By Matt Barber
Eric Holder is a busy man. When President Obama’s chief law enforcement officer isn’t tied up selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, refusing to prosecute self-serving cases of voter intimidation or ignoring “wanted dead or alive” bounties placed by black militants on the heads of private citizens, he’s busy conspiring with pro-abortion extremists to bring the full weight of the federal government down upon innocent pro-life advocates.
So much tyranny, so little time.
Eric Holder is much more than just incompetent. He’s an extremist pro-abortion activist who shares his boss’s goal of “fundamentally transforming America” to reflect both men’s secular-socialist self-image.
The most recent and obvious example of this administration’s serial abuse of power in furtherance of a radical pro-abortion agenda came when the Department of Health and Human Services mandated, in contravention of the First Amendment, that all religious organizations provide contraception, sterilization and various forms of abortion to employees. This may be the single greatest violation of our constitutionally safeguarded religious liberties in our lifetimes. The mandate remains in place to this day.
But individual citizens haven’t escaped a forced fiduciary tie to abortion homicide. A few weeks later HHS arbitrarily attached a “final rule” to Obamacare requiring that every American, pro-life or otherwise, pay one dollar per month earmarked expressly for an abortion services pool. This validates pro-life forewarnings that the president was simply lying when he issued a toothless executive order supposedly banning federal dollars for abortion. (What do we call someone who chronically lies?)
Still, every once in a while the good guys win one.
For several months now the Obama administration has been abusing our judicial system through a concerted political intimidation campaign via the federal courts. Obama has instructed the Justice Department to sue a number of pro-life counselors and volunteers for allegedly violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance (FACE) Act.
You won’t hear it from the mainstream media, but the Justice Department has just faced an embarrassing smack down on the highest profile of these cases. It has dropped an appeal in Holder v. Pine against pro-life sidewalk counselor Mary "Susan" Pine, who is represented by the civil rights firm Liberty Counsel. The DOJ has agreed to pay $120,000 for this frivolous lawsuit which, as the evidence indicated, was intended to intimidate Ms. Pine and send a shot over the bow of pro-lifers around the country.
Mr. Holder unsuccessfully sought thousands of dollars in fines against Ms. Pine, as well as a permanent injunction banning her from counseling women on the public sidewalk outside the Presidential Women’s Center (PWC) abortion mill (or any other "reproductive services" clinic).
After 18 months of litigation, the DOJ’s case was thrown out of federal court, and the department was chastised in a scathing ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp for filing a case with no evidence.
Judge Ryskamp wrote that Holder’s complete failure to present any evidence of wrongdoing, coupled with the DOJ’s cozy relationship with PWC and their apparent joint decision to destroy video surveillance footage of the alleged "obstruction," caused the court to suspect a conspiracy at the highest levels of the Obama administration. "The Court is at a loss as to why the Government chose to prosecute this particular case in the first place," wrote Judge Ryskamp. "The Court can only wonder whether this action was the product of a concerted effort between the Government and PWC, which began well before the date of the incident at issue, to quell Ms. Pine’s activities rather than to vindicate the rights of those allegedly aggrieved by Ms. Pine’s conduct."
After the ruling the DOJ appealed on the last day possible and gave indication that President Obama had personally ordered the appeal. A little over a week later, the president apparently decided to cut his losses and reversed course.
Harry Mihet, senior counsel for Liberty Counsel, said of the judge’s ruling: "It’s not every day that a federal judge accuses the Justice Department of a full-blown conspiracy."
Ironically, this past December, in the midst of the case, Ms. Pine actually counseled a woman outside of PWC and convinced her not to have an abortion, thus saving the life of the child and possibly the mother as well. Her email to Liberty Counsel read simply: "We saved a life today."
Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, pulled no punches:
It is irresponsible for the U.S. Department of Justice to place politics above principle when deciding to prosecute, and thus attempt to silence, a pro-life sidewalk counselor without any evidence of wrongdoing.
When the nation’s highest law enforcement officer files suit against any citizen, the suit must be based on the law coupled with compelling evidence. Anything less is an abuse of the high office. Susan Pine will not be silenced or detoured from her mission to save the lives of innocent children.
Indeed, “politics above principle,” intimidation of private citizens and jaw-dropping abuses of power are but a few hallmarks of this Obama administration.
History will be no more kind to this president than he has been to the citizens he was sworn to honorably serve.
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action and Director of Cultural Affairs for Liberty Counsel (Title and affiliation provided for identification purposes only.)
Published @ http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/06/justice-served-to-obama/#ixzz1rIAsYjtr
Monday, April 09, 2012
Friday, March 09, 2012
Limbaugh and the, um, Lady
By: Matt Barber
Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the political maneuverings of the secular left. The problem is; we all have the play book now.
As most know, Rush Limbaugh has been under fire of late for comments he made about 30 year-old “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke recently gained national attention while testifying before Congress. There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.
Rush said of Fluke: “[T]hey’re talking about, like this left-wing sl-t, what’s her name? Sandra Fluke?”
Not really. Actually that bile came from the revolving pie-hole of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz in reference to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).
During the interview Ms. Fluke somehow failed to mention Schultz’s identical insult of Ingraham. (An inadvertent oversight, I’m sure.)
And speaking of double standards: the media has made much fanfare about a staged phone call from President Obama to Ms. Fluke to “ask how she was holding up.” (No call yet to the similarly aggrieved Laura Ingraham.)
Additionally, Obama has refused to return – or even answer questions about – a one million-dollar donation from serial misogynist Bill Maher who, among other things, has called Sarah Palin a “tw-t” and a “c-nt.”
Mainstream media-types have no interest in this double standard because they share it. They’re duty-bound to ignore the palpable hypocrisy. To do otherwise would undermine the absurd “GOP-has-declared-war-on-women” narrative. (By ‘women,’ of course, they mean liberal women – outnumbered by Rush-supporting conservative gals two-to-one).
Indeed, Rush Limbaugh has become the left’s flashpoint in this twofold election year ploy to both sour women against the GOP and distract from Obama's impending debt bomb, skyrocketing gasoline prices and the threat of a nuclear Iran.
David Burge (@iowahawkblog) of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”
Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?
Well, I have it on good authority that today Rush is chewing a big fat Padron Toro and laughing himself silly. Every time McCarthyite liberals take a swing at El Rushbo, they get their hemp-clad heinies handed to them. It’s like watching Andre the Giant toss midgets.
On Wednesday, Rush announced on his show that the “progressive” machine’s latest effort to bring him down via a sponsorship boycott was failing fantastically. Following the DNC-manufactured Fluke dust-up, Rush revealed that he has suffered zero revenue loss (even making gains); that he has a wait list of new advertisers lining up, and that some of his former sponsors – who hastily bowed to leftist pressure and dropped him – are now “practically begging to come back.”
This comes as little surprise. One such sponsor, Carbonite, saw its stock plummet by twelve percent overnight after announcing it was pulling its spots. This is what happens when a company puts partisan politics over profit.
Limbaugh – rated number one in talk radio – has tens-of-millions of loyal, activist listeners who love to spend tons of cash on the products Rush plugs. (Wonder how long before Carbonite CEO and MoveOn.org supporter David Friend “steps down” to “spend more time with his family”?)
Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.
It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.
Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman's “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.
This is by design. Secular-“progressives” have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, and get with the postmodern program.)
But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women's movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can’t survive without welfare. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.
Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left’s entire “denied access to contraception” premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control – already cheap and often free – have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.
Name one woman who has been “denied access” to birth control – ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to “ban contraception.”
There are none.
Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.
That’s all Rush was saying.
Saul Alinsky is alive and well in the political maneuverings of the secular left. The problem is; we all have the play book now.
As most know, Rush Limbaugh has been under fire of late for comments he made about 30 year-old “reproductive justice” radical Sandra Fluke. Ms. Fluke recently gained national attention while testifying before Congress. There, she demanded that Georgetown Law, a Jesuit University, underwrite her stated fornication practices by paying for her and other students’ birth control and, ostensibly, abortions. Fornication and abortion, of course, are considered “mortal sins” in Christianity. Catholic doctrine further bars the church from providing contraception.
Rush said of Fluke: “[T]hey’re talking about, like this left-wing sl-t, what’s her name? Sandra Fluke?”
Not really. Actually that bile came from the revolving pie-hole of MSNBC’s Ed Schultz in reference to conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham. Ms. Fluke recently went on Schultz’s program to criticize Limbaugh for indirectly suggesting that, in light of her admitted sexually immoral lifestyle, she was a “sl-t” (an offensive and inappropriate slang for which he has apologized).
During the interview Ms. Fluke somehow failed to mention Schultz’s identical insult of Ingraham. (An inadvertent oversight, I’m sure.)
And speaking of double standards: the media has made much fanfare about a staged phone call from President Obama to Ms. Fluke to “ask how she was holding up.” (No call yet to the similarly aggrieved Laura Ingraham.)
Additionally, Obama has refused to return – or even answer questions about – a one million-dollar donation from serial misogynist Bill Maher who, among other things, has called Sarah Palin a “tw-t” and a “c-nt.”
Mainstream media-types have no interest in this double standard because they share it. They’re duty-bound to ignore the palpable hypocrisy. To do otherwise would undermine the absurd “GOP-has-declared-war-on-women” narrative. (By ‘women,’ of course, they mean liberal women – outnumbered by Rush-supporting conservative gals two-to-one).
Indeed, Rush Limbaugh has become the left’s flashpoint in this twofold election year ploy to both sour women against the GOP and distract from Obama's impending debt bomb, skyrocketing gasoline prices and the threat of a nuclear Iran.
David Burge (@iowahawkblog) of the Iowa Hawk blog summed it up nicely in a tweet: “How can you monsters talk about a $15 trillion debt at a time like this, when a brave coed has hurt lady-feelings?”
Yes, how can we focus on trillions in Obama debt, $6.00 gasoline and Islamo-fascists with nukes while a Georgetown “coed” is being denied free medication from Christians for her “Saturday night fever”?
Well, I have it on good authority that today Rush is chewing a big fat Padron Toro and laughing himself silly. Every time McCarthyite liberals take a swing at El Rushbo, they get their hemp-clad heinies handed to them. It’s like watching Andre the Giant toss midgets.
On Wednesday, Rush announced on his show that the “progressive” machine’s latest effort to bring him down via a sponsorship boycott was failing fantastically. Following the DNC-manufactured Fluke dust-up, Rush revealed that he has suffered zero revenue loss (even making gains); that he has a wait list of new advertisers lining up, and that some of his former sponsors – who hastily bowed to leftist pressure and dropped him – are now “practically begging to come back.”
This comes as little surprise. One such sponsor, Carbonite, saw its stock plummet by twelve percent overnight after announcing it was pulling its spots. This is what happens when a company puts partisan politics over profit.
Limbaugh – rated number one in talk radio – has tens-of-millions of loyal, activist listeners who love to spend tons of cash on the products Rush plugs. (Wonder how long before Carbonite CEO and MoveOn.org supporter David Friend “steps down” to “spend more time with his family”?)
Still, liberal attempts to sidetrack aside, the cultural issues embedded within this Fluke flap are worthy of discussion. Only a dying culture lionizes a woman who publicly impugns – with pride – her own honor and virtue. Yet, to the left, she’s a hero.
It’s genuinely sad that, as a society, we are no longer appalled that a young, single woman – though very nice, I’m sure – would go on national television nonetheless, to proudly and publicly boast that, to her, while sex is cheap and casual, dealing with the potential consequences is so expensive that those of us who disagree must subsidize her bad behavior.
Can someone please explain to me how and why a woman's “right” to be promiscuous is my financial responsibility? If you refuse to buy your own “preventative medicine,” why not hit up the fellas? Last I heard it takes two to do the fornication Fandango.
This is by design. Secular-“progressives” have been working to deconstruct traditional sexual morality for generations. The goal is to impose – under penalty of law – their own moral relativist, sexual anarchist worldview. (Hence, the unconstitutional ObamaCare mandate requiring that Christian groups cast aside millennia-old church doctrine, and get with the postmodern program.)
But, beyond this assault on religious freedom and the moral implications surrounding the debate, Ms. Fluke has additionally set the true women's movement back decades. Her public groveling for free contraception and abortifacients reinforces the sexist stereotype that single women can’t survive without welfare. Women’s empowerment? More like patriarchal government dependency.
Still, like so much in its propagandist bag of tricks, the left’s entire “denied access to contraception” premise is built upon a lie. Liberals would have you believe that, for decades, women seeking birth control – already cheap and often free – have been systemically tackled in front of Walgreens by a bevy of white, Republican Catholic Priests.
Name one woman who has been “denied access” to birth control – ever. Show me one Republican politico who wants to “ban contraception.”
There are none.
Birth control at Walgreens? A few dollars. Taking personal responsibility for your own lifestyle choices and consequences? Priceless.
That’s all Rush was saying.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Penguins 'pray away the gay': Liberals admit that changing orientation is possible
By: Matt Barber
Those bent on justifying the homosexual lifestyle often claim that there are umpteen million – or somewhere thereabouts – species of "gay" animals in the world. This begs a few questions:
Still, whenever some animal displays atypical nesting behavior or exhibits quirks that can be remotely called "gay" (We've all seen that dog), moral relativists – who desperately seek to justify objectively immoral behavior – will cry: "Look! Animals are gay, too. It must be natural!"
So, it's not surprising that liberals have their feathers in a ruffle – that they're egg-cited over recent news that another pair of same-sex penguins has flown the "gay" coop. (I wrote about a second pair in 2009).
Famous "gay" penguins Buddy and Pedro from the Toronto Zoo are the latest chirpy birds with happy feet to begin eyeballing chicks. They're now "ex-gay" penguins. (Read about Buddy and Pedro's "reparative therapy.")
I know. For most of us this elicits little more than a chuckle. Yet there are those who actually believe this twaddle.
Unfortunately, this is all part of liberals' desperate attempt to dredge up some natural, biological rationalization – of which science has found none – to validate demonstrably unnatural behavior.
That's why we see such visceral hatred on the left for the ex-gay community. From a political and legal standpoint, it's strategically critical that these same liberals undermine and marginalize the very real-life experiences of untold thousands of former homosexuals.
This mean-spiritedness represents a profound lack of respect for other people's "right to choose." Their favorite dig is: "You can't pray away the gay." Once you've self-identified as – or been labeled – "gay," you're stuck with it, you see.
Ironically, these same liberals will suggest with a straight face (no pun intended) that something that is innate – a person's biological sex – can change. If you're a man who, today, feels like a woman, why then, snippity-snip and voila! You're a woman.
Many men and women with unwanted same-sex attractions have exercised sexual self-determination and have chosen to leave the homosexual lifestyle. As we make continuing advances in the science of human sexuality, it has become clear that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are largely fluid, subjectively determined classifications. As to what may drive a person's "sexual orientation" and/or sexual appetites, the highly liberal American Psychological Association (APA) has concluded: "Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles."
The scientifically reinforced fluidity of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" may help to explain why, as even the liberal APA has admitted, thousands (if not millions) of people have "altered their sexual orientation" with "varying degrees of satisfaction and varying perceptions of success."
It is no longer open for serious debate. Despite tremendous political pressure to find otherwise, even the left-leaning APA has been forced to acknowledge that for people with unwanted same-sex attractions, change is possible. It's not always easy, but change is undeniably and conclusively possible.
Recently, the most comprehensive study ever done on the ex-gay phenomenon was released in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. In the study, researchers concluded that, for many who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle, "change does indeed occur, although not for everyone."
Some of the study's conclusions:
Most importantly, the study determined that, for those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wish to change, "some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts."
But that's people. Penguins? They're probably just "bisexual" to begin with.
________________________________________
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Those bent on justifying the homosexual lifestyle often claim that there are umpteen million – or somewhere thereabouts – species of "gay" animals in the world. This begs a few questions:
• What?
• Then how do they procreate? If these animals forgo natural mating behavior to, instead, spend nights hooking up in Yellowstone's public men's rooms, march in critter "gay pride" parades and decorate their nest in fabulous Art Deco pastels, then wouldn't their species cease to exist after just one generation? So much for Darwinian evolution.
• Even if such nonsense were true, so what? There are plenty of species in the world that eat their young, too. Animals are animals. Does this mean we should act like them? (Besides, show me one species of animal that engages in the same kind of depraved homosexual conduct that can come only from the mind of man, and I'll be impressed.)
Still, whenever some animal displays atypical nesting behavior or exhibits quirks that can be remotely called "gay" (We've all seen that dog), moral relativists – who desperately seek to justify objectively immoral behavior – will cry: "Look! Animals are gay, too. It must be natural!"
So, it's not surprising that liberals have their feathers in a ruffle – that they're egg-cited over recent news that another pair of same-sex penguins has flown the "gay" coop. (I wrote about a second pair in 2009).
Famous "gay" penguins Buddy and Pedro from the Toronto Zoo are the latest chirpy birds with happy feet to begin eyeballing chicks. They're now "ex-gay" penguins. (Read about Buddy and Pedro's "reparative therapy.")
I know. For most of us this elicits little more than a chuckle. Yet there are those who actually believe this twaddle.
Unfortunately, this is all part of liberals' desperate attempt to dredge up some natural, biological rationalization – of which science has found none – to validate demonstrably unnatural behavior.
That's why we see such visceral hatred on the left for the ex-gay community. From a political and legal standpoint, it's strategically critical that these same liberals undermine and marginalize the very real-life experiences of untold thousands of former homosexuals.
This mean-spiritedness represents a profound lack of respect for other people's "right to choose." Their favorite dig is: "You can't pray away the gay." Once you've self-identified as – or been labeled – "gay," you're stuck with it, you see.
Ironically, these same liberals will suggest with a straight face (no pun intended) that something that is innate – a person's biological sex – can change. If you're a man who, today, feels like a woman, why then, snippity-snip and voila! You're a woman.
Many men and women with unwanted same-sex attractions have exercised sexual self-determination and have chosen to leave the homosexual lifestyle. As we make continuing advances in the science of human sexuality, it has become clear that "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are largely fluid, subjectively determined classifications. As to what may drive a person's "sexual orientation" and/or sexual appetites, the highly liberal American Psychological Association (APA) has concluded: "Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles."
The scientifically reinforced fluidity of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" may help to explain why, as even the liberal APA has admitted, thousands (if not millions) of people have "altered their sexual orientation" with "varying degrees of satisfaction and varying perceptions of success."
It is no longer open for serious debate. Despite tremendous political pressure to find otherwise, even the left-leaning APA has been forced to acknowledge that for people with unwanted same-sex attractions, change is possible. It's not always easy, but change is undeniably and conclusively possible.
Recently, the most comprehensive study ever done on the ex-gay phenomenon was released in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. In the study, researchers concluded that, for many who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle, "change does indeed occur, although not for everyone."
Some of the study's conclusions:
• Success: Conversion: 23 percent of the sample reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.
• Success: Chastity: 30 percent reported that homosexual attraction was still present, but only incidentally or in a way that did not seem to bring distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.
• Continuing: 16 percent reported modest decreases in homosexual attraction, but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process.
• Non-response: 7 percent reported no significant sexual orientation change; they had not given up on the change process, but some were confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next.
• Failure: Confused: 5 percent reported no significant sexual orientation change, and had given up on the change process, but without yet embracing a gay identity.
• Failure: Gay identity: 20 percent had given up on the change process and embraced a gay identity.
Most importantly, the study determined that, for those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wish to change, "some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts."
But that's people. Penguins? They're probably just "bisexual" to begin with.
________________________________________
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Liberal Violence Rising: The prediction of increasing mayhem by secular-socialism followers
By: J. Matt Barber
While necessity is the mother of invention, sloth and envy beget mediocrity and upheaval – the twin siblings of secular-socialism.
It is in this vein that a rebellious and increasingly violent spirit of incoherent anarchy continues to fester in urban centers across the nation. This is most evident in the form of the envy-driven "Occupy wherever" nonsense embraced by the "progressive" establishment.
Still, this Obama-supported effort to supplant, through lawless imposition, our free-market constitutional republic with some misguided conception of an outcome-based equalitocracy is rooted in much more than just good old-fashioned class warfare.
Part and parcel of secular-socialism is secularism. It's fascinating in its predictability. Wherever you find an entitlement-minded Marxist, you're likely to find a "progressive," counter-biblical moral relativist.
Case in point: The "Occupy D.C." protesters, who have squatted – in more ways than one – at Washington's McPherson Square, have posted a list of rules by which "occupants" are expected to abide. Rule No. 10 requires that folks not "assume anyone's gender," but, instead, "go with gender-neutral pronouns" like "comrade." (Who knew that a so-called "99 percent" of Americans were gender-bending commies?)
Indeed, the opposite of order is disorder. While rebelling against the natural order – whether related to economic liberty or issues surrounding transcendent moral values – many of the less stable elements on the left are exhibiting an increased willingness to move beyond mere disorder to outright violence.
Examples of such violence continue to mount. But beyond the fiery "Occupy" riots in Oakland, and the shootings, murders, rapes and thousands of arrests occurring throughout the dozens of disease-riddled "Occupy" chaos camps around the country, a less publicized example of left-wing violence took place last month in Illinois.
The "Gay Liberation Network" – a militant homosexual activist group of self-described "Trotskyites" – announced that it would be protesting an award ceremony held at the Christian Liberty Academy, an Arlington Heights, Ill., church and school. In the past, when GLN has protested this particular event, Christian attendees have been spat upon and even physically threatened by protesters.
This time, things got worse. The night before the event someone threw two paver bricks through the church's plate glass doors with a dire warning: "This is just a sample of what we will do if you don't shut down Scott Lively and AFTAH. … [F---] Scott Lively. Quit the homophobic [s---]!"
The Christian organization, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was giving an award to Pastor Scott Lively, a pro-family advocate who, in recent years, has been falsely maligned by leftist groups and media-types like Rachel Maddow, for supposedly supporting the death penalty for homosexual behavior – a patently false charge.
The assailants later posted an al-Qaida-like statement on the "progressive" website IndyMedia.org, taking credit for the attack and calling it a "consequence for hatred and homophobia in our community." They further threatened the church, warning that "if this event is not shut down … the Christian Liberty Academy will continue to be under constant attack." Unbelievably, the threat remains posted to this day.
Fortunately, no one has yet been hurt; however, according to the FBI, by definition this attack meets all the elements of domestic terrorism.
But none of this is surprising. The flames of violence against Lively, AFTAH and Christian Liberty Academy were ignited long ago. On the other end of the fuse is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a hard-left outfit known in past years for monitoring true hate groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis.
After partnering with the admittedly communist GLN, the SPLC had declared, with much media fanfare, both AFTAH and Lively's organization, Abiding Truth Ministries, along with several other highly respected Christian organizations, official "hate groups."
This propagandist smear tactic has been increasingly used by the SPLC in an effort to marginalize Christian and conservative organizations with which the group disagrees. Unfortunately, however, we now see that this strategy to dehumanize, can also have unintended (presumably) consequences.
As in Illinois, the SPLC's dangerous and irresponsible disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence. After all, these "hate groups" are just like the KKK, right?
Despite all this, even today the SPLC has somehow managed to maintain some level of mainstream credibility. But as it quickly moves further from its left-of-center moorings toward the far fringes of left-wing extremism, its own deceptive activities threaten to undo much of the good for which the organization was once recognized.
After the anti-Christian attack, Bob Schwartz, cofounder of GLN, refused to condemn the violence noting precisely that the victims were "SPLC-designated hate groups." This comes as little surprise in that Schwartz once threatened to push AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera into oncoming traffic.
Still, what is a bit surprising is that, like its GLN ally, the SPLC – a self-styled domestic terrorist watchdog organization – has additionally refused to condemn this overt act of domestic terrorism.
Instead, the SPLC released a statement, dripping with sarcasm, that piled on the victims. Rather than denouncing the attack, the organization simply lamented that the violence "only strengthened the absurd argument, promulgated by many [Christians]" that left-wing extremists "want to take over America and persecute Christians."
Yes, it's official. The SPLC has abandoned all pretense of objectivity.
And so, as left-wing violence continues to spike in coming months, not only should we expect to hear little about it from a sympathetic mainstream media; we should also expect little help from the once-respected Southern Poverty Law Center.
Indeed, it's hard to do much about the problem when you're a driving force behind it.
________________________________________
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
While necessity is the mother of invention, sloth and envy beget mediocrity and upheaval – the twin siblings of secular-socialism.
It is in this vein that a rebellious and increasingly violent spirit of incoherent anarchy continues to fester in urban centers across the nation. This is most evident in the form of the envy-driven "Occupy wherever" nonsense embraced by the "progressive" establishment.
Still, this Obama-supported effort to supplant, through lawless imposition, our free-market constitutional republic with some misguided conception of an outcome-based equalitocracy is rooted in much more than just good old-fashioned class warfare.
Part and parcel of secular-socialism is secularism. It's fascinating in its predictability. Wherever you find an entitlement-minded Marxist, you're likely to find a "progressive," counter-biblical moral relativist.
Case in point: The "Occupy D.C." protesters, who have squatted – in more ways than one – at Washington's McPherson Square, have posted a list of rules by which "occupants" are expected to abide. Rule No. 10 requires that folks not "assume anyone's gender," but, instead, "go with gender-neutral pronouns" like "comrade." (Who knew that a so-called "99 percent" of Americans were gender-bending commies?)
Indeed, the opposite of order is disorder. While rebelling against the natural order – whether related to economic liberty or issues surrounding transcendent moral values – many of the less stable elements on the left are exhibiting an increased willingness to move beyond mere disorder to outright violence.
Examples of such violence continue to mount. But beyond the fiery "Occupy" riots in Oakland, and the shootings, murders, rapes and thousands of arrests occurring throughout the dozens of disease-riddled "Occupy" chaos camps around the country, a less publicized example of left-wing violence took place last month in Illinois.
The "Gay Liberation Network" – a militant homosexual activist group of self-described "Trotskyites" – announced that it would be protesting an award ceremony held at the Christian Liberty Academy, an Arlington Heights, Ill., church and school. In the past, when GLN has protested this particular event, Christian attendees have been spat upon and even physically threatened by protesters.
This time, things got worse. The night before the event someone threw two paver bricks through the church's plate glass doors with a dire warning: "This is just a sample of what we will do if you don't shut down Scott Lively and AFTAH. … [F---] Scott Lively. Quit the homophobic [s---]!"
The Christian organization, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH), was giving an award to Pastor Scott Lively, a pro-family advocate who, in recent years, has been falsely maligned by leftist groups and media-types like Rachel Maddow, for supposedly supporting the death penalty for homosexual behavior – a patently false charge.
The assailants later posted an al-Qaida-like statement on the "progressive" website IndyMedia.org, taking credit for the attack and calling it a "consequence for hatred and homophobia in our community." They further threatened the church, warning that "if this event is not shut down … the Christian Liberty Academy will continue to be under constant attack." Unbelievably, the threat remains posted to this day.
Fortunately, no one has yet been hurt; however, according to the FBI, by definition this attack meets all the elements of domestic terrorism.
But none of this is surprising. The flames of violence against Lively, AFTAH and Christian Liberty Academy were ignited long ago. On the other end of the fuse is the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a hard-left outfit known in past years for monitoring true hate groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis.
After partnering with the admittedly communist GLN, the SPLC had declared, with much media fanfare, both AFTAH and Lively's organization, Abiding Truth Ministries, along with several other highly respected Christian organizations, official "hate groups."
This propagandist smear tactic has been increasingly used by the SPLC in an effort to marginalize Christian and conservative organizations with which the group disagrees. Unfortunately, however, we now see that this strategy to dehumanize, can also have unintended (presumably) consequences.
As in Illinois, the SPLC's dangerous and irresponsible disinformation campaign can embolden and give license to like-minded, though less stable, left-wing extremists, creating a climate of true hate. Such a climate is ripe for violence. After all, these "hate groups" are just like the KKK, right?
Despite all this, even today the SPLC has somehow managed to maintain some level of mainstream credibility. But as it quickly moves further from its left-of-center moorings toward the far fringes of left-wing extremism, its own deceptive activities threaten to undo much of the good for which the organization was once recognized.
After the anti-Christian attack, Bob Schwartz, cofounder of GLN, refused to condemn the violence noting precisely that the victims were "SPLC-designated hate groups." This comes as little surprise in that Schwartz once threatened to push AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera into oncoming traffic.
Still, what is a bit surprising is that, like its GLN ally, the SPLC – a self-styled domestic terrorist watchdog organization – has additionally refused to condemn this overt act of domestic terrorism.
Instead, the SPLC released a statement, dripping with sarcasm, that piled on the victims. Rather than denouncing the attack, the organization simply lamented that the violence "only strengthened the absurd argument, promulgated by many [Christians]" that left-wing extremists "want to take over America and persecute Christians."
Yes, it's official. The SPLC has abandoned all pretense of objectivity.
And so, as left-wing violence continues to spike in coming months, not only should we expect to hear little about it from a sympathetic mainstream media; we should also expect little help from the once-respected Southern Poverty Law Center.
Indeed, it's hard to do much about the problem when you're a driving force behind it.
________________________________________
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)