Archive for March, 2014

LGBTOMGWTFBBQs Diss Their Own Founding Fathers

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014

LGBTOMGWTFBBQs Diss Their Own Founding Fathers

Brian Fitzpatrick
on 26 March, 2014 at 07:44

Watching the enforcers of political correctness grind their gears can be soooo entertaining.

As BarbWire senior editor Jeff Allen reports today, the far-left organization Media Matters is slamming Fox News because Roger Ailes’s boys and girls are still using the word “homosexual.” According to the demigods of PC, Fox is supposed to be using terms like “gay people” and “lesbian people,” as if sexual preference was an ethnicity. Media Matters asserts the word “homosexual” is already being tabooed by most of the major media.

Yup, it’s hard to believe, but in their latest effort to control the minds of the masses, the homosexual rights movement is trying to banish the word “homosexual.” Seems the word now carries with it the “ring of disapproval and judgment,” according to the New York Times.

Don’t they realize they’re trying to ban the very word coined by their own founding fathers? In addition to establishing the civil wrongs movement, those busy beavers were pioneers in euphemizing words that carried the ring of disapproval and judgment.

The LGBT movement was born in Germany in 1860. At that time homosexuals were identified by starkly behavioral terms: sodomites, pederasts and Knabenschänder, or boy ravishers.

“You can’t force priggish Germans to accept Knabenschänders,” reasoned Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, lawyer, pedophile, and the first gay activist. “We’ll have to call ourselves something else. Something nice and nonthreatening, that stresses identity, not behavior.”

Yes, the father of the civil wrongs movement, the “Gay Marx,” was the first to come up with a vague and deceptive euphemism to describe those who, we were once permitted to say, like to putt in the rough. Ulrichs’s word? “Uranian.” It seems to be an obscure mythological reference.

Ulrichs, by the way, was also the originator of the “born gay” myth. Homosexual sex has occurred throughout history, but even gay historians have searched in vain to identify homosexual people. If you ever wondered how the human race could have overlooked the existence of ten percent of itself for 6,000 years of recorded history, the answer is simple: there was nobody there. Before Ulrichs, humanity had it right. There were no such things as “homosexuals,” there were just people who sometimes had sex with people of the same sex. Homosexuality was a behavior, not a crusade.

“Uranian” didn’t cut the mustard, though it did give rise to the slogan “Uranians of the World, Unite!” In 1869 the Engels of the movement, Karoly Maria Benkert, coined a new term that quickly caught on: “homosexual.”

The initialism “LGBT” is itself a work in progress. First we had “lesbian and gay.” Bisexuals felt left out (and many, perhaps most, “Ls” and “Gs” are “Bs” in practice), so we were graced with LGB. Then somebody realized the transsexuals were uninclusively being excluded: LGBT. How about the self-proclaimed “queers?” LGBTQ. And those questioning their sexuality? LGBTQQ. We’ve seen all of these, and still the term is lengthening like an adolescent snake. Inevitably we’ll have to recognize the asexuals: LGBTQAQ? QAQ me with a spoon. Before the snake grows into an anaconda, I’d like to propose adopting a new initialism I recently came across, so everybody can settle once and for all on one final iteration and shift our attention to weightier matters. That initialism is LGBTOMGWTFBBQ. I think that says it all.

The real reason “homosexual” has to go is because the word “sex” is buried in it. We can’t be confusing homosexuality with sexual behavior, after all. As the Times reports,

George P. Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, has looked at the way the term is used by those who try to portray gays and lesbians as deviant. What is most telling about substituting it for gay or lesbian are the images that homosexual tends to activate in the brain, he said.

“Gay doesn’t use the word sex,” he said. “Lesbian doesn’t use the word sex. Homosexual does.”

I hate to break this to the civil wrongs movement, but sooner or later they’re going to have to ban the word “gay” as well. As you read these words, somewhere in America an indignant schoolmarm is punishing a fourth grader for hearing something stupid or gross or otherwise repulsive, and blurting, “That’s so gay.”

What are they going to call themselves next?

The sad truth is, when people set themselves against the laws of nature and nature’s God, they have to resort to linguistic games in a hopeless effort to deceive others, and maybe to deceive themselves. We all know what the civil wrongs movement is about: to abolish all sexual rules of conduct, uproot Judeo-Christian morality, destroy Western Christian culture, and replace it with some sybaritic utopia. No wonder it smacks of disapproval and judgment no matter what it’s called. A rose by any other name still smelleth sweet.

Author
Brian Fitzpatrick

Brian Fitzpatrick is the managing editor of BarbWire. A Washington, DC-based writer and editor, Brian reports and comments on politics, culture, religion and theology when he isn’t editing books. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Capital Bible Seminary.

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/03/26/lgbtomgwtfbbqs-spite-founding-fathers/#6rAz1UkvwFmd6E9Z.99

Stunning turn of events for persecuted homeschoolers Feds blink after Supreme Court puts family on path for deportation

Tuesday, March 4th, 2014

http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/stunning-turn-of-events-for-persecuted-homeschoolers/
Stunning turn of events for persecuted homeschoolers
Feds blink after Supreme Court puts family on path for deportation

The Romeike Family

Only 24 hours after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving a German homeschooling family, putting members on the path for potential deportation to the persecution they would face in their home country, the federal bureaucracy blinked.

And confirmed that the Romeikes will be allowed to remain in the United States indefinitely, unless, of course, they turn to crime for a livelihood or something like that.

It was on Monday that the Supreme Court released its decision to refuse to intervene in the family’s plight. Members had been granted asylum in the United States in 2010 when a federal judge ruled they would be subject to persecution for their beliefs if returned to Germany.

But the Obama administration refused to accept that, appealing to a higher court, where judges lined up against the family and said they should be sent back to Germany, and persecution. The high court’s refusal to intervene left that ruling standing.

But on Tuesday, officials with the Home School Legal Defense Association, who have been fighting on behalf of the family, said they were contacted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

As Michael Farris, HSLDA’s chief, wrote, “The Romeikes can stay!!! Today, a supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted ‘indefinite deferred status.’ This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.).”

He continued, “This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God. We also want to thank those …. who spoke up on this issue – including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.”

“This is an amazing turnaround in 24 hours,” he said. “Praise the Lord.”

The decision offers hope for the Romeikes, but still leaves standing the precedent that was set by the appeals court in the case. It was the executive branch itself that wanted the homeschooling family facing persecuting in Germany to be returned there. And it was the judicial branch that failed to help them.

Supporters suggested it might take a special act of Congress to protect the family.

The Romeikes, Uwe, Hannalore and their children, now numbering seven, had fled Germany to the United States in 2008 because of threats of fines, jail time, loss of their children and more, because they were homeschooling.

They chose home education because of their strong Christian beliefs and the fact that the public schools in Germany teach cults beliefs, advocate for abortion, and other beliefs in conflict with Christianity.

The Obama administration had not been getting by without pressure in the dispute. The Journal Gazette reported Rep. Marlin Stutzman had called for Obama to intervene on behalf of the Romeikes.

In fact, Stutzman said Obama “should reject the European belief that children belong to the state and stand instead with families suffering persecution for exercising the basic right to educate their children. Americans have always welcomed those who flee their homelands in pursuit of freedom and President Obama has an opportunity to honor that commitment.”

Earlier, a White House website petition collected tens of thousands of signatures in support of the family, and Stutzman had been joined by dozens of other members of Congress to lobby for the family.

About the same time, Rep. Randy Hultgren, R-Ill., said his family is homeschooled.

And Todd Starnes, at Townhall.com, wrote that the case had pushed Christians in an east Tennessee community to consider civil disobedience should the Romeikes be deported.

“It may require civil disobedience with this bunch,” Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., said in the report. “I am furious about this. You’ve got law-abiding people who did everything right who simply want to homeschool their kids. We used to be that great shining city on a hill. There’s some rust on that city if we are doing free people this way.”

He continued, “I don’t know what the Germans are thinking, but we’re not Germany. I don’t want to be Germany. I don’t want to be Europe. I want to be America. And right now we’re not acting very much like the America I k now with the administration we have.”

During the course of the case, Attorney General Eric Holder argued that homeschooling is a “mutable choice,” meaning that the government can force parents to do as it wishes without violating any rights.

Farris was the one who warned then of what Holder was telling Americans.

“When the United States government says that homeschooling is a mutable choice, it is saying that a government can legitimately coerce you to change this choice,” Farris said. “In other words, you have no protected right to choose what type of education your children will receive. We should understand that in these arguments, something very concerning is being said about the liberties of all Americans.

“I’m glad Obama wasn’t in charge in 1620,” Farris said in an appearance on “Fox and Friends.” “The government’s arguments in this case confuse equal persecution with equal protection and demonstrate a serious disregard for individual religious liberty. I really wonder what would’ve happened to the Pilgrims under this administration.”

Michael Donnelly, director of international affairs for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the “Romeikes are an inspiring family of great faith and courage.”

“They came to the United States as modern day pilgrims seeking protection from a country that ignores its obligations to protect basic human rights. They are grateful for the welcome they have received from American families and hope that they will be able to continue to homeschool their children in freedom. Germany’s increasingly harsh treatment of homeschoolers is unacceptable and the court’s refusal to take up this case does not change that fact or diminish the threat to homeschooling families in Germany.”

The anti-homeschool law in Germany has a dark origin: It was Adolf Hitler’s idea, and the nation has never yet corrected what the dictator did.

It was in 1937 when Hitler himself said, “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

A year later, the Nazis adopted a law that eliminated exemptions that previously provided an open door for homeschoolers under the nation’s compulsory education laws.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, a few years ago backed the concept, writing on a blog Germany “has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion.”

As WND reported, the German government believes schooling is critical to socialization, as is evident in its response to parents who objected to police officers picking up their child at home and delivering him to a public school.

“The minister of education does not share your attitudes toward so-called homeschooling,” said a government letter. “… You complain about the forced school escort of primary school children by the responsible local police officers. … In order to avoid this in future, the education authority is in conversation with the affected family in order to look for possibilities to bring the religious convictions of the family into line with the unalterable school attendance requirement.”

WND has reported on the case since in began 2006 with police officers appearing on the Romeike’s doorstep to forcibly take their children to a local public school.

HSLDA, in its petition, explained that German officials have confirmed the purpose of their ongoing repression of homeschooling is to prevent “religious and philosophical minorities” from developing into “parallel societies.”

“Human rights standards make it plain that, although a nation may require compulsory attendance and may impose reasonable rules related to educational quality, no nation may exercise philosophical control over a child’s education contrary to the parents’ belief,” the HSLDA statement said.

In Germany, the persecution continues, with children having been seized from their parents in several cases, most recently last September when armed police officers equipped with a battering ram forcibly took four children from German parents Dirk and Petra Wunderlich because they were being homeschooled.

WND reported later the children were return to the parents after they were given no choice but to agree to have the children begin attending public school classes.

In the Romeike case, the original immigration judge, Lawrence O. Burman, granted the Romeike family asylum on Jan. 26, 2010, under the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Act because Germany’s national policy of suppressing homeschooling violated their religious faith and because German authorities were improperly motivated to suppress homeschoolers as a social group.

Uwe Andreas Josef Romeike, and his wife, Hannelore, have seven children.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/stunning-turn-of-events-for-persecuted-homeschoolers/#7JZ4RAWgqKB36bhu.99

An absolute right to refuse service Exclusive: Matt Barber tells liberals: ‘Quit throwing around all this Jim Crow crap Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/an-absolute-right-to-refuse-service

Sunday, March 2nd, 2014

author-image Matt Barber

Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”

He was right.

In the aftermath of the Arizona religious-freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owners conscience.

To wit:

Should a homosexual baker be forced to make a “God Hates Fags” cake for Westboro Baptist church, simply because its members claim to be Christian?
Should a black printer be forced to develop and print thousands of “White Power!” flyers for a skinhead rally just because the potential customer is white?
Should a Christian florist be compelled to create and provide black floral arrangements to a hell-bound customer for her upcoming Satanist ritual?
Should a “progressive,” environmentalist sign-maker be required to design and manufacture “Global Warming is a Farce” signs for a tea-party rally?
Should a Muslim photographer, commissioned by San Francisco’s “Folsom Street Fair,” be forced to document that vile event – rife with nudity and public sex – simply because the customers identify as “gay”?
Should a “gay married” lesbian hotel owner – a card-carrying member of GLAAD – be required, under threat of incarceration, to host and cater a fundraiser for the “National Organization for Marriage,” a group that opposes so-called “marriage equality”?

If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.

To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.

I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”

And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.

No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.

It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.

Freedom, man.

Because ‘Merica.

While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.

Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, “gay” or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.

As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent; will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph “gay weddings,” then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.

And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.

See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re “pro-choice,” right?

Starting to get it?

Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.

No debate. No question. No compromise.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”

Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.

Poo paper for puppy.

So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.

I rarely agree with “gay” activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:

“I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona.

“We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.”

And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”

Why indeed?

Yuck.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/an-absolute-right-to-refuse-service/#7brXXwk6r08oLV3s.99