Tomorrow, FRC will host a lecture and discussion featuring former Susan G. Komen Foundation president Karen Handel "on the bullying of Komen by Planned Parenthood."
Gary Bauer says opposition to Michigan's "right to work" law is "a perfect example of the left’s anti-freedom agenda."
Jake Tapper of ABC News seems to have become Glenn Beck's favorite journalist.
David Barton says that "recent years have seen a rekindling of national interest in America’s true history ," a fact that is "borne out" by the success of his book "The Jefferson Lies." Pardon us as we scoff derisively.
Finally, Justice Antonin Scalia ought to be very proud to receive the support of Matt Barber: "[I]nsofar as homosexual behavior is a deviant form of human sexuality and that it deviates from natural sexuality between male and female as we were unequivocally biologically designed, Justice Scalia is right. In a world that is embracing moral relativism, Justice Scalia is a voice for the reality that there are things that are true and there are things that are not true."
James Dobson’s radio program Family Talk today aired a sermon by Pastor Laurence White, who has worked with conservative figures like Rick Perry, Glenn Beck, David Barton and Rick Scarborough as founder of the “Texas Restoration Project.” The Dobson-endorsed sermon blamed the Holocaust on the separation of church and state and warned of America’s imminent destruction mainly as a result of homosexuality and abortion, arguing that “God will destroy and God should destroy America” if the U.S. does not ban abortion. Despite White’s address, abortion rates are actually higher in countries where the procedure is banned.
Once again the nation is being led down the path to destruction and once again by and large God’s people are looking the other way. I don’t have to tell anyone in this room tonight how far that path to destruction we’ve already traveled. You see the evidence in families that are fractured and marriages that are broken; in young people that lose their way and often their lives in a maze of alcohol and drugs; in a culture that can no longer distinguish between lust and love; that is willing to tolerate the vilest perversion as an “alternative, acceptable lifestyle” while pestilence stalks the land; in public schools that have become facilitators for fornication and procurers for the abortionist knife; in a nation that has lost the moral will to distinguish between that which is right and that which is wrong: we know all too well how far down that road to destruction we have already gone.
We can win the next election or the next ten elections, we can balance the budget, we can reduce the deficit, we can bring down taxes and build the mightiest military machine on the face of the earth, but if we do no stop abortion then God will destroy and God should destroy America.
We are really starting to wonder if David Barton literally does not understand the meaning of the phrase "direct quotation" since he continues to falsely claim that the Constitution contains dozens of direct quotations from the Bible.
I could take you through most clauses of the Constitution, but it's interesting when you look at the Constitution and the clauses, if you know the Bible - and a lot of people don't; they look at the Constitution and say "oh, that's cool language." If you know the Bible, you go "that's a direct quote out of a Bible verse."
That's why so many Bible verses are directly cited in the Constitution. When people tell me the Constitution is a secular document, that tells me they're biblically illiterate because if you know the Bible, you'll instantly recognize these verses in Constitutional clauses.
As we have pointed out time and time and time and time again, not one of the Constitutional provisions he cites as evidence actually directly quote the Bible in any manner whatsoever, yet Barton continues to make this same false claim while insisting that anyone who points out the fact that he is lying is just "biblically illiterate."
Yesterday it was reported that a group of scientists had put forward a new theory that epigenetic marks may play a key role in determining why people are gay. According to press reports, these "epi-marks" determine how genes are expressed and are normally "erased" between generations, but in cases where they are not erased, they may be passed on from a mother or father in a way that can lead to a child becoming gay.
Which means, according to Bryan Fischer, that homosexuality might be a "birth defect" which could lead prospective parents to choose abortion:
As I have said before, I suspect that not even homosexual activists today want the gay gene to be found, even if it exists, because of advances in prenatal genetic testing. It is now possible to routinely screen for 3500 genetic defects while a child is still in the womb.
So these activists rationally fear that preborn children who are detected with this gene will be aborted before they even have the chance to be born. After all, if 90% of babies in the womb who are diagnosed with Downs syndrome never draw their first breath, what are the chances that parents disposed to abortion will not exercise the same choice with regard to the gay gene?
The scientists in Koebler’s article, in my view, are now resorting to genetic subterfuge and are coming dangerously close to saying that homosexuality is the result of a genetic defect, a genetic abnormality. In other words, read from one angle, these same scientists are saying that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect.
So in other words, when something goes wrong genetically, and these markers are not erased, the epi-markers which provide an evolutionary advantage to parents instead do evolutionary damage to their offspring.
Now these researchers are quite at pains to avoid saying anything like this, but the logic to me seems inescapable: Homosexual children, on this theory, are born evolutionarily and genetically disadvantaged. They have been overexposed or underexposed to testosterone because something has gone wrong in the process of genetic transmission. In other words, they are the product of a genetic abnormality at best, a birth defect at worst.
... I expect many abortion-minded parents will want to know exactly how strong this epi-marker is in their unborn children so they can decide whether or not to exercise reproductive choice.
In fact, I expect that if this theory gains some currency, it will not be long before we have legislation from the homoexual lobby prohibiting “sex-selection” abortions on any child carrying this epi-marker.
UPDATE: Fischer reiterated many of these same points on his radio program today:
Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus warned today that if the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) then the U.S. will likely legalize polygamy and incest “as society continues to slip down that slippery slope.” While speaking to Jim Schneider of VCY America’s radio show Crosstalk, Dacus also agreed with George Will’s assessment that “quite literally, opposition to gay marriage is dying,” alleging that teachers unions and Hollywood have spearheaded the “indoctrination” of youth.
Dacus: If the Supreme Court rules that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and that the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is unconstitutional, then we’re basically going to have an open heyday for homosexual marriage as well as other kinds of “marriage” being introduced and being protected through this case law precedent, such as polygamy, perhaps adult incest and who knows what else will be attempted to be added on.
Schneider: This past Sunday syndicated columnist George Will appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and said that the opposition to same-sex marriage is “quite literally dying” he said because opponents tend to be older Americans. What are your thoughts on this?
Dacus: Unfortunately, I have to agree with George Will on this. The polls show and the stats show that older people are the number one supporters of traditional marriage, they are older people and they are literally dying. The people who are the biggest proponents of homosexual marriage, they’re young people, they’ve come out of our public schools, the teachers unions have been establishing this agenda and this indoctrination through our public schools for quite some time. So they’ve succeeded in this indoctrination process in many of our public schools across the country for a new way of thinking, a new perspective. Along with Hollywood, we have a whole new mindset and in fact young people are overwhelmingly, I think it is 2:1, in favor of legalization of homosexual marriage. Of course, that number could easily change to include other forms of marriage as society continues to slip down that slippery slope.
“The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast” intent on “throwing children under the bus,” Barber claimed. He warned that gays are working to “turn our public schools into indoctrination centers” and “using these kids as pawns in a dangerous and selfish political game of chess.”
Barber: I know from personal experience dozens and dozens of former homosexuals, typically it’s through a relationship with Jesus Christ that they are able to come to a full and complete freedom from their unwanted same-sex attractions. We know the untold thousands of people who have left homosexuality, those results speak for themselves. You match that up against these anecdotal, unsubstantiated, politically motivated claims of suicidal thoughts and so forth, we see that this is clearly a political move; it has nothing to do with science or helping these children. They are using these kids as pawns in a dangerous and selfish political game of chess.
Barber: We’ve seen, as I mentioned before, thousands of people who have left homosexuality but they have to be able to establish that it’s fixed for legal purposes so that’s what it all boils down to, it’s all about the legality. We’re confident even the Ninth Circuit will hold that clearly this is an overreaching law that is politically motivated, intended to silence opposition to homosexuality and that simply on the science alone they just don’t have a leg to stand on.
Mefferd: You look at how the LGBT activists are operating in California and it just seems like there is no limit to what they want, it’s just one thing after another out there, they get one thing and then they move on to the next thing and they move on to the next thing and with great vigor.
Barber: That’s right. The homosexual activist lobby is an insatiable beast, as I’ve often said before. They do want everything that we’ve said that they wanted and that is not just affirmation of homosexuality but celebration of homosexuality under penalty of law, they absolutely want to turn our public schools into indoctrination centers and the narrative that people can and do leave homosexuality does not align with their political, cultural and legal goals so they are throwing children under the bus here—in order to try ends justifies the means agenda here.
On this week's "Hagee Hotline," Matthew Hagee answered questions from congregants and viewers, including one from "Zack" wondering why there is such a focus on homosexuality when the Bible says that everyone is a sinner and that all sins are equal.
Hagee replied that while it is true that all sins are equal, "all sin is not equal in its consequence." While lying or stealing do not separate others from God, Hagee warned that when a society accepts an "abomination" like gay marriage, it means that society has divorced itself from God:
After warning that a decline in the white birth rate will lead to the demise of American culture, Eagle Forum is now attacking racial and religious minorities for supposedly trying to “tear down traditional American culture” and “undermine Americanism.” As Kyle noted yesterday, Roger Schlafly (son of Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly) is taking a page from Bill O’Reilly in blaming President Obama’s re-election on Democrats who have been “badmouthing traditional American values” and “increasing government dependence.” Schlafly, who earlier claimed that people should fear that “immigrants do not share American values” and “will not be voting Republican,” writes that Republicans and WASP culture are the last bastions of “traditional American values” against “non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds.”
America was founded by WASPs -- White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. They had nuclear families, attended church, and believed in the Protestant work ethic. Republicans are seen as believing in traditional American values.
Democrats campaign largely by badmouthing traditional American values, and convincing various demographic groups that they are outside the Republican base, and hence better off voting Democrat. So non-whites, non-Christians, and non-marrieds vote Democrat out of group identifications. That is, they see it as being in their group interests to tear down traditional American culture.
Democrats never persuade voters based on reason or logic. They gain voters by increasing government dependence and by promoting changes to immigration policy, family law, and schools that increase the population wanting to undermine Americanism.
We used to have independent voters who decided elections by voting for who they thought were the better candidates. This election has convinced everyone that now elections are determined msinly [sic] by demographics.
Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage-affiliated Ruth Institute says there is not a “war on women” but a “war on women’s fertility” as a result of easily available contraception and women being encouraged to go into the workforce after college rather than getting married and having children:
"We are allowed to participate in a labor market, and in education, as long as we agree to chemically neuter ourselves during our peak child bearing years. When our children are the smallest and most vulnerable, we agree to place them in commercial care, that is if we're lucky to have any children. And if we're unable to conceive when we're finally ready, professionally and financially, we agree to submit our bodies to the trauma of artificial reproductive technology, including the over stimulation of our ovaries," Morse explained.
Alternatively, Morse described a potential career path designed for a female body this way: "Go to college for a liberal, not a vocational, education. Get married. Have your kids. Let your husband support you. It won't kill him, or you. Then go back to school, maybe, for an advanced degree after the kids are grown. Go to work. Then help support the kid's college in your joint retirement. And since we women live longer than men, we can be working longer than they are and let them relax a little bit."
Morse said she is not opposed to and finds nothing objectionable with women choosing not to have children. She also believes, though, that a pro-woman policy would insist that the education system and labor markets adapt to the needs of women who do not want to delay childbirth.
Morse provided several anecdotes, along with the empirical evidence, demonstrating that society views fertility as a problem to be solved rather than a gift to be embraced.
The Department of Health and Human Services' recent birth control mandate, requiring employers to provide birth control in their health plans, for instance, referred to birth control as "preventative care." The implication, Morse said, is that pregnancy is a disease or illness.
"I deeply resent the implication that the normal healthy functioning of my body is considered an illness," Morse implored. "The mandate itself is offensive and is evidence of a war against women's fertility."
Morse also complained that Medicaid, a government health insurance program for the poor, has many anti-fertility policies. Contraception is required, for instance, by program participants and made available to minors without parental consent.
Morse does "not accept that government has an interest in directing the fertility of poor people because there are too many." Indeed, Morse views the anti-fertility policies as an admission to the moral and fiscal failures of the welfare system.
"Change welfare policies to make them more sustainable and compassionate," Morse said, and "stop viewing the children of the poor as a problem for policy makers to solve by preventing their existence."
Morse also appealed to her Christian faith in defense of her position.
The typical secular feminist viewpoint, Morse said, replaced stability in marriage with stability in the workplace, and resents sex differences, "viewing them as some kind of cosmic injustice."
"Modern secularists insist that love, sex and reproduction be separated from each other for the sake of making men and women equal. But that view places men and women at odds with each other and encourages us to use one another – men using women for sex and women using men as combination sperm banks and wallets," Morse complained.