Pamela Geller Ally Testifies on Behalf of Anders Breivik's Defense

Back in 2010, Pamela Geller announced the formation of an international “coalition of the free” to stop the supposed “overthrow of our western civilization” by Muslims. One of the groups Geller said she is working with is SIO Norway (Stop the Islamization of Norway), and today the leader of SIO Norway testified in court to bolster the defense of Anders Behrin Breivik, the Norwegian right-wing terrorist who murdered scores of Norwegians at a left-wing youth retreat and bombed a government building:

Norwegian right-wing extremists decried the "Islamisation" of their country as they took the stand Tuesday in what Anders Behring Breivik's defence hopes will help prove he was sane when he killed 77 people in Norway last year.



Earlier, Arne Tumyr, who heads the organisation Stop the Islamisation of Norway, virulently attacked Islam, which he described as "a religion of violence, a religion of wars", and the Muslim Prophet Mohamed, who he called "a sexual delinquent, a looter of caravans, an assassin, a war criminal."

"We consider Islam as a threat to the Norwegian society and values," he said, claiming for instance that a daycare centre had been forced to remove a reference to Piglet, Winnie-the-Pooh's friend, so as not to offend Muslim children.

Although the witnesses expressed views similar to Breivik's, none of them openly supported his attacks.

Following objections from lawyers for survivors and family members of Breivik's victims, defence lawyer Geir Lippestad insisted the testimony was necessary to show that his client was sane.

"Our aim is not to argue in favour of a political opinion but to show that the way the accused views the world is shared by others," he stressed.

Breivik, 33, is intent on proving his sanity to ensure that his ideology -- described as a crusade against multiculturalism and a pending "Muslim invasion" of Norway and Europe -- not be written off as the rantings of a lunatic.

Geller had blamed the Norway attacks on Muslims, and Breivik cited Geller twelve times in his manifesto. After it came out that Breivik, not radical Islamists, were behind the atrocities, Geller then attacked the victims for their political views and diverse racial makeup.

Donnelly: 'The Civil Rights Movement is being Co-Opted by the Advocates of Diversity, by Advocates of the LGBT Equality Group'

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness talked to James Dobson today on Family Talk about the expansion of the roles of women service members and the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which they warned will have horrific ramifications. Donnelly, who has warned that allowing women in combat roles and gays to serve openly will lead to the military’s downfall, told Dobson that the culture of the military is in grave jeopardy due to the “process of diversifying and imposing LGBT agendas,” maintaining that “the civil rights movement is being co-opted by the advocates of diversity, by advocates of the LGBT equality group.”

The new concept of inclusion is a radical departure from the military’s honorable tradition of recognizing individual merit. In fact the armed forces were way ahead of the civilian world in recognizing individual merit regardless of race, regardless of gender even, but the way we’re going now, the civil rights movement is being co-opted by the advocates of diversity, by advocates of the LGBT equality group. There are a lot of influences under the current president who unfortunately are in the driver seat in the Pentagon and they are making some serious problems here. Can it change? Yes, the military is resilient, but right now people have got to become aware, first of all, of what’s happening and secondly, figure out a way to do something about it.

I think every major conservative cause there is has taken a beating in the last several years, whether it’s health care, whether it’s the economy, our banking system, all kinds of things have been seriously harmed in the last three years. So are we going to give up on all of that? No, I certainly hope not, not as Americans. But the military is different because it’s the only military we have. If you cause problems in education, you can always homeschool; you can go to a different school system, if you don’t like your state you can move to another state; but if something is wrong with the culture of the military—Reagan had an easy job with it, all he had to do was rebuild the ships and the planes and the hardware—but rebuilding the culture of the military after we go through this process of diversifying and imposing LGBT agendas and lowering standards to accommodate it all, this is going to be more difficult.

Barber: Scott Lively 'Really is a Hero' Who is Doing 'Kingdom's Work'

Earlier this year, a Ugandan gay rights group sued notorious anti-gay activist Scott Lively in US court for allegedly violating international law over his role in Uganda's proposed "Kill The Gays" bill.

Shortly thereafter, the notorious anti-gay activists at Liberty Counsel stepped up to represent  Lively  and on today's installment of "Faith and Freedom," Matt Barber and Harry Mihet explained that they were doing so because Lively is really a courageous hero who ought to be commended for the kingdom's work that he has been doing but who has become instead the victim of violence from gay activists:

Right Wing Round-Up - 6/4/12

Right Wing Leftovers - 6/4/12

  • Janet Porter is not giving up in her push to pass her "Heartbeat Bill," declaring that "if the Senate denies our vote before the recess, this summer will be open season on RINOs."
  • A group of pastors that have never supported President Obama or anything he has done are now "heart-broken" over his support for marriage equality and requesting a meeting.
  • Conservative radio host Neal Boortz is retiring and will be replaced by Herman Cain.
  • Shockingly, Religious Right activists are not enthused about seeing new gay superheros in comic books.
  • Finally, our congratulations to Matt Barber on his new gig writing exclusive columns for the web's most reputable news outlet: WorldNetDaily.

Rep. Jeff Landry Baselessly Claims the Obama Administration offers Muslim Airline Passengers 'Waivers' to bypass TSA Screenings

Today on Jay Sekulow Live, Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA) discussed with the American Center for Law and Justice’s Chief Counsel an amicus brief that the ACLJ is putting together on behalf of the congressman in the lawsuit against the Obama administration’s mandate for health insurance plans to include contraception coverage. Landry maintained that the Obama administration is showing its “hypocrisy” by mandating that religiously-affiliated hospitals and universities cover contraception in their health insurance plans while also “granting special status or waivers to Muslims as they go through TSA screenings.”

The congressman’s allegation that the Obama administration is giving Muslim passengers “special rights as they go through the TSA screening” doesn’t seem to have any basis in reality, as the TSA on its website gives no mention of religious exemptions and TSA administrator John Pistole testified that anyone who wants to avoid a pat down based on religious reasons is “not going to get on an airplane.”

Sekulow: How big of a deal, how big of an issue is this both in the body politics [sic] and among your constituents?

Landry: Down here in south Louisiana this is huge, this is very important to my constituency. I think the biggest problems that a lot of Americans are having out there is the hypocrisy of this administration. Remember, this is an administration who has no problem granting special status or waivers to Muslims as they go through TSA screenings. Look, as they believe that there is a need to grant them special rights as they go through the TSA screening based upon their religion, that’s fine, I’m ok with that. But then don’t turn around and attack Christians when they stand up and say ‘listen, we believe that the policies you’re putting in place violate our religious freedoms as well.

Landry warned that if the contraception mandate, which he called a “dangerous” exercise of power, is upheld then there will be “no limit to what the federal government can do”:

This strikes at the very foundation of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, if we allow the federal government to violate this principle there is no limit to what the federal government can do thereafter.



To me this is one of the biggest cases brought forth in the country in a long, long time. I got to tell you, my hat’s off to the Catholic bishops around America, they have gotten to the point where they understand that this exercise that is going on with the federal government is a dangerous one. If they allow this to happen, if we allow this to happen as Americans, as Catholics, as Christians, there is no limit to where the government goes from here. You know, Jay, to me that is the biggest danger, that should be the biggest concern, I mean where does it stop after this?

Rep. Trent Franks says Abortion Rights Supporters are on the 'Wrong Side' of 'History and Eternity'

Last week, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) appeared on Jay Sekulow Live to voice support for his PRENDA bill, which would ban abortion on the basis of gender. Franks admitted that the legislation was essentially a ruse to push the criminalization of all abortions, and while PRENDA received a majority of votes it failed to pass because it needed a two-thirds majority to pass under the suspension of the rules. Franks intends to bring the bill up again for a vote.

On Thursday, Franks told American Center for Law and Justice executive director Jordan Sekulow, who was sitting in for his father, that opponent of his bill will be “on the wrong side of justice and the wrong side of humanity, both in history and eternity.” Back in 2009, Franks dubbed President Obama an “enemy of humanity” due to his support of abortion rights.

Sekulow: People are calling this show, congressman, and saying ‘why is this so controversial? How is this even having to be debated?” But we’re one of those countries, congressman, that has no laws on this whatsoever.

Franks: That’s true. There’s a lot of reason why this gives the left indigestion. It shouldn’t. They should just say, ‘you know what this is a good bill and we’re going to vote for it because if we don’t we’re going to find ourselves on the wrong side of justice and the wrong side of humanity, both in history and eternity.’ You know this is a serious, serious issue.

Perkins: Americans Will Never Accept Gay Marriage Because it 'Violates Reason and Natural Law'

Recently, Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson sat down for a half-hour interview with CBN's David Brody to discuss President Obama's support for marriage equality and what it will mean for the 2012 election.

Brody has posted the entire interview on his blog, in which Perkins compared the issue of gay marriage to the issue of abortion, declaring that Americans will never accept the legitimacy of gay marriage, regardless of what the courts rule, because "same-sex marriage violates reason and natural law" and warning that any Supreme Court ruling upholding the legality of gay marriage will "create great unrest in this society": 

For his part, Jackson saw the President's statement as an opportunity to create a new "Black-Brown coalition" among African Americans and Hispanics rooted in opposition to the Democratic Party's growing support for gay rights and fueled by resentment against gay activists who are trying to push minorities to the back of the line. 

Jackson said comparisons between the push for gay rights and the struggle for civil rights are nonsense because systematic discrimination and violence against the gay community "never happened" and warned that if African Americans and Hispanics don't escape the "Democratic Party plantation," then "America's best days are over": 

MassResistance Grieves Advances in Same-Sex Marriage 'Madness' and 'Lunacy'

More and more activists on the far right have blamed the recent political and legal victories of gay rights advocates on what they perceive as reluctance among conservatives to attack gays and lesbians more directly and aggressively. In response to a recent court ruling that struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional, MassResistance said that supporters of the law must do more to challenge DOMA opponents’ underlying claims that gays and lesbians are “simply a minority group whose rights are illegally being denied by the federal government.”

“As long as homosexual behavior is not presented as abnormal, medically dangerous, and morally repugnant,” the group writes, “we will continue to lose.” MassResistance lamented the use of “cowardly” legal arguments that stress the importance of opposite-sex relationships instead of explicitly attacking homosexuality, concluding, “any legal argument on homosexual ‘marriage’ is bordering on madness, because the concept itself is sheer lunacy. We need to start saying that.”

The decision thus asserts that homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" are legitimate and unassailable from a moral or other standpoint. And from that assertion, homosexual "marriage" and heterosexual marriage are morally and legally interchangeable. And homosexuals are simply a minority group whose rights are illegally being denied by the federal government. This is all the homosexual groups needed to move forward.

The homosexual movement knows it cannot accomplish its goals through the ballot box (they've lost 32 state elections in a row). They've had some success through massive lobbying of state legislatures. But their most direct way is through corrupt courts. Taking down the DOMA law is key to forcing the imposition of "gay marriage" throughout America despite the votes in those 32 states. But it's still a considerable legal challenge to do it all at once. So by successfully attacking this narrow part of the DOMA law -- federal benefits and income tax filing status -- the homosexual movement opens the door to sebsequently [sic] dismantling all the rest of it.



As long as homosexual behavior is not presented as abnormal, medically dangerous, and morally repugnant we will continue to lose. If other side is allowed to portray homosexuality as normal and natural (but something conservatives simply are "bigoted" about) in their legal arguments, they will always eventually prevail. We cannot concede those points and instead attempt to argue on the basis of "legal" reasoning, the historical "purpose" of marriage, or weak-kneed arguments such as "every child needs a mother and father." But unfortunately that is exactly what too many pro-family lawyers and pro-family spokesmen do. It's the "respectable" path. But it's cowardly, ineffective, and the road to hell (so to speak).



The next step is the US Supreme Court. Will they agree with this? We certainly hope not, but it's frighteningly possible.

Our side has a terribly bad record of winning these kinds of court cases -- for the reasons stated above. In the grand scheme of things, any legal argument on homosexual "marriage" is bordering on madness, because the concept itself is sheer lunacy. We need to start saying that. As George Orwell once said, "We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." Let's hope that the House of Representatives' legal team can find it in themselves to do the right thing.

AFA's Wilson Warns Marriage Equality Will Make America Disappear: 'This is a Nation-Killing Issue'

After arguing that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to man-dog and man-car marriage, the American Family Association’s Buster Wilson last week on Today’s Issues alleged that the U.S. may disappear if the country approves marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Wilson stated that “nations in history’s past” that allowed same-sex marriage “no longer exist.” “It is a nation-killing issue,” Wilson stated.

Wilson:  I want to tell you something. We got thirty two or thirty three states when given the opportunity for the people to vote on whether or not to make a constitutional amendment in their state saying that marriage is between one man and one woman, all of the states that have voted on it have voted for it, we’ve got thirty two or thirty three of them now that have voted that way.  What does that tell you?  I believe by and large Americans are of the mindset that if I can try and capture the secular mind of the American public it might be something like this: I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your bedroom, I don’t care who you love or don’t love, but I don’t want to take something that’s s bedrock as marriage for over 5,000 years and put in law that it’s changed.  That’s scary, and it’s wrong. And if you like looking at history at all, it is very easy to see the nations in history’s past that have done that kind of thing no longer exist.  It is a nation-killing issue.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious