Perkins: 'Ironic' That Critics of Pedophilia in Catholic Church Want Boy Scouts to Lift Gay Ban

Before the Boy Scouts of America announced that they would delay discussions about the organization’s ban on gay members, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council argued on his radio show that it is “ironic” that “the very ones who are pushing this policy change in the Boy Scouts are some of the same ones that were screaming about the Catholic Church” over its handling of widespread child abuse cases. Perkins claimed that those who want the church to be held accountable for shielding priests who abused children “are putting the Boy Scouts into the same compromising situation.”

It’s kind of ironic to me, I thought…just on its surface it seems very ironic to me that some of the very ones who are pushing this policy change in the Boy Scouts are some of the same ones that were screaming about the Catholic Church and wanting them to be more transparent and liable for the damages that were done. The Catholic Church has paid out millions of dollars as a result of those cases of abuse that took place and now they are putting the Boy Scouts into the same compromising situation. It just does not add up.

Perkins said that “homosexual activists” will not serve as “male role models” since they want to gain access to the Boy Scouts in order to have “influence” over “impressionable children” just “as they have in the schools.”

We’re talking about young, impressionable children that even in this society today there are certain things we don’t allow them to decide for themselves. So we’re going to put these impressionable children in situations that could affect their safety. But beyond that, the whole purpose for the Scouts is to provide for male role models and at a time in our nation when over forty percent of our children are being born out of wedlock and in some places in the nation seventy percent-plus of our children are growing up without dads in the home, they need these male role models and the Boy Scouts does a great job in providing a male role model. I think a part of what is at play here is that the homosexual activists — not all, some — want to be able to get into the Boy Scouts to influence the next generation on the issue of homosexuality just as they have in the schools.

He even compared the BSA to Judas Iscariot for taking “thirty pieces of corporate silver” and jeopardizing “the well-being of the children” by shifting the policy on gay members.

This is the question they should ask themselves: will this policy change make Scouting better for the boys under our watch care? Will it make it safer? Will it make their experience in this journey from adolescence and childhood into manhood, will it make it more successful? I don’t think they can answer that in the affirmative, but that’s the question they should ask. It comes down to them making a choice between the well-being of the children who are under their watch care or thirty pieces of corporate silver. This is about standing up for principle, standing up for what’s true and what they know in their hearts is right, and not caving to the pressure of corporate elites who are trying to reshape America in their image.

What Is Terrifying Glenn Beck Today? Technology

It is unfortunate that Glenn Beck never attended college, because then he would have had ample opportunity to stay up all night engaging in long pseudo-philosophical debates about the hypothetical ramifications of emerging technology on the future of society ... and he could have gotten it out of his system.

Instead, he is doing it now, dedicating show after show to spreading increasingly panicked warnings about how humanity is about to reach a "singularity," an explosion in technological advances so significant that they surpass human understanding and control. 

This fast-approaching moment is Beck's current obsession because he is terrified that if progressives are in control when it happens, it will lead to abominations like "transhumanism" and atrocities akin to what happened under the Nazis:

You know what is even more terrifying than Beck's paranoid nightmares?  The fact that Beck reveals that he brought several members of Congress to his home recently where he made this presentation to them in person.

Right Wing Round-Up - 2/6/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 2/6/13

  • The Boy Scouts announced that the organization has decided to postpone the vote on whether to drop the prohibition on gay scouts and leaders, scheduled to take place today, until May.
  • Robert Knight says the core problem "is that America has been told that homosexuality is now moral and healthy and normal, even though it's none of the three. It's a sin. The Bible makes it clear it's sinful. It hurts people."
  • The "Heartbeat Bill" might be stalled in Ohio, but it continues to spread across the nation.
  • Hey, Mat Staver ... when exactly did the Department of Homeland Security designate the FRC and AFA as "potential domestic terrorists"?
  • Fox News has apparently finally gotten tired of paying Dick Morris to be wrong about everything and severed its ties with him.
  • Finally, the man who attacked the Family Research Council headquarters last summer has pled guilty ... and FRC continues to try to place the blame on the SPLC.

Dobson Falsely Claims It Is Now Illegal for Doctors to Provide Stents to Anyone over the Age of 70

If Congress had recently passed, and President Obama signed, legislation making it illegal for anyone over the age of 70 to receive a stent for treatment of heart blockages, you would think that is the sort of thing that might have made news and people would have heard something about it.

If such a law had been passed, you would think we'd be able to find at least one news story about is somewhere and it wouldn't be the sort of thing we'd have to learn third-hand from someone like James Dobson, who claims to have heard this unconfirmed report from some unnamed physician, right?

I have not had this confirmed, but a physician told me last week that Congress recently passed a law that has been signed by the President that would make it illegal to give people over 70 years of age stents for their heart.  Which means you're going to let them die. I don't know for sure if that's true, but that's the kind of thing that is coming.  In any competition between the young and the old, guess who is going to lose that?

Keyes: Gun Control Is Part of a Plan to Kill Hundreds of Thousands

Alan Keyes may no longer be the Religious Right superstar he once was, but rest assured, he is still active and remains just as erudite and unhinged as always.  Appearing recently via webcam on something called "The Talk to Solomon Show," Keyes declared that everyone knows that our society is on the verge of slipping into lawless chaos and it is therefore "insane" for anyone to be promoting any sort of gun control efforts at this time. 

In fact, said Keyes, any government official who supports gun control is doing so because they want average citizens to be rendered defenseless against the "criminals and psychotic folks" who are going to running wild in the anarchy to come because it serves the larger goal of curbing the global population and the effort is "intended to make sure that people will be slaughtered by the thousands and the hundreds of thousands":

Thomas More Law Center Warns SCOTUS Gay Rights Victory Would Lead to 'Ideological Totalitarianism'

The Thomas More Law Center, a right-wing legal group whose advisory board includes Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Rep. Allen West, is warning the Supreme Court that a ruling in favor of marriage equality would lead to “ideological totalitarianism” and hand gay rights advocates “a legal weapon with which to beat down ideological opponents.”

In an amicus brief filed last week [pdf], Thomas More argues:

To enshrine one side of a deeply divisive issue in constitutionally untouchable concrete is to fashion a legal weapon with which to beat down ideological opponents, at the cost of intellectual liberty. For this Court to say that it is irrational or illegitimate for a government to recognize, and act upon, the distinction between the potentially procreative marital act, and every other sexual act, would be for this Court implicitly to declare as irrational, benighted, or bigoted, all those individuals who adhere to the traditional view of marriage.

Already those who dare to voice objections to any part of the political program of various LGBT advocacy groups risk vilification, marginalization, or worse. Liberty suffers when one side of a debate is delegitimized as a matter of constitutional law.

….

In Lawrence, this Court has held that sexual acts between persons of the same sex may not be prohibited. But to go further and say that no government may treat such acts as different, for purposes of government policy or official recognition, from the unique marital acts of a man and a woman, would be enormously to expand the constitutional power this Court already affords sexual choices as such. To take that additional step would be to declare unacceptable and illegitimate the recognition of the uniqueness of the marital act. Those who subscribe to that recognition, in turn, then become pariahs, ignoramuses, or bigots in the eyes of the law.

Opponents of the legal redefinition of marriage already face the prospect of significant retaliation. Equating such persons, as a matter of constitutional law, with racist rednecks or backwards fools, serves as a legal license to continue or increase the legal and social marginalization of such persons. The price is the loss of liberty for those individuals who can no longer obtain gainful employment in their fields….and the loss of intellectual diversity for larger society…This Court should not foster the imposition of what would be, in effect, an ideological totalitarianism, i.e., a regime in which the unquestioning acceptance of the same-sex marriage movement represents the only permissible point of view. (Citations omitted)

The Thomas More Law Center is prone to this sort of dramatic prediction. The group unsuccessfully sued the Justice Department over the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which it claimed would create “a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior.” The group further claimed that "the sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin." The Shepard-Byrd Act, of course, only imposes jail sentences on people who have actually committed crimes and has yet to “criminalize the Bible.”

Religious Right's Last Stand to Block Chuck Hagel

While it is becoming extremely unlikely that the GOP will be able to muster enough votes to filibuster Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary, Religious Right groups and their Republican allies continue to make new and more over-the-top overtures to activists hoping to block his confirmation.

For example, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that “we can’t afford to allow someone who has been that cozy with the terrorist groups that are out there to become Secretary of Defense.”

Inhofe went on to say that Hagel wants to “disarm us” and shows “hostility” toward the U.S. and Israel. Inhofe also cited Sen. Ted Cruz’s questioning of Hagel where he egregiously misrepresented the nominee’s speeches and interview with Al-Jazeera.

Inhofe: That is what is so scary about this; we’d be confirming a secretary of defense—

Perkins: That wants to basically disarm.

Inhofe: Who wants to disarm us. Before I run out of time, Cruz came up with something just great, he’s a new senator from Texas and he’s on my committee, the Armed Services committee, and he came out and he actually used…a spot that came from Al-Jazeera, this was Chuck Hagel being interviewed on Al-Jazeera a short time ago when he agreed with the call-ins at that time that Israel committed war crimes; Hagel admitted that Israel committed ‘sickening slaughters’; admitted that America is the world’s bully. And this is the guy that is trying to become the secretary of defense; it’s a scary, scary thing.

Perkins: Senator before I let you go, just one question: do you know why he seems to be so indifferent if not hostile toward Israel?

Inhofe: And the United States, Tony. I just don’t understand it. Of course, he denies that he is and you know the record confirms that he has this hostility to it. By the way, almost every group in Israel is lobbying us and calling us and saying, ‘please don’t let this happen.’ They’ve been just as concerned about Obama, this is the first time that any President of the United States has trashed Israel in my memory. So I can’t answer that question.

Matthew Hagee, the son of televangelist John Hagee who has been lobbying with Christians United for Israel against Hagel and called him “dangerous to America’s security,” said on the Hagee Hotline that Hagel’s contentious confirmation hearing was an answer to their prayers.

At the end of the day, Pastor Hagee and those 400 [pastors] who joined him were very confident that what they had done was all that was in their physical power to do to not only represent their views as Americans but the views of the body of Christ and the kingdom of God and to stand up on behalf of God’s chosen people, Israel. All that was left to do was to remain in prayer and to be hopeful that the actions that they had taken would make a difference. If you saw any of the headlines following the Senate committee’s interview of Chuck Hagel, you know that a difference was made. You saw that the Senate firsthand was able to expose Hagel’s weaknesses and you saw the difference that the prayer of the righteous and faith in action can make.

Just today the Family Research Council asked activists to pray for Hagel’s defeat and FRC senior fellow Ken Blackwell said Hagel’s nomination invites “chaos and confusion at a time of international peril.” Eagle Forum told members in an action alert that “Chuck Hagel is a threat to America’s strength and safety” and Rick Santorum claimed “his confirmation would be a direct threat to our national security.”

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer also weighed in, saying that Iran “loves” Hagel because he wants to “disarm” the U.S.

Brooklyn Bishop Views Obama as the Anti-Lincoln

Brooklyn’s Roman Catholic Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio is out with a column arguing that voters who supported President Obama’s re-election have brought America a “step deeper into the culture of death” and aided “the forces of death.” He claims that Obama “has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God” and is behind “an assault on the people of faith in our country” through his support for a woman’s right to choose.

DiMarzio concludes that unlike Abraham Lincoln, Obama has not “stood on the side of freedom for all” but instead “stands on the side of political expediency.”

On Jan. 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This Executive Order freed the slaves in the 10 states that were in rebellion. It was not until 1865, with the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, that slavery was abolished in the United States.

How far we have come as a Nation that 160 years later we will celebrate the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States.

Yet, we also commemorate the 40th anniversary of our national shame: the lamentable Supreme Court decision, Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the nine months of pregnancy.

The so-called “pro-choice” movement has its roots in the ideology of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who understood her call to be one who would “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.” Of course, a young Barack Obama was precisely the sort of unfit child that Sanger and her allies would want to eliminate.

Tragically, the President has not been an advocate for those young children faced with similarly difficult circumstances. He has chosen to use the bully pulpit not to call upon us all to be nobler and to embrace each child, regardless of origins and circumstances; rather, he has been a proponent of an expediency that is shameful and criminal in the eyes of Almighty God.

The forces of death press on from every side in contemporary American culture. It is clear there is an assault on the people of faith in our country. For instance, there are the current health insurance reforms that were imposed on our Nation obligating Catholic institutions to provide employees with medical procedures and services we believe to be in defiance of the will of God.



In my view, those who voted for President Obama bear the responsibility for a step deeper in the culture of death. Under the cover of women’s issues, we now see an assault on religious freedom and personal conscience.

In our own state, Governor Andrew Cuomo has proposed the largest expansion of abortion rights in New York State history. The irony is that our leadership is proposing this at a time when increasingly more Americans oppose abortion and support greater restrictions upon abortions. New York State, which already holds the record for the most abortions in our country, is now expanding this culture of death. We may lose, but we will stand up for what we believe.

Some may think my tone a bit strident and even un-nuanced. Maybe the time has come for more direct conversation on these matters, if we hope to preserve what is left of our God-given and Constitutionally-protected rights.

Abraham Lincoln was a man who understood the intersection between politics and nobility. He never would have been able to pass the Thirteenth Amendment in 1863. But he started by freeing “slaves” in the Confederate States with his Emancipation Proclamation.

I would have hoped that the first African-American president of the United States would have stood on the side of freedom for all. Instead, he stands on the side of political expediency. Mr. Lincoln, with great difficulty, put out into the deep and paid with his life. Would that our political leaders today would have some of the same courage.

WND: Gay Rights Advocates Are 'Homogrifying the Scouts,' Similar to Nazi Invaders

WorldNetDaily’s Barry Farber has quite a stern warning for the Boy Scouts of America if they go through with the now-delayed proposal to allow troops to accept gay members. Farber claims that any move towards “homogrifying the Scouts would hijack the very mission of scouting and turn the organization into a beehive of erotic exploration.” He warns that “admitting gays openly into the Boy Scouts is rather like insisting cigarettes be lit as close as you can get to the nozzle while the gasoline is being pumped.”

“In our Southern culture, you weren’t a ‘man’ until you’d ‘slugged a queer’ who approached you,” Farber said. “I failed the test. I always just rejected the advance and got out of there.”

He even compared the tactics of gay rights advocates to the Nazis who tried to intimidate and overpower their opponents.

Gays in the Boy Scouts? Scoutmasters, yet! Five years ago I’d have sooner believed you if you’d told me there was a campaign to grant long-repressed rights to blind hunters. How could such a preposterous idea zoom into serious consideration by the Boy Scouts? I may know the answer. The world may have seen it previewed on April 9, 1940.

The night before, Nazi German general Nikolaus von Falkenhorst had checked into the KNA Hotel in Oslo, Norway, in civilian clothes as a shoe salesman. Early the next morning he walked down the staircase resplendent in his German general’s uniform to greet his troops in their surprise invasion of Norway.

“It was brilliant,” a Norwegian friend told me. “We were psychologically defeated before we even knew we were under attack. There was a German military parade in downtown Oslo! When you see a parade you think, ‘This is planned. This is official. All this is somehow OK.’” There you have it. A parade makes everything seem somehow OK.

And what an awesome parade we’re watching to smash the traditional Boy Scout policy! The parade begins at the White House and includes all liberal politicians and those dependent on liberals for re-election, the media, the faculty, lots of clergy – I’m not sure there’s any room left for actual gays in that parade. And, like those super-stunned Norwegians, the rest of us are standing curbside, watching with dropping jaws.

America, have you gone mad? Don’t you remember being a 12-to-15-year-old boy? And weren’t you girls “awakening” at about the same age? Don’t you realize that homogrifying the Scouts would hijack the very mission of scouting and turn the organization into a beehive of erotic exploration? I don’t fear gay boys hitting on straights as much as I fear straights asking, “What’s this ‘gay’ stuff all about? Is there anything in it for us?” I also fear for the safety of young gays who, innocently or opportunistically, give a wrong smile or say the wrong thing to the wrong straight. In our Southern culture, you weren’t a “man” until you’d “slugged a queer” who approached you. I failed the test. I always just rejected the advance and got out of there.

The battle to diminish youth sex was lost – surrendered – with the schoolhouse condom giveaways. To a young teenager, that was the grown-up world telling you, “We know you’re going to do it, and we want to help you do it right.” And what message would the welcoming of gays into the Boy Scouts send? “Gay-play must be OK, or the grown-ups wouldn’t allow us to be camping, swimming, showering, sleeping, horsing around and walking through the woods together!” Admitting gays openly into the Boy Scouts is rather like insisting cigarettes be lit as close as you can get to the nozzle while the gasoline is being pumped.

From condemnation to condone-nation in one parade! The Nazis didn’t have it that easy in Norway.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious