or we are enabling people who will not be able to meet them to get access to and become part of the military cadre?

Donnelly: When you complicate matters in infantry battalions you make life and missions there more difficult, more dangerous, bottom line: lives are lost. There is no excuse for doing this. We know that women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men and it’s been that way for decades. This is the political agenda of the President that is being imposed on the one institution or the one organization that he can order as Commander-in-Chief and everybody has to salute and make it work. That includes the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they are going along with this even though they have not disclosed the results of the marine tests. Now if the marine tests supported the goal of women being in the infantry, don’t you think we would’ve heard about it by now? Instead, we see the outgoing Secretary of Defense planting on the Pentagon the flag of feminism right next to the LGBT gay activist flag. These people are in charge of the Pentagon unless Congress intervenes and Congress has the responsibility to intervene. Under the Constitution, Congress makes policy, not the President, not the Joint Chiefs and certainly the field commanders who will have to implement these diversity metrics in order to get promoted.

Perkins Warns Allowing Women In Combat Will Lead to Reinstatement of the Draft

On his radio program on Friday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins added his voice to the Religious Right’s collective outrage over the Pentagon’s decision to allow women to serve in combat positions. The move, Perkins warned, will decrease morale and deter volunteers to the point that “we will have to reinstate the draft.”

I spoke with Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma earlier today about this. He is the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he is probably going to be joining me next week on the program. We talked about it and he says the Pentagon will – they don’t have to by law, they don’t have to get a congressional action – but they will be presenting their proposal to Congress. Congress could stop it. Now, I’m not very optimistic that Congress has the backbone to do anything about that. We’ve seen that before on ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’

We’re going to be tracking this very close because, again, this is a national security issue. I didn’t even get into the issue, don’t have time today, but with all of the social engineering that’s going on in our military, I do not think we’re far off from the very real possibility of having to reinstate the draft. Now think about that for a moment. Walk that out. We have to revert to the draft because all of the morale issues and what’s happening in the military, people are not volunteering to join, so we get into another major conflict, we have to reinstate the draft, and all of a sudden they’re drafting our daughters to serve in combat.

Perkins is not alone in his fears. The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer also warned last week that the new policy would cause a “complete sexual meltdown” in the military and a subsequent reinstatement of the draft.

It may be of some comfort to Perkins and Fischer to note that their similarly dire predictions about the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” – including Fischer’s prediction that “the draft will return with a vengeance and out of necessity” – have not come to pass. Not only has the draft not been reinstated, a study by a group of military school professors one year after the repeal of DADT found that the repeal “had no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions, including cohesion, recruitment, retention, assaults, harassment or morale.”
 

Anti-Gay Activists Slam Boy Scouts for Endorsing 'Deviant Sexuality'

The Religious Right continues to push back against the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to reconsider their sweeping ban on gay members, many resorting to unfounded claims that homosexuality is tied to child abuse.

Talk show host Janet Mefferd pointed to a major sex scandal and cover-up in the BSA as a reason to maintain the prohibition on gay membership, and then agreed with a caller who compared letting gays serve as troop leaders to “letting the fox watch the hen house.” 

Later, Mefferd attacked LGBT rights advocates for “trying to silence and trying to shame” supporters of the anti-gay policy and said that any shift in position will “decimate the Boy Scouts.”

WorldNetDaily’s David Kupelian wrote that “a little bit of America will die” if the Boy Scouts rescind their sweeping ban on gay members, and warned that the Scouts will lose the trust of the public and God. He also pointed to the Catholic Church as an example of how open homosexuality leads to sexual abuse, which is an odd choice seeing that the church, like the BSA, already has a prohibition gays in positions of authority.

Now the big question in all this, of course, is the following: With these sex-abuse cases within the Boy Scouting organization, just as those within the Catholic Church, are we dealing with actual “pedophiles” or with predatory homosexuals?



America is in a time of great crisis on many fronts, and much that is good we are in danger of permanently losing. The Boy Scouts of America is one of the most important and loved and truly valuable organizations in American history. It is literally a sacred trust between one generation and the next. The Supreme Court is on their side. Public opinion is on their side. God is on their side.

Why on earth would they trade all this away by giving in to pressure from people who detest them and everything they stand for?

A little bit of America will die if the Boy Scouts organization gives in to the pressure and makes this decision. You might want to let them know how you feel. You can reach the Boy Scouts of America at 972-580-2000. Tell them how much you appreciate them – and tell them to stand strong.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality accused the Boy Scouts of “capitulating to immorality” and promoting “deviant sexuality among the boys.”

"If you take all that and you still come out strong, that's a victory," he says. "But if you allow all of that pressure to then change your values -- which is what they're doing here -- to accommodate homosexuality, then you've given in. You've let the bad buys win."

"It's very sad to see the Scouts cave on this," he continues. "If you capitulate to the homosexual lobby, you're capitulating to immorality; and you're not being morally straight as the Boy Scout creed says."

According to LaBarbera, parents do not want homosexual Scoutmasters going with their boys on campouts. "And you don't want homosexual Boy Scouts either because you don't want to have one homosexual Scout going around telling everybody about his homosexuality and how he's out and proud and everything. You don't want that influence of deviant sexuality among the boys itself."

"... Parents need to contact the Scouts and say Stick to the original policy ... Keep the Scouts morally straight."

Southern Baptist Convention vice president Sing Oldham claimed that the Boy Scouts are “spelling their own death knell.” SBC president Fred Luter warned that churches may withdraw their sponsorships of BSA troops:

"If that is what the leadership is doing, then I think it will be a sad day in the life of the Boy Scouts of America," Luter told Baptist Press. "This is a tradition that so many of us across the country grew up in. We were in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts in elementary school, and this organization has always stood for biblical principles -- all the things that grounded our lives as a young kid growing up. To now see this organization that I thought stood on biblical principles about to give in to the politically correct thing is very disappointing."

Luter also said he believes the Boy Scouts will "lose a whole lot of our support," with Southern Baptist churches choosing instead not to sponsor a unit.

"A lot of them will just pull out," Luter said. "This is just something we don't believe in. It's unfortunate the Boy Scouts are making this decision."

Oldham even said that the SBC is ready with a replacement for the Boy Scouts, called the Royal Ambassadors:

"Churches of all faiths and denominations, including Southern Baptist churches, will be forced to reevaluate whether they can, in good conscience, continue to host Scout troops given that the Scouts appear poised to turn their backs on this clear biblical and moral issue," Oldham said. "If the Scouts adopt these changes, I anticipate the SBC Executive Committee will issue a statement at its February board meeting expressing its deep dismay at this decision of the Scouts. This move may result in a boost for the convention's Royal Ambassador program as churches scramble for an alternative boys organization that remains grounded in a consistent, biblical worldview."

The American Family Association in an action alert for members asserted that any policy change “will destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution.”

Next week, the Boy Scouts of America will decide on whether it will keep a long standing policy of not allowing homosexuals to serve as volunteer leaders, or to change that policy and allow open homosexuals to participate in the scouting program. See our story at OneNewsNow.

If the BSA departs from its policies on allowing homosexual scoutmasters and boys in the program, it will destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution.

While news articles conclude the latter as a forgone conclusion, the final decision has not been made.

Bryan Fischer Explodes: 'Not One Loving Father' Should Entrust Son to the Boy Scouts if Gays Are Included

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association said that a change in the Boy Scouts’ ban on gay members would be a “suicide mission” and lead to pedophilia. While speaking to AFA news director Fred Jackson yesterday on Focal Point, Fischer said that gay men are “ten times” more likely than heterosexuals to molest children, and it would be “insanity” to have them “bunking down with your kid at jamboree.”

“To me it’s just suicidal, they are finished, they are done,” Fischer told Jackson, “There is not one loving father in America that ever, ever, ever ought to entrust his son to the Boy Scouts of America.”

Watch:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious