Monday, December 20, 2010

SPLC: Medical science, Christianity = 'hate'

By: J. Matt Barber

Sometimes the most effective way to deal with a bully is to simply pop him in the chops. While it may not shut him up entirely, it usually gives him pause before he resumes flapping his toxic jaws. It also has the effect of showing the other kids in the schoolyard that they have nothing to fear. Though the bully struts about projecting the tough-guy image, he's typically the most insecure pansy on the block.

Such is the case with the bullies over at the fringe-left Southern Poverty Law Center. Having been recently "popped in the chops," if you will, for a series of hyperbolic and disingenuous "anti-gay hate group" slurs against a dozen-or-so of America's most well respected Christian and conservative organizations – the SPLC now finds itself publicly struggling, outside of an extremist left-wing echo chamber, to salvage a modicum of mainstream credibility.

In response to the SPLC's unprovoked attacks, a unified coalition of more than 150 top conservative and Christian leaders across the country has launched a shock-and-awe "Start Debating, Stop Hating" media blitz to educate America about the SPLC's ad hominem, politically driven smear campaign.

The mainstream pro-family conglomerate already includes presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner, former presidential contender Mike Huckabee, four current U.S. senators, three governors, 20 current or newly elected members of the House of Representatives and many more.

As the controversy wears on and the facts become public, the moribund SPLC has understandably become increasingly defensive, strongly suggesting that it has come to regret this gross political overreach. Catch the tiger by the tail, you get the teeth.

Still, lazily labeling its ideological adversaries "hate groups" has yet to satisfy the anti-Christian law center. It's taken the slander even further down petty path, launching a succession of amateurish personal attacks against a number of individual Christian advocates (to include yours truly). This is a clear sign that the sexual relativist left recognizes that it's losing the debate on the merits.

Indeed, the SPLC's poorly constructed analysis bears deconstructing, but first I'll make a prediction. The center has yet to pin its official "SPLC designated hate group" badge of honor on either me or Liberty Counsel, the civil rights group with which I'm affiliated.

Somehow we were able only to earn the equally deceptive lower ranking of "anti-gay." I suspect this is because I've been a primary public critic of the center's feeble "hate group" crusade. Even the far-left understands that premature retaliation would betray dishonest political motives.

Still – and you heard it here first – within the next year or two (maybe less) the SPLC will move to even the score by tagging Liberty Counsel an "official hate group." At that point – and beyond the question: "If the SPLC calls you a 'hate group' in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" – any remaining media outlet that may wish to treat the center as an objective arbiter of "hate" will do so at grave risk to its own credibility.

Nonetheless, the SPLC has begun to grease the skids. Quotes cherry picked, taken out of context and misapplied are a powerful tool of the propagandist. Such are the Maoist techniques of the SPLC. Among other things, here's what the group has said about me:

"Barber suggested against all the evidence that there were only a 'miniscule number' of anti-gay hate crimes …"

Let me be clear: I didn't "suggest" there were a "miniscule number of anti-gay hate crimes" in 2007. I proved it. I merely cited the FBI's own statistics which demonstrate the fact beyond any serious debate. Let's look at "all the evidence" to which the SPLC refers. Here's what I actually wrote in the Washington Times:

"Consider that according to the latest FBI statistics, out of 1.4 million violent crimes in 2007; there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) reportedly motivated by the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity. There is zero evidence to suggest that, where appropriate, perpetrators were not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in every instance."

A bit different than the SPLC portrayal, no? Let's do the math:

Approximately 247 aggravated "hate crime" assaults, taken within the context of 1.4 million violent crimes means that exactly 0.017643 percent of violent crimes in 2007 were "anti-gay hate crimes." A miniscule number? You be the judge.
Continued the SPLC:

"Barber had argued that given 'medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality,' it should be considered 'criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative.'"

Note that the SPLC neither identifies nor addresses the "medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality." It's no wonder. Again, the evidence proves the case beyond any serious debate.

For instance, a recent study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that, as a direct result of the demonstrably high-risk and biologically incongruous act of male-male anal sodomy, one-in-five "gay" and "bisexual" men in American cities have been infected with HIV/AIDS.

If five people got into a car and were told that one of them wasn't going to survive the drive, how quickly do you suppose they'd scatter? Yet we systematically promote celebration of homosexual conduct in our public schools.

Criminally reckless? You be the judge.

Or consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Further studies conducted by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Again I ask: Is it "criminally reckless" to indoctrinate children into this potentially deadly lifestyle?

Again I say: You be the judge.

So, according to its own "hate group" standard, the SPLC is left one of three possible choices: Either it remains consistent, tagging the CDC, the FDA and the FBI with its pejorative "hate group" moniker; it offers a public retraction and apology for its attacks against me and other Christians; or it remains silent while its credibility continues to swirl down the toilet bowl of irrelevancy.

Still, the SPLC has done a significant disservice to its homosexual propagandist and sexual relativist allies. My friend Gary Glenn with the American Family Association of Michigan (a "hate group" target of the SPLC) sums it up nicely:

"The SPLC's demonization of groups that tell the truth about the public health implications of homosexual behavior may be the biggest boon we've seen in years to efforts to publicize those health consequences. We welcome this opportunity. The SPLC has provided a public service by focusing attention and discussion on the severe public health consequences of homosexual behavior."

Indeed, the SPLC and its allies are flailing violently as they swim upstream against a torrent of settled science, thousands of years of history and the unwavering moral precepts of every major world religion.

It's little wonder they've resorted to childish name calling.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel.

Thursday, October 07, 2010

“Gay” Lobby Shamelessly Exploits Teen Suicides

By: Matt Barber

Anyone with a heart grieves deeply over these needless suicides. Taking one’s own life is never the right choice. There are thousands of teen suicides each year. Some kids just don’t seem to understand the permanence of it, or how it destroys the lives of those they leave behind.

We all agree: harassment and bullying of children should always be dealt with immediately and firmly. And if laws are broken, offenders should be prosecuted – period. This is true whether kids are targeted because they’re perceived to be homosexual, conservative, Christian or for any other reason.

Unfortunately – though not surprisingly – extremist "gay" pressure groups, like the incongruously named "Human Rights Campaign," Ellen DeGeneres and other liberal activists are shamelessly exploiting these tragedies as a means to achieve their own selfish political ends.

In a recent statement, Ms. DeGeneres said: "There are messages everywhere that validate this sort of bullying and taunting and we need to make it stop. We can't let intolerance and ignorance take another kids life."

Indeed, actual bullying and taunting must not be tolerated. But what "messages" is Ms. DeGeneres referring to, and how do "we…make [them] stop?" I’ll translate from liberalese to plain English. What Ellen meant was this: Public defense of God's express, self-evident and unequivocal design for human sexuality must be stopped under force of law. Proponents of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic are murdering "gay" kids with their words.

Not only is this propagandist line of reasoning disingenuous, offensive and Orwellian, it’s utter nonsense.

Joe Solmonese, president of HRC, took it a step further, directly blaming for these suicides Christians and the Mormon Church. To him, opposition to so-called "same-sex marriage," and defense of biblical sexual morality are the culprits: "Words have consequences," said Solmonese, "particularly when they come from a faith leader. This is exactly the kind of statement that can lead some kids to bully and others to commit suicide."

As Rahm Emanuel famously said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. [I]t's an opportunity to do things you could not do before." It makes me physically ill to watch as the HRC and other "gay" militants lick their chops and rub their hands together over the tragic suicides of these troubled, sexually confused young men. Before they were even laid to rest, the radical homosexual lobby pounced leveraging these suicides to demand that government codify each of their extremist, social engineering demands. This is political exploitation at its slimiest and it pours salt on the wounds of loved ones.

God’s message to young people struggling with same sex temptation or to those who feel the shame that naturally accompanies sexual sin is that suicide is never the way out. But there is a way out. It comes first through belief in Jesus Christ, and then through confession of sin; finally, repentance. As Jesus said to the repentant sexual sinner at the well, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

The families of these precious young people should know that Christians around the country are praying for them and will continue to pray for them in their time of loss. Scripture says "blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted."

But Christians are also praying that these wicked and callous political vultures who seek to exploit these suicides become confounded and fail fantastically. Their mission is not one of "tolerance" or "diversity." Quite the opposite: Their goal is to fan flames of anti-Christian bigotry and discrimination, evangelizing on behalf of their own perverted god: moral relativism. We simply won’t let them get away with it.

J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.

Friday, July 30, 2010

Obama’s Real Title: The Hypocrite-in-Chief

by: Mandi Campbell, Esq.

The President should recognize his role. He was elected to a position of power for the purpose of serving the people, and he was elected on the promise of transparency with the people. Since his move to the White House, he has proven to be a hypocrite, if not a liar and deceiver as well. Lately, he and his employees have gotten into the habit of blocking press access to issues and events of public concern, and there are multiple reports brewing about the Administration’s attempts to bribe congressmen into voting in accordance with the will of the Administration.

News flash: the President and the members of Congress are accountable to the American people! The American people have the right to know what the Administration is attempting to coordinate off camera and behind closed doors.

Not too long ago, the Administration limited media access to the Gulf waters, refusing to allow journalists to get closer than sixty-five feet from the clean-up efforts. Remember when Obama restricted access to Gitmo? Remember when he refused to allow the press to talk to Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s brother – the brother who inspired her to delve into socialism? Remember the numerous closed-door sessions Obama had during the course of the healthcare debate? It makes you wonder what, other than the construction of a new age of government-imposed mandates on businesses and individuals, goes on behind the doors of the White House. It has to make you wonder what the man who ran his campaign on promises of transparency is hiding from the American people.

One thing is certain: he never intended to inform the general public about his attempts to bribe members of Congress and candidates for positions in Congress. Americans have good reason to be skeptical about the integrity of Obama and the members of his Administration.

During his time in the White House, Obama and the members of his Administration have held multiple closed-door sessions about important issues. Last year these closed-door sessions led to questions about whether Obama was attempting to entice or threaten, for example through the closure of military bases, members who opposed him. A few months ago, multiple sources stated that Jim Messina, President Obama’s deputy chief of staff, offered Andrew Romanoff a position in the Obama Administration if he dropped his bid for a Colorado Senate seat, which Romanoff declined. Two months ago, Representative Joe Sestak said that an unnamed official in the Obama White House offered him a federal appointment if he would drop his bid against Senator Arlen Specter. Last month, while Jim Matheson was still on the fence as to whether to vote for the healthcare bill, his brother, Scott Matheson Jr., was conveniently nominated for a lifetime appointment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Based on the recent announcement of Bart Stupak’s retirement, many have speculated that Obama bought Stupak’s healthcare vote with promises of rainbows and butterflies, and maybe some obscure position in his Administration. And now, many reporters are wondering if Senator Specter has traded his vote to confirm Elena Kagan as a Supreme Court Justice (the same Kagan he voted against confirming as Solicitor General) for a position in the Obama Administration (because he lost his Senate seat in the primary).

As President of the United States of America, Obama does not get to suppress political and cultural expression (though he expressed his desire to do so in his State of the Union reference to the Citizens United case), and he does not get to exercise absolute, centralized control over all aspects of the lives of Americans. As Abraham Lincoln said, this is a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The United States of America is not a totalitarian regime!

If Obama, the President that ran his campaign based on promises of transparency, continues these corrupt practices of putting road blocks up for the media and usurping the powers and conscience of the legislature by buying and bribing members of Congress, perverting the legislative process, his four-year term will be cut short. The American people will be hungry for the impeachment of Obama, the Hypocrite-in-Chief, and in January of 2011, they just might have the representation in Washington to see an impeachment through.

Ms. Campbell is a graduate of Liberty University School of Law and serves as Legal Director for Liberty Center for Law and Policy.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Kupelian's "How Evil Works" Shines Bright (Book Review)

By: Matt Barber

I’m a tremendous fan of author and Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. Rarely does one find a writer who can elucidate so profoundly, as could he, the stark contrast between secular humanism – “materialism” as Lewis called it – and the Judeo-Christian worldview. Seldom does one come across a wordsmith capable of so effectively, objectively and concisely distinguishing between good and evil.

I’ve found that wordsmith.

My wife Sarah and I were listening to the radio a few months back as Sean Hannity interviewed an author about his latest publication. The book was “How Evil Works,” but we were unable to ascertain, for some time, its author’s identity. We were immediately drawn into the discussion as this mystery guest waxed wise about what he called man’s “millennia-old blind spot” – namely, the existence of evil, how it works and why it destroys us.

I was amazed by the speaker’s insights into this “radioactive topic.” “Wow, this guy really get’s it,” I told Sarah. She nodded in agreement either unwilling or unable to take her attention away from the show long enough to answer. Finally – and for the benefit of us late arrivals – Sean divulged the identity of his guest: It was best-selling author and award-winning journalist David Kupelian.

I was no longer surprised.

David continued. He spoke of how America – once the moral guidepost to the world – had, “over time…abandoned its original principles,” only to now suffer from great “moral confusion.”

He spoke of a president, “wearing a mask,” who is “deceptive from morning ‘till night.” A president who, “taking us where we don’t want to go – has to lie about where he’s taking us.”

“Those in power talk an awful lot like those we used to fight,” he said.

That was it. “We’ve got to get this book,” I insisted. Sarah agreed.

I don’t often do book reviews (this is my first in fact), but after reading “How Evil Works,” I felt compelled to put pen to paper. Whereas Kupelian’s conversation with Hannity stopped me in my tracks, his book took it to the next level. It was simply outstanding.

I guess the best way to describe it is to say that “How Evil Works” has the same effect on your brain that yawning has on your ears at high altitude. Things just suddenly pop with crystal clarity.

Throughout “Evil’s” pages David meticulously unpacks today’s most pressing issues providing unassailable answers to some of our most critical questions. For instance:

• Where have all the statesmen gone and why do politicians lie?

• Why are so many Americans abandoning their Christian roots and embracing atheism and the occult?

• What drives terrorists to kill?

• How are psychological and spiritual problems linked, and why do we medicate ourselves into zombies?

• Why do people who seem to have everything so often self destruct and end up with nothing?

• How can we turn it all around and return this great nation to her God fearing ways?

And many more...

In recent days I was on a flight to Oklahoma City, OK. As I read the last page of “Evil” and placed it in the seat flap in front of me, a 15 year-old girl sitting to my side asked: “So how does evil work?” What an opening! “Well, this book explains it a lot better than I can,” I replied.

For several minutes we discussed worldview and our horribly failing culture. Turns out she was on her way to a missions trip in Jamaica. She mentioned that, like me, C.S. Lewis was one of her favorite authors. I chuckled and asked: “You’re homeschooled, aren’t you?”

Indeed she was, but explained that in the fall she was attending public school for the first time. “I want to get in there and be salt and light,” she said.

“Well then,” I replied, “take this with you. If you love C.S. Lewis, you won’t be able to put it down.” I handed her “How Evil Works.” She smiled ear-to-ear, thanked me and we went our separate ways. I’m quite certain that for it, her salt will be that much saltier and her light just a bit brighter.

J. Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and also serves as Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law.

Friday, June 11, 2010

Kagan a lesbian? Why it matters.

By: J. Matt Barber

I don't see how liberal media-types can write, what with those uncalloused, milky-soft little digits all bundled in bulky kid gloves and all. Oh, when the target of their "reporting" is a conservative politico, or even Tea Party Joe, off come the gloves. But when it's one of their own — when circumstances require that a fellow liberal undergo a modicum of journalistic scrutiny — its simpatico most sublime. Out with the inquiry; in with the Huggies and tushie powder.

Media, here's your question: "Solicitor Kagan, do you identify as a lesbian?" Ms. Kagan, your answer is simpler still: "Yes" or "no."

Pipe down, lefties. Yes, it is relevant. Most liberals would disagree, but despite "progressive" protestations to the contrary, character does, in fact, matter. A majority of Americans still consider sexual morality — or a lack thereof — a pertinent factor in contemplating one's fitness for any public service — chiefly, perhaps, a lifetime appointment to our most supreme earthly court.

Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology have established that homosexual conduct is among other volitional behaviors rightly filed under "sexual immorality." Indeed, the majority of folks around the world — billions, actually — count this a timeless truth.

But the controversial nature of homosexuality is but one point of concern. Another involves potential conflicts of interest, "real or perceived." If we had a judicial nominee — widely believed a compulsive gambler — tapped to preside over gambling cases, would it not matter? If we had a nominee credibly rumored to use medical marijuana who might someday rule on the legality of medical marijuana, wouldn't such information be germane?

And before you liberals throw out that favorite red herring: "By this logic, Clarence Thomas shouldn't rule on cases involving race or sexuality because he's a black heterosexual male" — remember: skin color is a neutral, immutable characteristic. Being black is what someone is.

On the other hand, being "gay" is what someone does. It involves feelings and changeable behaviors. Homosexual conduct is more akin to the aforementioned gambling or pot smoking behaviors than it is to skin color (and for those in the lifestyle, especially men, sodomy most definitely involves rolling the dice). To compare "black" or "heterosexual" to "gay" is to compare apples to oranges. Understandably, many African Americans find this disingenuous comparison tremendously offensive.

Moreover, "heterosexual" is the state of sexual normalcy. It's our God-given design. There remains no credible or replicated scientific evidence to the contrary. Homosexual conduct is but one of many sexually deviant behaviors. Even Darwin's theory of evolution, which imagines "survival of the fittest," would seem to bolster this self-evident truth. You can choose political correctness. I choose moral and biological correctness.

Still, Kagan's "sexual orientation" remains the pink elephant in the room: Can a sitting justice, potentially engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, be trusted to rule on cases that might well grant special preferred government status to some — including that very justice — while, at the same time, eliminating certain free-speech and religious-liberties rights enjoyed by others? (i.e., hate-crimes laws; the Employment Non-Discrimination Act; constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; constitutionality of "don't ask don't tell," etc.)

In April, CBS News published an online column identifying Kagan — should she be confirmed — as the "first openly gay justice." The White House pounced, demanded CBS remove the article and called the assertion "false charges." CBS dutifully complied, tail twixt legs, whimpered away and curled-up behind the rest of Obama's slobbering media lapdogs.

Whereas every liberal hack on the planet tripped over one another to demand Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and, most recently, George Rekers divulge the most intimate details of their own bizarre (allegedly) sexual appetites, with Kagan, they've suddenly lost interest.

Although the mainstream media refuse to do their job, some in the homosexual-activist press are stepping-up to fill the vacuum.

Homosexual blogger Andrew Sullivan, for instance, writing in The Atlantic, opined: "In a free society in the 21st century, it is not illegitimate to ask [whether Kagan is gay]. And it's cowardly not to tell."

But Kagan ain't tellin', and the media ain't askin'. Of course, even if they were inclined to ask, they'd have a difficult time doing so. The White House has Kagan wrapped-up tighter than Barney Frank in a bustier.

The question is important for context. The answer, for instance, might explain why Kagan drop-kicked our brave men and women of the armed services in the solar plexus, during a time of war, by banning military recruiters from Harvard while dean of the law school. She did so in protest of the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, calling it "a profound wrong" and "a moral injustice of the first order."

As it turned out, Kagan's actions were illegal, and the very Supreme Court upon which she hopes to serve slapped her down with its 8-0 decision upholding the Solomon Amendment, which would have allowed the Department of Defense to withhold federal funding to Harvard if it failed to reverse its discriminatory policy.

Ed Whelan, head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said of Kagan's activism: "At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists."

Newt Gingrich took his criticism a step further. While addressing the controversy, he bluntly said of Kagan's nomination: "That is an act so unbecoming of an American that she should be disqualified from the very beginning."

I agree.

Indeed, whether or not Elena Kagan self-identifies as a lesbian, she has proven herself a radical anti-military, pro-homosexual ideologue and activist. There's little doubt that she would take this activism with her to the high court.

So, Ms. Solicitor General, if in fact you are "totally not gay," as some of your friends and your president claim, then it's my hope that a few Republican U.S. senators might take the time to introduce you to a nice fellow by the name of Phil A. Buster. Believe me, it's a match made in heaven.

© J. Matt Barber