Kathleen Parker

Folks, when even self-styled “conservatives” like Kathleen Parker (left) boast about how they teach their children to be accepting of homosexuality (she would use the PC parlance “gays and lesbians”), you know that those of us who believe in timeless moral standards have our work cut out for us.  I don’t know what led to Parker sellout out, but I’ve had it up to here with “conservatives” who no longer see the need (or have the guts) to conserve Judeo-Christian moral values. Funny how the likes of Parker talk a good game about not being “judgmental” but they have little problem judging the “Christian Right.” — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

P.S. Would it have killed Chris Matthews to include an actual opponent of homosexuals in the military in his MSNBC talkfest — or was the psuedo-conservative Parker his idea of “diversity”?

TAKE ACTION: Contact your Congressman and both Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and urge them NOT to allow open homosexuality in our military. Urge them to OPPOSE H.R. 1283, the Homosexualize Our Military Act (aka the ”Military Readiness Enhancement Act” ), which would establish a pro-homosexual “non-discrimination” code in the military — thus turning the conservative culture of our Armed Forces into a de facto “gay pride” zone where homosexuality — destructive, immoral and changeable conduct — is affirmed as a “civil right.” If H.R. 1283 becomes law, tradition-minded servicemembers would be “re-educated” to adhere to the new, twisted definition of ”tolerance.”

__________________________________________

Homosexuals in the Military 

By Laurie Higgins, Illinois Family Institute, Feb. 17, 2010

The issue of homosexuals serving openly in the military is so complex that writing about it seems overwhelming.

First, there is the problem of reconciling both Article 125 of the Military Code of Justice and U.S. Code – Section 654 that strictly prohibit those who engage in homosexual acts or those who state that they are homosexual from serving in the military with the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy that serves as a defacto law superseding actual law.

“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” implicitly says homosexuals can serve as long as they don’t openly acknowledge that they are homosexual. That’s like saying that company policy strictly bans the use of company computers to view porn, but employees can view porn as long as they don’t tell anyone. Either it’s permitted or it’s not.

Despite what some advocates of homosexuals serving openly in the military claim, military prohibitions against homosexuals serving in the military no more encourage deceit, than do laws prohibiting stealing encourage deceit. To claim that laws that prohibit certain behaviors encourage deceit is another way of saying people are always going to break laws. In this twisted logic, all laws encourage deceit because those who don’t want to abide by them willfully engage in deceit in order to do what they want without incurring the consequences.

We can’t always prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law, but that unfortunate reality should not compel society to repeal laws. In other words, society ought not repeal laws in order that those who refuse to obey them are freed from the consequences of lawbreaking. The fact that throughout history there have been homosexuals who enlisted in the military in violation of military law that prohibits them from serving should not compel the military to rescind the law.

Removing the prohibition against allowing openly homosexuals from serving in the military will result in a whole host of other problems, among which are the following:

• It will result in discomfort among some soldiers with engaging in private activities like showering with men who admit to being sexually attracted to other men. Yes, throughout history homosexual men have served in the military, but heterosexual men are unlikely to be uncomfortable showering with homosexual men when they don’t know they’re homosexual.
• If military law is changed to allow openly homosexual men and women to serve, there will undoubtedly be an increase in homosexual activity in the military. To argue otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.
• Coercion between openly homosexual military officers and their subordinates will likely increase.
• Some men may choose not to enlist or re-enlist if they will be compelled to serve with openly homosexual men.
• Romantic affiliations will develop which will likely affect combat decisions.
• The military will eventually have to provide military housing for same-sex couples.

(For more on the potential impact of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, click HERE to read an editorial by Richard H. Black, retired chief of the Army’s Criminal Law Division, who as a marine pilot flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam.)

Political commentator Chris Matthews made yet another silly statement on his Sunday morning program on Feb. 7 when he said that anyone who wants to serve in the military should be allowed to do so. Apparently, neither the mission of the military nor its needs must be allowed to supersede the almighty desires of any particular individual. His statement reflects the troubling thinking of so many Americans who now believe that any good or desirable thing constitutes the object of a right. If they see something they want or something they want to do, many people believe they have a Constitutional right to have it or do it.

Homosexual couples want to participate in the heterosexual institution of marriage, so same sex “marriage” is now their “right.” Homosexual couples who are designed to be sterile want babies, so having babies is now their “right.” Men who are sexually attracted to other men want to serve in the military, so now serving in the military is their “right.”

Homosexuals, and increasingly “transgenders,” are compelling society through erroneous and unproven ontological assumptions to radically redefine foundational societal institutions. All of their efforts are based on acceptance of the deceit that homosexuality is ontologically equivalent to skin color or other immutable conditions that have no behavioral moral implications open to moral assessment.

Homosexuality is not by nature equivalent to skin color, nor is it morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Conservatives especially need to recognize how much they have appropriated the absurd proposition that homosexuality is akin to race, and they need to stop treating it as if it were.

After reading about a recent poll that reveals that the opinions of both civilians and younger military personnel are shifting in favor of allowing openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military, I found myself wondering why the views are changing so dramatically. Chris Matthews posed that question to his guests MSNBC correspondent Norah O’Donnell, New York Times writer Andrew Sorkin, Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, and Time Magazine assistant editor Michael Duffy, and received surprisingly insubstantial, question-begging answers.

In response to Matthews’ question, “Why have attitudes (on homosexuals serving in the military) changed since Bill Clinton confronted that issue back in ‘93?” O’Donnell said “I think there’s greater acceptance.”

Sorkin said, “The world’s changed, but I’m going to say it’s about social networking, it’s about the Internet. I think so many people are so much more open in a whole new way than they’ve ever been, and therefore people who were unaccepting before now see it in a whole different way.”

Kathleen Parker said, “we parents have raised our kids to not be judgmental and to be accepting of gays. We all know more gay people than we used to, or think we didn’t know before.”

Duffy said, “the reason is that our teenagers are just 100 times more tolerant than their parents about everything.”

What these responses brought to mind was one of Jack Handey’s Deep Thoughts: “One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked if the equator was a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn’t know, and I thought that maybe by laughing he would forget what he asked me.”

Parker responded by saying that children have been raised to be less judgmental, which really means that many have switched their judgment from homosexual acts are immoral to the judgment that homosexual acts are moral. Does Parker really want people to stop judging between right and wrong, or does she want people to make moral judgments with which she agrees. Does she want people to be non-judgmental when it comes to racist behavior, or adult consensual incest, or corporate malfeasance?

What none of Matthews guests did was to offer an account of the reasons why society’s judgments are changing, which is the crux of the matter. Has it happened through careful study of the best thinkers writing on the subject of morality, sexuality, the needs of the military, or the place of institutional disapproval in maintaining a healthy society?

Or have other factors and forces altered the judgments of society:

• Have judgments shifted through the relentless spate of images and ideas promulgated through music, films, novels, plays, essays, the news media, advertising, and public education that implicitly and explicitly affirm unproven assumptions about homosexuality?
• Have judgments shifted as a result of the absolute censorship in public schools of the writing of scholars who offer thoughtful, erudite expositions of conservative perspectives on the nature and morality of homosexuality?
• Have public judgments shifted as a result of relentless ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to say publicly that volitional homosexual acts are immoral?
• Have public judgments shifted as theologically orthodox churches cowardly retreated from engaging in this public debate and from equipping their members to engage in it?

The tragic reality is that the affirmation of openly homosexual men and women serving in the military reflects not only society’s acceptance of the fallacious claim that homosexuality is analogous to skin color/race, but also of society’s rejection of any standards regarding sexual morality:

• Marriage has been severed from sex, and from procreation, and from childrearing, and increasingly from “gender.”
• Sex has been severed from marriage, procreation, childrearing, and “gender.” Polyamory-or as polyamorists like to call it, “ethical non-monogamy”-is increasingly visible and likely increasingly practiced.
• Fornication and co-habitation are not merely accepted; they’re expected.
• Homosexuality is everywhere promoted as normal and good.
• Exhibitionism is common on reality shows, primetime comedies and dramas, films, music videos, and college campuses.
• And paraphilias, also known as fetishes, are played for laughs on sitcoms.
• Even lighthearted references to and depictions of incest have appeared in television programs and films.

Why wouldn’t a generation weaned on positive images of sexual perversion and immorality support openly homosexual men and women serving in the military?

What society needs to think seriously about is whether some forms of institutionalized disapproval of sexual immorality through laws or policy serve a good and necessary social function.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and homosexual activist Dan Savage (right) ridicule FOX News' Brit Hume for saying that Tiger Woods needs Christ's forgiveness.

Well, we extolled Brit Hume and his sage advice to Tiger Woods, so now we have to give you some of the hyperventilating comments from America’s reactionary secular bigots, headquartered at MSNBC, of course. That includes the left-wing network’s chief blowhard, Keith Olbermann, who joined self-described “radical sex-advice columnist faggot,” Dan (“Three-Way”) Savage, in ridiculing Hume’s heartfelt Christian outreach to Woods.

Why on earth is Olbermann still a TV commentator for NFL games (for NBC Sports)? Seems that if the NFL cannot tolerate Rush Limbaugh as an owner, why does it allow a mean-spirited, Christian-bashing, hard-left talker to be connected to the league in any way? Let’s see if we can help to change that. — Peter LaBarbera, www.aftah.org

TAKE ACTION: Please join us in urging the NFL and NBC to drop Olbermann from his NFL media duties.  Here is the NFL Comment Page and the NBC Sports Contact Page. E-mail NBC Sports directly at nbcsportshelp@nbcuni.com; or send a regular-mail letter to:

NBC Sports — Please Fire Keith Olbermann

c/o National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY

My good friend and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber writes:

______________________________

The Crucifixion of Brit Hume

By Matt Barber
Friday, January 08, 2010

During the Roman Empire’s secularist era those who acknowledged the deity of Christ were frequently fed to the lions to entertain – for lack of a better word – the “progressive” elites of the day. There’s little doubt that if many of today’s secular-“progressives” (more accurately: “moonbat liberals”) had their way, Caesar Obama would call out the lions once again.

Nothing makes the left lose its collective noodle like an open proclamation of Christian faith. You don’t see it when Muslims proselytize in government schools; the ACLU doesn’t sue when Wiccans share their witchy ways; militant “gay” activists don’t picket Buddhist temples with bullhorns while inhabitants grasp at Zen. No, there’s something about Christianity that just drives ‘em nuts. Always has. Always will.

Case in point: Recently, on two separate occasions, Fox News veteran Brit Hume both publicly pronounced his own faith in Jesus Christ and boldly suggested that Tiger Woods might find “forgiveness and redemption” for his serial philandering should he “turn to the Christian faith.”

Hume first offered Tiger the advice on “Fox News Sunday” and then reiterated his sage, though decidedly non-PC council on “The O’Reilly Factor” the following night. When asked by host Bill O’Reilly what kind of response he’d received for his comments, Hume replied, in part: “It’s always been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it. You speak the name Jesus Christ… and all hell breaks loose.”

Yes indeed.

After Hume made his comments, and as if on cue (Lord forgive them for not knowing what they do or why they do it) liberals went apoplectic. Here’s a small sampling:

As reported by CNSNews.com: “Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post , in a Tuesday column, demanded that Hume apologize and called his Christian remarks ‘even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year.’”

MSNBC’s reliably raspy Keith Olbermann accused Hume of attempting “to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity” and demanded that his Fox News ratings superior “keep religious advocacy out of public life” (back in the closet, Brit old boy).

Olblubberman then compared Hume to a terrorist, suggesting that “the worst example” of this kind of “proselytizing” are “jihadists.” Finally, he betrayed the left’s typical anti-Christian bigotry, suggesting that Jesus may have been a homosexual and wondering aloud: “WWJDIHS: What would Jesus do if he’s straight?” [Note: the conservative "Newsbusters" blog of Media Research Center interpreted Olbermann's remarks differently -- saying that WWJDIHS refers to "What would Jesus do if he strayed"; start watching at about 3:15 in the five-and-a-half-minute MSNBC video.]

While the mainstream media’s rage was clumsily managed (or masked), unbridled hate boiled over in the left-wing blogosphere. On the sexual anarchist site, “JoeMyGod,” poster “QScribe” suggested that Brit Hume’s deceased son had been “gay” and viciously accused Hume of being responsible for the young man’s suicide: “Brit Hume still hasn’t ‘repented’ for trashing his gay son and driving him to suicide. When I want moral guidance from a pig like that, I’ll be sure to ask. Until then, he really ought to STFU.” (Hume has publicly shared that his son’s heartbreaking suicide played a large role in his acceptance of Christ.)

The next commenter went so far as to cruelly imply that Hume had sexually molested his own child and further mocked the tragic suicide, writing: “Dead victims don’t tell on their molesters.”

Commenting on the Huffington Post, “Kandaher” bypassed Hume altogether and aimed his vitriol directly at his Creator: “anyone (sic) watched ‘The passion of Christ’? I thoruhgly (sic) enjoyed it. Nothing like watching this bloke getting beaten up! He deserved what he got and more!”

You get the idea.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I very much enjoy watching liberals go goofy when the light of truth pierces that shadowy void called moral relativism. When the left’s religion of choice – secular-humanism – is challenged through exposure to the gospel message, they almost universally and instinctively react with such visceral, knee-jerk spasms. You can set your clock to it.

But believe it or not, there’s actually something rather delightful about such hateful lashing about. These poor souls – to be pitied and prayed for – fail to realize that, manifest within their own unwittingly bizarre behavior, is certain affirmation of the very words of Christ on the subject.

Jesus addressed this peculiar and deeply spiritual phenomenon on more than one occasion over two thousand years ago. In John 15:18-20 (NIV), for instance, He reminds His followers: “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”

Now, I’m real sorry that most “progressives” and other non-believers feel that Christianity is deficiently “tolerant” or “inclusive” of various man-made religions and lifestyle choices. But it’s just not our call. Christ Himself reveals over and again that the pathway to heaven is a very narrow one, requiring membership in a rather “exclusive” club – a club wherein belief in Him and repentance from sin are the only membership requirements.

Christ said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6). Note that, rather conspicuously, He did not say: “…No one comes to the Father except through me, the Buddha, Muhammad, Ganesh, and – on Tuesdays – L. Ron Hubbard.”

But lest you have any doubt, consider John 3:36, which warns every man, woman and child on earth – past, present and future: “Whoever believes in the Son [Jesus] has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

So, Brit Hume had it right, didn’t he? I mean, it is kind of an all or nothing proposition, isn’t it?

As my favorite author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis famously pointed out in his blockbuster book “Mere Christianity,” Christ could only have been one of three things: A lunatic, a liar, or – as Jesus oft claimed and as billions have believed – the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe.

Noted Lewis:

“A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” – C.S. Lewis

So, what does this all mean? Well, and please take this in the spirit (little ‘s’) intended: Brit Hume’s woolly, wily, wandering critics really ought to just un-knot their knickers; mudra, mantra or something; and seriously reflect upon the man’s words and heart.

Perhaps they should – being all “tolerant,” “diverse” and whatnot – consider, if only for a moment, the very Spirit (big ‘S’) from which came those words and was formed that heart.

In the meantime, to Mr. Hume: “Well done good and faithful servant.”

__________________________

Matt Barber [e-mail: jmattbarber@comcast.net] is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Folks, we hope that Rachel Maddow (left) — the lesbian MSNBC talker who is as “out” in her homosexuality promotion as in her left-wing activism — takes up the offer of my good friend Matt Barber and lets him appear as a guest on her show. That seems only fair after Maddow lied about Barber’s statement on Obama-care and “sex-change” operations.

We understand that liberals don’t want to talk (rationally, anyway) about Obama-care covering abortions and grotesque transsexual “sex-change” procedures as “health care.” That is why we must discuss these awful possibilities. (By the way, even before Barber’s column, below, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blog noted that President Obama’s favorite think tank, the liberal-left Center for American Progress, was beating the drums for adding “sex change operations to the list of medical procedures that all health insurance policies in the nation must cover.”) — Peter LaBarbera, www.americansfortruth.com

BANQUET REMINDER:  Culture warrior and former professional boxer Matt Barber (right) is coming to Chicago on Saturday, Oct. 24 to keynote the AFTAH fundraising banquet. The dinner is being held at the Christian Liberty Academy in Arlington Heights, IL, and tickets are $50 per person. You can prepay online (just note “AFTAH banquet” in the Paypal or Credit Card form) or mail your check (designate it “AFTAH Banquet”) to: Americans For Truth, PO Box 5522, Naperville, IL 60567-5522. Please spread the word and make plans to come! E-mail aftahangela@gmail.com or americansfortruth@comcast.net for more information.

_____________________________

Matt Barber writes:

Sex-Change-apalooza: ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex-Change’ Surgeries

By Matt Barber, August 5, 2009

I got a call a couple days ago from a producer with MSNBC. He wanted a hard copy of a press release I sent out entitled: “ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex-Change’ Surgeries.” In the release I addressed the likelihood that, under Obama’s monolithic socialized healthcare scheme, taxpayers may well end up funding elective and entirely cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries. I was happy to oblige and asked which program he produced. “Rachel Maddow,” he reluctantly divulged. I chuckled and joked, “Oh, I’m sure Rachel will give me a glowing review.”

I then suggested that it would be better still if Rachel actually had me on the show to defend and debate the substance of my release. He declined. Understandable, though. Ms. Maddow—a hard-left lesbian activist who plays a pseudo-journalist on TV—certainly wouldn’t want me confusing all 242 of her wide-eyed, spoon-fed, Kool-Aid swilling viewers with the facts. (By the way, Rachel, sweetheart, if you have the guts, the offer still stands.)

In what was apparently an awkward attempt at ridicule, Maddow then focused like a laser on the title of my release. True to form, she twisted and spun like the Michelle Kwan of yellow journalism. I was disappointed. Not because she transparently distorted my words. I counted on that. I was disappointed because I actually expected the allegedly clever, Oxford educated talking-head to pull it off with some degree of satirical dexterity.

She did not.

Did Maddow mock me for suggesting that ObamCare might provide taxpayer funded “sex-change” operations? No. Did she deride me for mean-spiritedness, insensitivity and “transphobia”? No. Instead, she just lied. She dishonestly suggested that I claimed the government was going to “mandate sex-change operations.” Get it? That, if ObamaCare becomes reality, healthcare officials will knock down your door, drag you away and force you to undergo a “gender reassignment” surgery. I know—Silly.

Still, what Maddow didn’t say speaks volumes. She didn’t refute any of the substance of my release. She didn’t deny the real likelihood that such cosmetic procedures will be covered at taxpayer expense. And she certainly didn’t give me the opportunity to respond to her propagandist obfuscation.

But it didn’t stop with Maddow. Those adorable, patchouli soaked little left-wing lemmings at the Daily Kos, Wonkette and elsewhere also picked up on my release. I was surprised to see that many of them, in fact, agreed with the substance of my argument. Quite a few opined that “sex-change” surgeries should be covered at taxpayer expense and a number of them conceded that they almost certainly will.

So what prompted me to break this story in the first place? Well, when Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) asked Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) whether President Obama’s proposed socialized healthcare plan will mandate taxpayer funded abortion, she admitted that it will require “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” It now appears that the plan’s “medically appropriate” umbrella is far more expansive than most Americans could have imagined.

In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that, in fact, cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) may indeed be provided—free of charge—courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.

Page 972 of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) provides for “standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care” based on “sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.” [Click HERE to read Peter Fleckenstein analysis of HR 3200 posted by Liberty Counsel.] The Senate draft indicates that the government will “detect and monitor trends in health disparities,” requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to “develop standards for the measurement of¬†gender.” (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined “transgender” or “transsexual” gender identities). It further mandates “participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from…different genders and sexual orientations.”

So, does ObamaCare expressly stipulate that taxpayer funded “sex-change” operations will be provided? No, but neither does it explicitly require coverage for heart bypass surgery. Don’t forget; we’re talking about what’s “medically appropriate” here, and look who gets to make that subjective determination: Your doctor? No, it’s “Rachel Maddow-minded” bureaucrats within the Democratic Party. It’s a liberal-Democrat appointed government “Health Benefits Advisory Committee.” And if you think they’re not itching to pay back the homosexual, transgender and pro-abortion pressure groups that helped get them elected, I’ve got a house at 1600 Pennsylvania I want to sell you.

Still, there’s a gulf of difference between what Obama and liberals in Congress, and the American people deem “medically appropriate;” especially when it’s “we the people” footing the bill. It’s unconscionable to force Americans, against their conscience, to fund abortion on demand and to facilitate gender confusion by subsidizing the elective practice of genital “sex-change” mutilation.

But don’t just take my word for it. After hearing Sen. Mikulski’s “any service deemed…medically appropriate” admission, I was prompted to dig a little deeper. I contacted the offices of Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Barney Frank and the House Subcommittee on Health. I asked, very simply, for “an assurance that the proposed healthcare plan will not allow taxpayer funded ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries or hormone therapies.” When faced with the bill’s relevant language, every staffer I spoke with either declined to answer or would neither confirm nor deny that such procedures would be covered.

Indeed it’s no wonder that—as Americans find out what’s hidden within this socialized ObamaCare monstrosity—support for the plan is plummeting faster than MSNBC’s ratings.

It’s time for the mainstream press—yes you too Rachel Maddow—to do its job and demand straight answers. Instead of prancing around like little ObamaCare cheerleaders, journalists need to ask the same questions I did and refuse to take “no answer” for an answer.

But don’t hold your breath.

Thankfully, we don’t have to. Wanna have a little fun? Contact your Congressional representative (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121; www.congress.org) and ask the following question: “Will you personally guarantee that, under this plan, no taxpayer dollars will go to fund abortion or ‘sex-change’ operations?’”

Then sit back and watch them squirm.

Matt Barber is a Board Member of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Click HERE for information on Barber’s appearance as keynote speaker at AFTAH’s fund-raising banquet on Saturday, Oct. 24. Send comments to Matt at: jmattbarber@comcast.net .

If Rachel Maddow were to form Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU), would it be forced to recognize a Christian ex-”gay” student club? At left, the openly lesbian MSNBC talker interviews Brian Diaz, head of a student Democratic club that was denied recognition by Liberty University. See YouTube video at bottom of this story.

By Peter LaBarbera

Nobody has mastered the art of snide inflections and biased liberal hit “journalism” as quickly and masterfully as MSNBC’s resident smarty-pants lesbian talker, Rachel Maddow (see this lesbian site’s story). Check out Maddow’s exaggerated pronunciation of “LGBT” in the YouTube video below as she attempts to skewer Liberty University for banning a campus Democratic Club. (Read the Democratic Party Platform HERE.) Now, at the risk of not knowing my place at the back of the bus as an Idiot Evangelical in Maddow’s World, I’d like to help her understand the principle of American liberty at stake in this case:

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the mannish Maddow and her female partner established the Smarty Pants Lesbian Liberal Party (SPLLP) for the purpose of mobilizing snarky lesbians and liberal fellow travelers to influence government and culture. Furthermore, the determined duo also create (with a Tim Gill financial assist) Smarty Pants Lesbian University (SPLU) to train up annual cadres of mini-Maddows to permeate the media and other culture-influencing institutions. (We’re not sure if non-lesbian feminists or males would be admitted to SPLU.)

Now, here’s our questions for Ms. Maddow: let’s say a covert SPLLP member were to trick her way past Liberty U.’s faith-based admission process, become a Liberty student and then suddenly apply for recognition of her SPLLP club on campus. (I envision a special appearance on MSNBC and sympathetic interviews in all the liberal media.) Would Liberty U.  be obligated to recognize the Smarty Pants Lesbian Party? Of course not — it would impinge upon and undermine Liberty’s right to propagate its own belief system to students. In fact, Liberty would be within its rights to expel the troublemaking student, at the risk of making her even a bigger star in Maddow’s World.

In the same vein, take a lesbian student who finds Christ at Maddow’s Smarty Pants Lesbian U. (someone smuggled a Bible to her inside a lesbian magazine). The reborn, ex-”gay” woman now desires to form an Ex-Lesbians for Christ Club (ELCC) on campus. Would Maddow and Smarty Pants Lesbian U. be required to recognize the evangelical, homosexuality-opposing Christian club? Certainly not. That would violate their right to propagate their bitter, snide, left-wing, pro-homosexual, Christian- and Republican-hating ideology — thus jeopardizing their master-plan to spawn Rachel Maddow clones across America! And yes, Smarty Pants U. would be within its rights to expel the righteous former lesbian.

Young Democrat Club president Brian Diaz does not understand the difference between liberty and (state-enforced) egalitarianism (“I think that you should definitely be equal and show both sides of the issue equally,” he tells Maddow). Apparently Liberty University accepts federal student aid and loan dollars (as Maddow mentions on air) but if that ultimately translates into being forced to accept groups like the Democratic Club that defy its foundational Christian beliefs, then we believe it would be time to refuse federal monies — like Hillsdale College does — for the sake of freedom. Now watch the Rachel Maddow video (conservatives: brace yourselves):

Will Obama Nominate a “Gay” Supreme Court Justice? Liberal opinion-makers like Mark Halperin of MSNBC (left) now treat homosexuality as an element of “diversity” that should be celebrated by society. See YouTube video and interview transcript below. TAKE ACTION: Urge Sen. Sessions (202-224-4124) to oppose the confirmation of pro-homosexuality (activist) justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and all federal courts.

By Peter LaBarbera

Welcome to the new “Sexual Diversity” landscape created by decades of homosexual activism — with its essentially anti-Christian, anti-Biblical ethos. Liberal opinion-making elites like MSNBC’s Mark Halperin below now treat homosexual perversion (oops, sorry, “sexual orientation”) as part of America’s “minority” tapestry — eligible for all the “diversity” demands — read: quotas — of other (genuine) minority groups. Identity politics and affirmative action are bad enough with real minorities; they will become unbearable once expanded to include advocates and practitioners of changeable sexual sin — which is what an open and proudly “gay” Supreme Court justice would be.

Please watch the YouTube video clip below of an interview yesterday morning (May 7) between Halperin and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the new highest ranking Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee following the party switch of Sen. Arlen Specter. Note how Halperin eagerly pushes the “homosexuality-as-diversity” line — which Sen. Sessions attempts to fend off with his “gay tendencies” remark. With all due respect to the senator, if that’s the best that conservatives can do, we will be squashed by liberal and libertarian advocates of proud homosexuality in this debate.

Imagine: what Senator is going to have the guts to challenge the idea that it is “wrong for a justice to be disqualified because of ‘who he is’” — to quote the now widely accepted but biblically false homosexual-activist cliché? There is a deeply personal and emotional level of activism in anyone who self-identifies as “openly gay” — as opposed to one who struggles against the unwanted pull of homosexuality — because that person flips timeless morality on its head. The unapologetic “gay” person has his or her whole life and, indeed, eternal destiny invested in the idea that Judeo-Christian teachings against homosexual behavior as sinful should be discarded. An openly homosexual judge “not promoting any agenda personal, religious or moral” — how absurd and naive!  A transcript of the MSNBC exchange between Halperin and Sessions follows the video:

Transcript of MSNBC “Morning Joe” interview between Mark Halperin and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), May 7, 2009:

MARK HALPERIN: Senator, big opportunity for you here in the national spotlight coming up when these hearings get underway.  You told Neil Cavuto — we just saw just now — that you could vote for a pro-choice nominee, in theory. A couple of people at least supposedly under consideration are openly gay. Could you vote for an openly gay justice, which we’ve never had before?

SEN. SESSIONS:  Well, … it depends on their personal ethics and standards, and their legal skill and ability. I don’t think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se [from] the job. We’ll just have to see–

HALPERIN: Would you welcome that as a diverse thing that we haven’t had in American history?

SESSIONS: Well, I don’t think that we should be thinking like that for the United States Supreme Court. We need to be looking for a person that can gain full respect of the American people, who can apply the law fairly, when they put on that robe will be non-partisan and non-biased — not promoting any agenda personal, religious or moral, and follow the law faithfully. Those are critical components in this magnificent rule of law we have in the Supreme Court.

Greg Gutfeld’s “Gregalogue” from the April 16th episode of FOX’s Red Eye, expressing his view on CNN’s Anderson Cooper and MSNBC’s David Shuster mocking the conservative, tax-day Tea Parties with their oral-sex “tea-bagging” theme. You won’t believe Shuster’s twisted on-air penis-humor–breathtakingly twisted even by the liberal Left’s standard and aptly assessed by Gutfeld. — Peter LaBarbera