Logo
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Obama Sends in the Clowns
By J. Matt Barber
 
With a potential political bloodbath looming in November, liberals are understandably desperate. They see it all slipping away and it shows. The grassroots groundswell of opposition to Obama’s neo-Marxist, secular-humanist agenda intensifies daily despite the left’s best efforts to silence dissent.
 
Commensurate with plummeting poll numbers and evaporating public trust, Democrats, media elites and the usual gaggle of left-wing pressure groups have ramped-up the unhinged “right-wing-extremist” twaddle to historically hysterical levels. For those who delight in watching the self-styled “progressive” movement implode, it’s priceless.
 
“How can it be?” they ask. “The stars were aligned.” With Barack Obama in the White House and his egalitarian enablers running Congress, liberals found themselves at ship’s helm on the USS Hopey-Changey, sailing unabated toward the perfect storm of Euro-socialist reform. America’s elite class would, at long last – curse these two-plus centuries of “constitutional” government – be as those erudite Europeans our homespun lefties so pitifully parrot.
 
Oops… something happened on the way to the Communism. Middle America, channeling Dana Carvey’s Bush-one, said: “Nope, not gonna’ do it… wouldn’t be prudent.” According to the latest Pew poll, America’s trust in today’s godless Obama-Pelosi-Reid federal government is at an all time low of 22 percent, little more than a year after Obama took office. 
 
Plan B: Demonize Dissent  
 
Mahatma Gandhi once said: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” His words are eerily applicable to the elitist acrimony we see in response to the rapid resurgence of America’s traditionalist zeitgeist.
 
After months of ignoring the burgeoning constitutionalist movement and dismissing it as “Astroturf,” the left hit the panic button. Jig was up. It had become painfully apparent to all that this measured, monotone young president who carried with him such high hopes for so many was, in fact, the radical leftist ideologue those Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck-types had warned of.
 
And so, the mainstream media hit back, latching like pit-bulls to a poodle on iffy reports that Tea Partiers had shouted racist and “homophobic” slurs at black members of Congress and, well, Barney Frank (claims which, as it turns out, were apparently fabricated whole cloth).
 
Conservative pundit Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 reward to anyone able to provide video or audio of the alleged slurs. Despite scores of television cameras in the immediate vicinity, no one has produced a shred of evidence.
Capitalizing on the media’s deliberate mischaracterization of Tea Party conservatives as racist, inbred seditionists, some despondent Obama supporters then devised a strategy to “crash the Tea Parties.” Throngs of constitutionally challenged, Berkeley-esque short-bussers (you shall know them by their patchouli covered bong pong) infiltrated many of the conspicuously peaceful “Tax Day Tea Parties” with racist and misspelled signs, screaming bigoted and inane slogans in an effort to paint Tea Partiers in a bad light.
 
Again, the strategy backfired with hilarious results as these boorish boobs outed themselves by posting their intentions on the internet in advance of operations. Legitimate Tea Partiers were ready for these “decaf” counterfeits, peacefully surrounding them when they showed up and calling them out in comical fashion.   
 
Conservatives are Domestic Terrorists  
 
Others have taken to the gutter deeper still. Most recently it was Bill Clinton with his lip-bitingly ominous warning that Tea Party conservatives and talk radio will cause another Oklahoma City. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla) issued a scathing statement, calling Clinton’s remarks “unconscionable,” and chided the former president: “This is an over-the-top effort to try to stop a movement of people who aren’t amenable to supporting Obama programs, like cap and trade, government-run health care and closing Gitmo.”
 
And then there’s the Alabama Alinskys. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a hard-left Montgomery-based outfit that claims to “monitor hate groups and racial extremists,” remains the liberal media’s go-to smear merchant. Perhaps more than any other group, the SPLC has overplayed its hand in vilifying opponents of Uncle Sam’s extreme makeover.
 
SPLC director Mark Potok, for instance, compared Tea Partiers to “domestic terrorists,” saying they’re “...shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” and are widely linked to “hate” and “vigilante groups.”
 
Filed under “absurd acts of transparent desperation” – the SPLC recently lumped-in with the KKK, neo-Nazis and “potentially violent” militia groups, a list of 40 high profile conservatives – to include three sitting U.S. representatives – who are apparently facilitating sedition (a federal offense). 
 
Among the treasonous “enablers” of the “antigovernment patriot movement” (read: Tea Partiers and pro-life/pro-family Americans) are Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn); Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex); Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga); Glenn Beck (Fox News host); Judge Andrew Napolitano (Fox News legal analyst); and Joseph Farah (Editor of WorldNetDaily.com).   
 
Seriously, guys? The SPLC would save us all time and energy if it simply released a list of conservative pundits, politicos and organizations that are not on its official “right-wing watch list.”
 
Perhaps the one charge SPLC nailed is that America is currently experiencing a “far-right resurgence” (read: conservative comeback). The good news is that such dishonest smears are causing the SPLC – already hemorrhaging credibility – to just bleed-on-out.
 
Mainstream media, you're on official notice: Continue to cite the activist “analysis” of this discredited gang of kneecappers at your own peril. You risk losing completely, your own already vanishing credibility.
 
I’m sure they’ll get right on that.
 
In the meantime, what these panicked “progressive” pixies fail to understand, is that the more they malign the ever-growing millions of red-blooded, God-fearing Americans who feel compelled to push back against Obama’s weighty radicalism – the more they humiliate and embarrass themselves.
 
The more the left attempts to marginalize our nation’s center-right mainstream with disingenuous charges of “racism,” “homophobia” and “potential violence” – the more it marginalizes itself.
 
 
Still, I say marginalize away. Political self-neutering may just be these frowny clowns’ one true act of patriotism. 
    
Matt Barber 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. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Posted at 08:30 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Thursday, April 15, 2010
Barack Obama: Enemy Within
By J Matt Barber

[W]e will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.
– Ronald Wilson Reagan
Our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world.
– George Walker Bush
America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.
– Barack Hussein Obama (Insert deflating balloon effect here.)

We have a president loath to acknowledge American exceptionalism. Indeed, the weight of the evidence suggests that our chief executive, through both word and deed and with malice aforethought, seeks to undermine – if not dismantle – that exceptionalism. At one time we properly called such activity anti-American, seditious or even – under certain circumstances – treasonous. Today we call it "progressive."

Abraham Lincoln – also from the Prairie State – perhaps forecast his presidential progeny when he observed: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

We are destroying ourselves. Of course, by "we" I mean those egalitarian ideologues who presently control the reins of government: liberals in Congress, President Obama and his stable of cracked czars and policy advisers. Their demonstrated antipathy toward America's uniquely grand place among world nations is unambiguous.

Consider comments made recently by John "forced abortion" Holdren, Obama's science czar, to students at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In a rallying cry that could only be mustered by a true patriot, Holdren proclaimed: "[America] can't expect to be number one in everything indefinitely." (Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Go team! That'll sure fire 'em-up before they hit the field.)
 
But what's most outrageous is the demonstrable reality that Obama's legislative agenda is intentionally designed to do just that – to ensure that America devolves to the lowest common denominator, lining-up as but another "also-ran" in today's neo-Marxist, internationalist horse race.

In addition to his humiliating world apology tour, the president recently gave us a sneak peek into this egalitarian mindset while preaching to the choir at his April 12 Nuclear Security Summit: "Whether we like it or not, we (the United States) remain a dominant military superpower," he said.

"Whether we like it or not"? That Obama would even preface recognition of America's precarious role as the "last remaining superpower" with "like it or not" betrays his fixed membership among the camp of self-loathing "or nots."

I've been reluctant to climb aboard the "Obama wants to destroy America" conspiracy train. I'm no longer reticent to do so. As Newt Gingrich recently observed, we know this administration to be "far and away the most radical administration in American history."

Although he may not seek to destroy America outright, we can only conclude – based upon his grossly irrational and irresponsible governance – that Obama remains determined to destroy America both as we know her and as our Founding Fathers intended her.

It's our own fault, really (by "our" I mean "you" if you voted for him). We should have taken this radical ideologue at his radical word.

Remember? During his Inaugural Address, Obama promised to "begin again the work of remaking America." That's "remake" America, not "improve" America or even "reform" America. It has always been this man's "hope" to "change" our nation by wiping clean the slate – "remaking" an America in his own secular-humanist, neo-Marxist self-image.

And that's exactly what he's doing. Obama has embarked upon the most brazen, slash-and-burn socialist restructuring scheme in our nation's history. This president is many things, but he's not stupid. He knows full well that his massive government takeover of health care, coupled with his global warmist "cap-and-trade" tax scheme – and his broader tax-and-spend-during-deep-recession game of economic Russian roulette – are undeniably unsustainable.

Not only will these policies bring down the private insurance industry (part of the plan), they will – if let stand – bring down the whole of private industry, crashing our entire free-market system (again, part of the plan).

It's already happening. AT&T, Verizon, Deere and Caterpillar are but the first among an anticipated cavalcade of major corporations expecting to suffer a multi-billion dollar bloodbath at the hands of Obamacare – merely one of the president's radically sweeping, game-changing initiatives. (Congratulations, Mr. President.) As every good Marxist knows – to include the "man-child president" (as dubbed by Rush Limbaugh) – it's all unsustainable. Scary thing is: It'll work if they're not stopped at the ballot box come November.

As reported by FoxNews.com: "'The future of the economic might of this nation is at stake,' Jim Kessler, vice president for policy at Third Way bluntly observes.

 "President Obama's budget forecast for the next decade (grossly underestimated) projects an additional $10 trillion in deficit spending, more than doubling the current national debt to a staggering $20 trillion.

"The gloomy forecast leads some analysts like former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin to suggest our economy is headed for a cliff.

"'This looks like Thelma and Louise to me. I mean, you know, there's the Grand Canyon and we're going to hit the accelerator. Why? You should hit the brake and then turn the car around."
But Thelma and Louise never intended to turn the car around.
 
Neither does Barack Obama.

There's no other way to say it. As goes the war to preserve liberty, national sovereignty, national solvency and American exceptionalism: Intelligence suggests we have an enemy within.
Posted at 10:46 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The Face of Hate
By J. Matt Barber
 
“Progressives” are like pig farmers. In an effort to bury opposing viewpoints they sling pejorative slop, labeling as “bigot,” “hater,” “wingnut” or “racist” those with whom they disagree. It’s the height of intellectual sloth.
 
The ad hominem approach – chief among logical fallacies – undergirds an effort to both marginalize conservative viewpoints and avoid arguing on the merits the controversies of the day. For liberals, to set sail in fair debate is to navigate treacherous waters.
 
We’ve seen this tired tactic abused ad nauseum in recent days by the mainstream media and Democrats. Aided by hard-left outfits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center – all too eager to provide “expert analysis” tailor-made for jaundiced journalism – liberal elites have been desperate to throw poison on bourgeoning grassroots opposition to Obama’s careening Marxist agenda. It’s straight out of the “progressive” playbook: Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” 
 
Hence, in the face of zero supporting evidence, “Tea Party” conservatives, Constitutionalists, pro-life and pro-family Americans, and generally any patriot who disagrees with the Obama administration are smeared with “hate’s” broad brush.  
 
Grandma and Grandpa; your fireman neighbor; school teachers; pastors; butchers; bakers; and candlestick makers are now “potentially violent right-wing extremists.” They are, as Mark Potok, Huffington Post columnist and SPLC director puts it: “…shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” and are widely linked to “hate” and “vigilante groups.” (Knock it off, Mark. With the exception of your fellow moveon.org-types, the vast majority of Americans aren’t biting.)
 
Nonetheless, every once in a while, as it goes, “even a blind squirrel finds a nut.” While I rarely agree with the Mark Potoks of the world, today, on at least one issue, I find myself doing so. Cult leader Fred Phelps and his Westboro brood of “God hates F-gs” fame are infused to the marrow with pure, unadulterated hate.
 
Phelps hates homosexuals. He hates the military. He hates America. He apparently hates everyone. But he also hurts people. Intentionally, I believe. 
 
Phelps contends that every time a U.S. soldier dies in combat its God’s judgment for our nation’s affirmation of homosexual sin. Best known for disrupting military funerals, Phelps is – and was – a lot of things: He’s a former Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate; he was an Al Gore fundraiser for the ex-Veep’s 1988 presidential run; he’s a self-styled “Baptist minister;” and he’s a buffoon. 
 
But one man decided to fight back. As reported by the AP: “Albert Snyder of York, Pa., is suing [Phelps’] church that picketed the funeral of his son, who died in a vehicle accident in Iraq. The Westboro Baptist Church contends U.S. military deaths are God’s punishment for tolerance of homosexuality. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
“The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 in court costs to Westboro and its pastor, Fred Phelps. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly has pledged to donate that amount. An American Legion spokesman says the veterans’ group has collected more than $12,000 in donations. People can also donate directly to Snyder on a Web site in his son's name.” (To donate go to www.mathewsnyder.org).
Indeed, Phelps and his incestuous band of Dale Carnegie rejects represent hate personified. Rather than taking the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach to sexual immorality, these false prophets preach counterfeit Christianity, devoid of the faith’s core tenet: redemption. 
 
They labor under the misconception that, somehow, they are exempt from the Gospel’s central “judge not lest ye be judged” provision. “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’” Romans 3:10.
 
I pray that Phelps and Co. will both repent and seek Christ’s redemption for the harm they’ve caused people like the Snyders. I also pray that liberals will repent. By lumping together with Phelps those who recognize traditional, biblical sexual morality, homosexual activists and the left-wing media trivialize true hate.
 
Indeed, many Americans – perhaps most – adhere to the biblical notion that all sexual conduct outside the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman is sexually immoral. (Sorry liberals, that’s just the way it is; nothing personal. Despite disingenuous bleatings to the contrary, such beliefs are typically as far removed from hate as Phelps is from cuddly. Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology hold this to be true. And as with all absolute truth, it just is.) 
 
So, Fred Phelps aside, every time you hear some lefty like Anderson Cooper or Keith Olbermann despicably refer to Bible-believing Christians as “homophobes,” or who call grandma a “teabagger” (slang for a vile homosexual act), consider who the real haters are.
 
Whenever Mark Potok, Rachel Maddow or some liberal politico in Congress attempts to equate conservative Joe to a “right wing extremists” or a “domestic terrorist,” contemplate who the true bigots are.
 
The palpable irony is that leftists – with their slanderous name-calling, harsh judgments and ad hominem attacks – are, in truth, more like Phelps than those they falsely accuse.    
 
Progress demands a vigorous, open and honest debate. “Progressives” should quit the empty name calling and stop running-scared from true progress.
 
Matt Barber 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. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Posted at 11:45 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Monday, March 29, 2010
Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared “Left-Wing Hate Group”
By J. Matt Barber

Though always left of center, the Atlanta-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) once had a reputation as a fairly objective civil rights group. Founded by direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees and partner Joseph Levin Jr. in 1971, the SPLC made important and honorable contributions to many of the historic civil rights gains of the 20th Century. According to its own materials, the SPLC was “internationally known for tracking and exposing the activities of hate groups.” 
 
Alas, “power corrupts,” as it goes, and the SPLC, having amassed tremendous power and wealth over the years, has regrettably become corrupt to its core. By way of an ever-escalating wave of “us-versus-them” money-grubbing schemes, Today’s SPLC has morphed into a far-left political activist outfit, famous for promoting a panoply of extreme liberal causes.
 
Ken Silverstein, writing for Harper's Magazine, addressed this untoward metamorphosis in 2000: “Today’s SPLC spends most of its time – and money – on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. ‘He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement,’ renowned anti-death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, ‘though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.’
 
“The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the Center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors,” continued Silverstein. “Morris Dees doesn't need your financial support. The SPLC is already the wealthiest civil rights group in America, though [its fundraising literature] quite naturally omits that fact. … ‘Morris and I...shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money,’ recalls Dees’s business partner, a lawyer named Millard Fuller (not to be confused with Millard Farmer). ‘We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich.’” (You say Fuller. I say Farmer. The two Millards say “call the whole thing off.”) 
 
So, what happens when a dragon slayer – paid per dragon head – runs out of real dragons to slay? Well, he invents new ones, of course. Gotta keep those sprinklers-a-sprinklin.’ (According to Harper’s, “Dees bought a 200-acre estate appointed with tennis courts, a pool, and stables.” SPLC’s 2008 Form-990 shows net assets of over 219 million at the beginning of that year. Yup, there’s a spate to be made in the hate trade.)   
 
Silverstein explains:       
 
“The Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC’s most lucrative nemesis, has shrunk from 4 million members in the 1920s to an estimated 2,000 today [year 2000], as many as 10 percent of whom are thought to be FBI informants. But news of a declining Klan does not make for inclining donations to Morris Dees and Co., which is why the SPLC honors nearly every nationally covered ‘hate crime’ with direct-mail alarums full of nightmarish invocations of ‘armed Klan paramilitary forces’ and ‘violent neo-Nazi extremists…’”
 
But as the real dragons dry-up, new dragons emerge: “Tea Party” conservatives; Evangelical Christians; anti-abortion zealots and anti-gay bigots (read: pro-life and pro-family traditionalists); and, of course, gun-toting, knuckle-dragging 2nd Amendment rednecks. All bundled together – courtesy of the SPLC and Janet “the system worked” Napolitano – in that neat little pejorative package know as – Dun-Dun-Dun! – THE RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST! (You know, basically Middle America.) 
 
So, sadly – shamefully, really – today’s SPLC has become nothing more than a “non-profit” extension of the black helicopter, Huffpo-wing of the Democratic Party – a gaggle of partisan hacks bent on lining their pockets, defaming good people (along with the bad) and filling DNC coffers. (SPLC Director Mark Potok even doubles as a Huffington Post columnist. Seriously. They make it that easy.)  
 
The real problem lies in the fact, however, that the SPLC holds itself out as an objective monitor of potentially violent or subversive hate groups. It presents to municipal, state and federal law enforcement, regular “intelligence files” and an annual “Year in Hate” report. Ostensibly, these reports contain facts – even actionable intelligence – aimed at helping law enforcement officials prevent and/or monitor potentially violent criminal activity.
 
Then? Perhaps. Now? Not so much.
 
In recent years the SPLC reports have been utterly tainted – weaponized and used against the leftist group’s ideological and political adversaries. This is a despicable, bad faith abuse of others’ good will, and of the SPLC’s past reputation.   
 
Case in point: Recently, the SPLC came under fire for comparing the “Tea Party” movement and other grassroots conservatives to “terrorists.” Potok slandered “Tea Party” goers, suggesting that “they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” and are widely linked to “hate” and “vigilante groups.” Of course there are always a few nuts in any movement, but clearly Potok’s intent was to defame tens of millions of patriotic “Tea Partiers,” simply because he disagrees with them.    
 
It was earlier reported that Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security relied upon similar reports by the SPLC in preparing the DHS’ own slanderous – now infamous – “Right Wing Extremist” report. You may recall: it painted pretty much all conservatives with that broad, multi-colored brush of “domestic terrorism.” (The report was later pulled, and Napolitano forced to apologize in shame.)    
 
Even more recently, the SPLC launched another in a series of politically motivated attacks against a well-respected Christian organization. The group arbitrarily tagged as an official “hate group” Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH).
 
AFTAH promotes biblical morality, opposes the radical homosexual activist lobby and publicly decries both violence and hatred against homosexuals or anyone else. Although it has been in operation for a number of years, the SPLC only recently labeled AFTAH a “hate group” after being pressured by the Chicago-based “Gay Liberation Network” to do so.
 
GLN is a fringe group of self-described Marxists and sexual anarchists best known for disrupting peaceful Christian gatherings with raucous, bullhorn laden protests. In a twist most ironic, GLN leader Bob Schwartz once threatened AFTAH founder Peter LaBarbera in front of witnesses, telling him that if the police weren’t present at a rally, he would have pushed LaBarbera into oncoming traffic. (“Hate crime, anyone?” Love that “tolerance” and “diversity.” Where’s the SPLC when you need them?)
 
You can only cry wolf so many times before people begin to ignore you. Today, the SPLC’s “hate group” reports have begun to resonate almost exclusively within a far-left echo chamber. Newsflash: Moveon.org wants Bush tried as a “war criminal,” Charlie Sheen thinks the U.S. government was behind 9/11 and, yes, the SPLC has once again awarded its now meaningless “hate group” distinction to yet another conservative organization with which it is admittedly – in every way – both politically and ideologically opposed. Who would’ve thunk it? 
 
Don’t get me wrong. Again, in the past, the SPLC has actually done some good by identifying and monitoring real hate groups such as the KKK, neo-Nazis and Skin Heads.
 
But now, regrettably, the SPLC has traded in its limited usefulness for radical left-wing activism. It has become much like that which it previously sought to expose. Today it uses the very tactics employed by white nationalists and other bona fide hate groups to malign large groups of people whom the SPLC most decidedly “hates.”
 
It’s nauseatingly transparent. With empty, ad hominem attacks and pejorative “hate group” smears, the SPLC strives to politically marginalize its ideological opponents. It’s a cynical “guilt-by-false-association” scheme, through which the SPLC hopes – in the public mind’s eye – to equate Christians, “Tea Party” conservatives and other traditionalists to the KKK and neo-Nazis.
 
Still, in going after Americans for Truth, the GLN surprisingly betrayed its SPLC ally by publicly acknowledging SPLC’s nefarious tactics. GLN boasted that this was the strategy all along. The Gay Liberation Network’s stated goal in goading the SPLC to label AFTAH a “hate group” was to “help assist” in AFTAH’s “political marginalization.”
 
Of course, by kowtowing to an already deeply marginalized GLN; by so obviously abusing its once-respectable reputation; and by spending its last remaining political capital on such folly, the SPLC has only succeeded in further marginalizing itself.
 
But, as they say: What’s good for the goose… Let’s try it on for size. It’s a “hate group,” mudslinging good time! In exercise of the SPLC’s trademark “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” criterion for arbitrarily determining “hate group” status, I hereby declare the Southern Poverty Law Center an “anti-Christian, anti-conservative hate group.” There, it’s official. Try it. It’s fun!  
 
But seriously, if AFTAH is a “hate group,” then so is Liberty Counsel, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, American Family Association, the Southern Baptist Convention and the Roman Catholic Church. Any group that observes and defends traditional sexual morality would have to be labeled such.
 
Heck, for that matter, so would the U.S. Armed Forces, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA. These groups publically expose the undeniable medical and societal pitfalls associated with the homosexual lifestyle and, therefore, must be “hate groups,” right?  
 
Of course, like any bully, the SPLC only goes after those it believes it can push around. But really, it confers a badge of honor upon every legitimate Christian and conservative organization it so disingenuously mislabels “hate group.” It’s a tacit admission by the SPLC that these groups represent a political threat; that their activities undermine the SPLC’s not-so-thinly-veiled, left-wing agenda. (Kind of like winning a conservative Grammy.) 
 
Indeed, I can’t speak for the many conservative and Christian organizations and ministries with which I’m associated. And of course I hate absolutely no one. Nonetheless, I’d like to officially request that the SPLC add my name to its spurious “anti-gay hate list.” It’s good for one’s conservative and biblical bona fides.”
 
(Hater Matt Barber hatefully sits on the hate-filled board of the official SPLC “hate group” Americans for Truth.) 
Posted at 08:28 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Monday, March 8, 2010
Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed
By J. Matt Barber

The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one's hope of donning the uniform.
This is discrimination only insofar as "discriminating minds" with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.
In formal recognition of the long-established finding that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:
  • The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
  • Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
  • The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element
  • The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
  • There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.

So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about "out and proud" homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?
The answer to both is no.
 
The fact that "homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline" has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.
Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the "settled" anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we'll focus on but one: medical science.
Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 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.
Do the math: If "gays" are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for "tolerance" and "diversity" – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?
All things considered (and we've only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should "gays" be allowed to serve openly: "I would not re-enlist or extend my service." Furthermore, 14 percent warn: "I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service." The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.
 
When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the "gays in the military" debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.
Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.
In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful "gay rights" rhetoric. However, it's an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who've already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.
 
For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be "tolerated."
Mr. President, it's your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It's high time you begin to take your job seriously.
 
Matt Barber 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. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)
Posted at 15:56 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Thursday, February 11, 2010
Is the “Gay” Fix in on Prop 8?
By J. Matt Barber
 
Last weekend the San Francisco Chronicle “outed” Proposition 8 Judge Vaughn Walker as an active practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle: “The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay,” revealed the Chronicle.
 
Judge Walker has presided over California’s Prop 8 case filed by homosexual extremists who seek to manufacture a constitutional “right” to so-called “same-sex marriage.” The legal odd-couple of former Bush attorney Ted Olson and Gore lawyer David Boies have partnered to represent the activist plaintiffs. 
 
The revelation that Judge Walker apparently chooses to engage in homosexual conduct, if true, would explain much of his bizarre behavior throughout this trial. At every turn he’s displayed extreme bias in favor of his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs.
 
These individuals have eschewed the democratic process and seek to employ like-minded judicial activists to radically redefine the millennia-old definition of natural marriage. When it comes to wildly unpopular social engineering schemes such as the imposition of “gay marriage” on the American people, arbitrary edict by way of judicial fiat is the left’s tool of choice.   
 
Enter Judge Walker. In unprecedented form, and to plaintiffs’ delight, he has created a circus-like atmosphere throughout. He even violated federal rules by deciding to allow the trial to be broadcast worldwide, but was subsequently shot-down and sharply rebuked by the U.S. Supreme Court for doing so.
 
Unfortunately, the damage was already done. Prop 8 supporters lost around two-thirds of their expert witnesses who, naturally – based on homosexuals’ violent reaction to passage of Prop 8 – feared for their own safety and for that of family members.
 
Judge Walker then ordered Prop 8 proponents to disclose private communications, work product, emails and campaign strategies to plaintiffs while – in an example of jaw-dropping inequality – permitting plaintiffs to keep the same materials secret.      
 
He also allowed plaintiffs a parade of “expert” witnesses who viciously maligned Christians and other observers of natural and historic sexual morality as “prejudiced,” “bigoted” and “homophobic.”
 
This is no different than having an avid gun dealer/collector preside over a Second Amendment case – or a frequent user of medical marijuana deciding the legality of medical marijuana.
 
Even his fellow judges on the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have been forced to step-in and overturn more than one of his inexplicable rulings on the case.
 
Unfortunately, based on his demonstrated misbehavior, there’s no reason to believe any of that will change. At worst, Judge Walker’s continued involvement with this case presents a textbook conflict of interest. At best, it objectively illustrates the unseemly appearance of a conflict.
 
The framers of the U.S. Constitution – who referred to homosexuality as “the sin that dare not speak its name” – could not have even conceptualized the ridiculous and oxy moronic notion of “gay marriage,” much less considered it a constitutional right. Still, if Judge Walker miraculously divines from thin air that Patrick Henry had a fundamental “right” to marry Henry Patrick, then who among us will be surprised?
 
Yes, he could stun the world and place constitutionalism – which he’s sworn to observe – above personal ideology; but, based on his actions throughout this trial, I’m betting the fix is in.  
 
This much is for sure: Any decision favoring plaintiffs in this case will be permanently marred and universally viewed as stemming from Judge Walker’s personal biases and alleged lifestyle choices.
 
For these reasons, and in the interest of justice, he should now do the honorable thing and recuse himself.
Posted at 13:36 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Thursday, January 28, 2010
Democrats’ Political Suicide Pact
By J. Matt Barber
The president recently told Diane Sawyer: “I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.” Excise the self-aggrandizing “really good” twaddle and it would seem ol’ Windy City Barry’s well on his way.
In the wake of Democrats’ historic Massachusetts smack-down, I’ve been anxious to see whether Obama would dig in his jackbooted heels and forge ahead with his wildly unpopular socialist agenda; or if he’d play nice with others and tack center (à la Bill Clinton in ‘94).
Wednesday night, during his first State of the Union address, we got our answer.
I’ll leave the in-depth analysis to others, but here’s the recap: Obama was Charlie Gibson and America was Sarah Palin. He looked down his nose, through the teleprompter, at the American people and in the most “me-centric” way imaginable, said: “Electric trains are wicked-cool. America sucks. Capitalism sucks. The Supreme Court sucks. It’s Bush’s fault. Oh, yea – the jobs thing. I’ll start my spending-freeze diet tomorrow. Give Perez Hilton a machine gun. Bama knows best. I’ll never quit. It’s Bush’s fault. Hopey-changey. Peace-out.” 
I have mixed feelings. The not-ready-for-prime-time amalgamation of jaw-dropping hubris and chuckle-out-loud incompetence this man continues to display bodes well for conservatives. The creepy political suicide pact he, Pelosi and Reid have apparently entered into – if fulfilled – almost certainly ensures an electoral bloodbath in 2010. It could cripple the Democratic Party for decades to come.
On the down side, if Obama and his fellow “progressive” extremists in Congress actually implement any of these radical policy initiatives, it could cripple the entire country for decades to come. If Obama loses, Democrats lose. If Obama wins, we all lose. Either way, Dems are in a pickle. 
Now, as we all know, optimism is “always seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.” Narcissism, on the other hand, is laboring under the pathological delusion that you are the light at the end of the tunnel. 
 
In 1994, after Bill Clinton over-optimistically interpreted his uninspiring presidential victory as a cart blanche mandate to “remake” America into Europe, voters responded by sweeping Republicans into leadership for the first time in 40 years.
 
Now – as revealed Wednesday night – we learn that, this time around, Obama has over-narcissistically interpreted his uninspiring presidential victory as a cart blanche mandate to “remake” America into Europe.
 
To borrow from Yogi Berra: It’s déjà vu all over again.
 
Notes, Elaine Donnelly with the Center for Military Readiness: “Dan Balz in a November 14, 1994, Washington Post article titled ‘Health Plan Was Albatross for Democrats: Big Government Label Hurt Party, Poll Finds. Greenburg found that 54% of 1,250 voters surveyed named the Health Care Task Force issue [HillaryCare] as the number one reason they cast a ‘vote of dissatisfaction’ in the leadership of Clinton and the Democrats controlling Congress in 1993. 
 
“Greenberg also identified a second issue, called ‘cultural liberalism,’ which was cited by 51% of respondents and symbolized by Bill Clinton’s failed 1993 campaign for homosexuals in the military.”
 
So, in 1994, voters took Clinton and Democrats to the woodshed for 1) trying to “Mark McGwire” the federal government through imposition of socialized healthcare, and 2) for pushing hard-left social policies to include misusing and abusing the military as a petri dish for San Francisco-style social experimentation.
 
Obama? Same script, different decade.
 
As Einstein (or was it Ben Franklin?) observed: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” So, is our president insane, daft, an obstinate left-wing ideologue or all three? You be the judge.  
 
One thing’s for certain. Wednesday night kicked-off the 2010 campaign season. Wonder how many Democrats will – as did Deeds, Corzine and Coakley – ring the Oval Office for help.
 
Kind of like having Jack Kevorkian lend a hand with your medication, I suppose. 
Matt Barber 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. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net.
Posted at 15:02 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Thursday, October 15, 2009
Here He Comes: Mr. Universe
By J. Matt Barber
 
OK, this is just too easy. You have to ask: Did the Norwegian Nobel Committee devise a secret plot to completely marginalize President Obama in the international community (I mean, beyond that which he’s already managed on his own)? Seriously, by awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday – based solely on his first twelve days in office – they’ve teed-up the ball for every Obama critic, late-night comedian and 6th grade class clown across the fruited plain. It’s been a rhetorical homerun derby. Even the majority of his supporters – apart from his worshipful media sycophants and Daily Kos-types – are left scratching their heads. 
 
Around America’s collective water cooler this week the conversation has begun: “Hear the one about Obama winning a Nobel Peace Prize?” It’s actually refreshing to be embarrassed for the man rather than disgusted with him.
 
First, it was the humiliating slap-down he received from the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen (it’s a shame that his presumptuous and decidedly un-presidential hubris likely cost Chicago a stab at 2016); and then, in an apparent effort to give him cover while he licked his wounds, his Marxist pals in Oslo overcorrected with this silliness. It’s a political millstone Obama probably didn’t want and surely doesn’t need. 
     
Still, it’s a shame that by overtly politicizing the prize in such a way, the Nobel Committee has so diminished its significance (of course, with recipients like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Yassar Arafat, it was already losing credibility). Who can ever hear “Nobel Peace Prize” again and not roll their eyes?   
 
Hells-bells, since the only criterion for winning is an apparent ability to blather-on philosophical about “world peace,” I nominate Miss New Jersey for the next go around. At least she can sing. Or, since it’s all about symbolism over substance anyway, how about Gerald Holtom: underappreciated inventor of the hippy peace symbol?  
 
For that matter, why stop with the Peace Prize? I say President Obama deserves an Emmy. After all, he goes on TV almost daily and reads his lines with a stirring southern preacher-esque delivery. He has the executive experience of Ben Affleck and the moonbat radicalism of Sean Penn. I can think of no one more qualified. Why not a Grammy? Obama is certainly singing a different tune on taxes, Afghanistan and executive “transparency” now that the election’s over.
 
In fairness though, it’s not Obama’s fault that he’s been incongruously strapped with the lofty title of “Nobel laureate.” It is, however, his fault that he’s having such a difficult time with his on-the-job training.
 
Whereas an American president should be respected abroad, Obama is almost universally perceived as weak. Whereas he should be feared by his enemies, he is mocked. And, whereas he should be appreciated by his friends, he continues to deeply frustrate his hard-left comrades as the “do-nothing president” (as uproariously captured by Saturday Night Live). 
 
Even liberal journalists are beginning to acknowledge Obama’s manifold deficiencies. For instance, while writing for the Washington Post, Richard Cohen noted that the president “inspires a lot of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama.” 
Gideon Rachman with The Financial Times notes: “The right argues that Mr. Obama is a man who has been wildly applauded and promoted for not doing terribly much. Now the Nobel committee seems to be making their point for them.”
Rachman goes on to layout a series of conservative grumblings: “Obama, the false Messiah; Obama, the president who apologizes for America; Obama, the man who is more loved abroad than at home; Obama, the man who never gets anything done; Obama the hesitant; Obama the weak.
“The danger for Mr. Obama,” Rachman concludes, “is that you are beginning to hear echoes of these charges from people who should be the president’s natural supporters.”
Still, Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is every bit as offensive as it is absurd. He is one of the most divisive president’s in U.S. history. Take his radical promotion of abortion on demand – up to and including the grizzly and, according to the AMA, never necessary practice of partial birth abortion. (That’s where an unborn child – up to the ninth month – is almost completely delivered, scissors or another sharp object are rammed into her skull and her brains are sucked out. Not very “peaceful.”)
 
No, Obama’s Peace Prize has little to do with “peace” and everything to do with policy. It’s no secret that leftists around the world, including the Nobel Committee, hate America. Obama may not hate America, but he loathes the idea of American exceptionalism. Whether it is his intention or not, he is busily working from within to relocate the shining city on a hill to a much lower altitude alongside those European nations after which he strives to “remake” America. It’s called international egalitarianism and it emanates from the man’s soul.  
 
In little over nine months he’s has managed to nearly destroy our economy, “stimulate” the quadrupling of the deficit over the next ten years, decimate the dollar, weaken our national security and has set the table for passage of the most leftist social policies in American history.
 
And liberals say he’s the “do-nothing president”? C’mon, guys, you should be tickled pink. We know your socialist, anti-American buddies over in Oslo are.
Posted at 10:21 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Thursday, August 6, 2009
Sex-Change-apalooza
By J. Matt Barber
August 7, 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.” 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 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.
Posted at 11:48 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



Wednesday, July 15, 2009
‘Gay’ Penguin Flies Straight
By J. Matt Barber
The highly contentious “nature vs. nurture” debate over whether gay penguins choose the homosexual lifestyle or are hatched that way has reached a hard boil.  
San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTUV reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.
 
“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.
 
“Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTUV. 
But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “ex-gay” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader Wayne Besen cried fowl:
“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”
When asked if heterosexual penguins can become gay, Besen replied, “Well, um, sure. It happens all the time. But in that case it’s just the penguin embracing who he really is. Penguin pride is quite a courageous thing to witness, what with all the mean-spiritedness and homophobia among Penguo-Americans and everything. Once gay, always gay! You know; birds of a feather and all that.
“See,” continued Besen, “medical science has conclusively determined that, while still eggs, many of the more effeminate penguins sometimes get a bit scrambled, so to speak, due to what’s called ‘Homospheniscus Magellanicus Inheritus’ or, as it’s commonly referred: ‘The Gay Penguin Gene’ (GPG).
“No, seriously. It’s science,” insisted Besen. “Harry’s as gay today as he’s ever been. Mark my words. It’s just a matter of time until he ends up slinking around some back alley gay bar in the Castro District, strung out on meth.”
      
As is customary, Besen – along with a lathered-up handful of equally irate anti-ex-gay blowhards – intends to raucously picket Harry’s Zoo holding area – megaphones in hand – to protest what Besen called, “the tremendous political setback an ever-increasing number of ex-gays pose to our furiously ambitious political agenda. I really, really wish they’d just go away.” 
Meanwhile, Pepper has also had difficulty accepting Harry’s decision to embrace natural sexuality. According to KTUV, Harry’s relationship with Linda “did not go over well with Pepper, who became violent.” Zookeeper Jennifer Katz lamented that “Pepper is by himself now.” 
Still, it appears that Pepper has yet to hit rock bottom. In recent days he has reportedly been spotted waddling around the zoo’s public men’s room, skulking in stalls and inexplicably tapping his flipper. There’s even speculation that, as things continue to spiral, he may consider a run for political office. 
Posted at 15:06 PM By Administrator | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)



12
Login Login
Email Address* :
Password* :

New Registration Forgot Password?
Categories Categories
Al Fonzi
Andy Caldwell
Ashly Donavan
Bill Glynn
Dan Logue
Darin Selnick
Dr. George Watson
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Mike Tabor
Dr. Wendy James
Gary Beckner
Gordon Mullin
Gretchen Hamel
Harris Sherline
Janet Cronick
Jerry Scheidbach
Joe Armendariz
Judson Phillips
Lowell Ponte
Matt Barber
Matt Kokkonen
Mike Brown
Mike Gorbell
Mike Stoker
Phil Kiver
Richard Cochrane
Richard Fryer
Richard S. Quandt
Robert Jeffers
Robyn Hayhurst
Roger Hedgecock
Rooster Bradford
Santa Barbara City Watch
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
RSS Feed RSS Feed
Top 10 Recent BlogRSS Feed
Al FonziRSS Feed
Andy CaldwellRSS Feed
Ashly DonavanRSS Feed
Bill GlynnRSS Feed
Dan LogueRSS Feed
Darin SelnickRSS Feed
Dr. George WatsonRSS Feed
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.RSS Feed
Dr. Mike TaborRSS Feed
Dr. Wendy JamesRSS Feed
Gary BecknerRSS Feed
Gordon MullinRSS Feed
Gretchen HamelRSS Feed
Harris SherlineRSS Feed
Janet CronickRSS Feed
Jerry Scheidbach RSS Feed
Joe ArmendarizRSS Feed
Judson PhillipsRSS Feed
Lowell PonteRSS Feed
Matt BarberRSS Feed
Matt KokkonenRSS Feed
Mike BrownRSS Feed
Mike GorbellRSS Feed
Mike StokerRSS Feed
Phil KiverRSS Feed
Richard CochraneRSS Feed
Richard FryerRSS Feed
Richard S. QuandtRSS Feed
Robert JeffersRSS Feed
Robyn HayhurstRSS Feed
Roger HedgecockRSS Feed
Rooster BradfordRSS Feed
Santa Barbara City WatchRSS Feed
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.RSS Feed
Archives Archives
Skip Navigation Links.
Tag Cloud Tag Cloud                      
Validator Validator
XHTML | CSS