Matt Barber

Our Nation's Policies Will Now Be Determined Solely By The FDA

Kyle — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:18:08 +0000

I have to ask just when it became standard procedure for anti-gay activists to justify their positions on any issue by pointing to the FDA's blood donation policy?

Peter LaBarbera did it when calling for a "comprehensive federal study on the health risks of homosexual sex" on the grounds that gay sex is more dangerous than smoking. Bryan Fisher did it when claiming that gays should be treated like drug users. And now Matt Barber is doing it in defending his opposition to repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell:

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?

As I asked before, since when did the FDA's blood donation policy become the foundation for every other national policy? And why does this only seem to apply to gays? If the FDA's policy is so foundational, they why isn't Barber demanding that everyone who is barred from donating blood be likewise be barred from military service, including "people who have recently traveled to or lived abroad in certain countries ... because they are at risk for transmitting agents such as malaria or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease"?

What is stopping these anti-gay activists from just citing this FDA policy as justification for barring gays from working in hospitals or anywhere in the medical profession ... or from working anywhere, for that matter? In fact, what is stopping them from citing this policy as justification for instituting wholesale discrimination against gays in all aspects of life?

If the fact that gay men are not allowed to donate blood is enough to justify treating them as criminals and keeping them out of the military, then why not everything else?

UPDATE: Well, what do you know? Sen. John Kerry is calling on the FDA to remove its ban on gay men serving as blood donors. What will anti-gay activists do if they can't cite this FDA policy to justify their calls for discrimination any more?

Barber Again Demands Judge Walker's Recusal

Kyle — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:54:39 +0000

Imagine, for a moment, that there was a court case involving something like the posting the Ten Commandments in a government facility or opening of government sessions with Christian prayer or marriage equality and that the case was being heard by a judge who was reported to be a rather devout and committed Christian.

Now imagine what the reaction would be from the Religious Right if liberals started demanding that said judge publicly acknowledge their faith and recuse them self from the case because their deeply-held personal beliefs constituted a conflict of interest.

Do you think that the Right would throw an absolute fit and start screaming about bigotry and discrimination?

Of course they would ... by that isn't stopping Matt Barber from making a second demand that Judge Vaughan Walker remove himself from the Prop 8 trial:

Prop. 8 was approved by California voters in November 2008 to overturn an earlier state Supreme Court ruling that legalized homosexual "marriage," but a San Francisco newspaper recently "outed" Judge Vaughn Walker as a homosexual. Matt Barber, attorney and director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, believes Walker ought to resign from the case if the allegation is true.

The Liberty Counsel attorney cites from federal law that "a judge shall disqualify himself when he knows that he has a financial or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding," and he argues that if Walker is a homosexual and overturns Prop. 8, he would benefit by granting himself the right to marry a man. Given that effect, Barber decides that hardly represents impartiality.

He goes on to report that Judge Walker has been silent since the newspaper claim was published. "Well, the judge has said, 'No comment' when asked about his sexual lifestyle," explains the Liberty Counsel attorney. "I think he needs to comment. If in fact he is engaged in the homosexual lifestyle, there is a clear conflict of interest here under federal law."

Does Matt Barber Speak For Liberty Counsel?

Kyle — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:20:58 +0000

I have to say that it comes as absolutely no surprise that the very first Religious Right activist to call for Judge Vaughan Walker's removal from the Proposition 8 trial is the militantly anti-gay Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel:

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel, released the following statement today on news that the San Francisco Chronicle has “outed” 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Vaughn Walker as an active practitioner of the homosexual lifestyle.

Judge Walker has presided over California’s Proposition 8 case filed by homosexual extremists who seek to manufacture a constitutional “right” to so-called “same-sex marriage:”

“The revelation that Judge Walker apparently chooses to engage in homosexual conduct, if true, would explain much of his bizarre behavior throughout this trial,” said Barber.

...

“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, Judge Walker should do the honorable thing and immediately recuse himself.”

I'd actually be interested to know if this is an official Liberty Counsel position or if this is just Barber's position, since the press release doesn't appear anywhere on the Liberty Counsel website and instead was posted on Catholic Online.

In fact, Barber regularly issues press releases which he attributes to Liberty Counsel via Catholic Online, like this one:

“While citing the specter of ‘equal protection,’ the Iowa Supreme Court today has unanimously joined a leftist gaggle of ideologically driven judges in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut, creating, from thin air, a phantom ‘right’ to the ridiculous, oxymoronic and postmodern ‘gay’ marriage counterfeit.

And this one:

“The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ‘same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage.

"A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1’ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner".

And various others.

Are these Matt Barber's personal opinions or are they official Liberty Counsel positions? If they are the former, then why are they always attributed to Liberty Counsel? And if they are the latter, why are they never posted on the Liberty Counsel website?

It's almost as if Liberty Counsel and Barber are trying to have it both ways in allowing Barber to regularly issue offensively anti-gay statements on the organization's behalf while allowing the organization to avoid taking any responsibility for his vehemently anti-gay bigotry.

Liberty University Hosting Two Day Anti-Gay Conference

Kyle — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:55:13 +0000

Mat Staver, Matt Barber, Elaine Donnelly, Alan Chambers, Robert Knight and various other anti-gay activists will be gathering at Liberty University for two days next week to discuss all things gay ... or rather, the threat that the "homosexual agenda" poses to this nation:

Liberty University School of Law will host a one-day conference followed by a one-day symposium addressing homosexuality and its consequences. The Friday, February 12, conference is entitled “Understanding Same-sex Attractions and Their Consequences.” On Saturday, February 13, the Liberty University Law Review will host a legal symposium entitled “Homosexual Rights and First Amendment Freedoms: Can They Truly Coexist?”

The first day of the conference will focus on the issues underlying same-sex attractions with personal and ministry insights shared by Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International. Conference leaders will then discuss the American Psychological Association Task Force Report on counseling people with same-sex attractions. Current research and therapies will be discussed by experts from the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and the American Association of Christian Counselors. The first day is designed for lay people, counselors, pastors, educators, attorneys, and those interested in learning more about the subject. The second day will focus on the legal implications arising from the clash between the quest for homosexual rights and freedom of speech, religion and association.

This two-day long symposium begins at 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 12, in the Vines Center of Liberty University at Liberty’s convocation service during which Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International, will speak. The afternoon event, titled “Understanding Same-Sex Attractions and Their Consequences,” begins at 2:00 p.m. in the Supreme Courtroom of Liberty University School of Law. Speakers include Alan Chambers; Julie Harren-Hamilton, President of NARTH; Tim Clinton, President of the American Association of Christian Counselors; Rena Lindevaldsen, Associate Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law, and Mathew Staver, Dean of Liberty University School of Law.

The symposium reconvenes at 9:00 a.m., Saturday, February 13, at the School of Law, and ends with a banquet held in the Grand Lobby of Liberty University, located in DeMoss Hall, at 5 p.m. Saturday speakers include: Professor Lynne Marie Kohm of Regent University School of Law; Professor Lynn D. Wardle of Brigham Young University and J. Reuben Clark Law School; Elaine Donnelly, Founder and President of the Center for Military Readiness; Robert H. Knight, Senior Writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and Senior Fellow for American Civil Rights Union; Matt Barber, Associate Dean at Liberty University School of Law, and others.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “The clash between free speech, religious and homosexual rights is a like the grinding of two tectonic plates. It is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attractions and the broader homosexual agenda. Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict. The politicized radicalism of the homosexual agenda on the other hand is aggressive and intent on trampling upon the fundamental freedoms of anyone who may disapprove. That is why this conference at Liberty University is vitally important.”

Don't Get Too Comfortable, Scott Brown

Kyle — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:48:39 +0000

It seems that while the pundits and prognosticators are mulling over just what Scott Brown's victory means for President Obama, the Democratic agenda in Congress, and the future of the Republican Party, a theme is starting to emerge among the Religious Right that as exciting as Brown's win may have been, he's really just another RINO.

Randall Terry was first out of the box, saying that Brown's win was better than a Coakley win, but "we must not deceive ourselves or our supporters about Scott Brown, and his true position on child killing. We need to replace Scott Brown as soon as we can with a true defender of babies' lives, not a phony who supports their murder."

Alan Keyes has made a similar point:

Conservatives working to restore constitution freedom can cheer for Obama's defeat, but take no cheer from Brown's victory because he is a typical RINO (Republican-in-name-only) who:

* has no differences in principle with the socialist-minded Democrats;

* embraces the substance of Obama's socialist agenda, but "opposes" Obama by criticizing his implementation of socialism, especially when it comes to fiscal matters;

* agrees in principle with the Democrats on the fundamental issues of justice and morality but employs the deceptive rhetoric of personal opinion to evade the questions of public law and policy they involve. Such issues include child-murder and other abrogations of the unalienable right to life, as well as the rejection of the God-endowed rights of the natural family.

Matt Barber is likewise of the view that Brown is little more than a "tourniquet":

Many social conservatives (of which I’m one) have complained that the senator-elect is woefully flawed on social issues – particularly abortion. This is true.

Still, to my pro-life, pro-family compatriots, I offer this: While bleeding to death, one may be left no choice but to apply a tourniquet. A tourniquet is less than ideal. It may even cost a limb; however, it’s also likely to save one’s life. Obama has sliced open America’s wrists with his cutting political agenda. Time is of the essence. By providing Senate Republicans the crucial 41st vote needed to filibuster, Scott Brown supplies the tourniquet.

...

Of course, none of this justifies Brown’s indefensible position on abortion, “civil unions” and other social issues. I and others will not rest until he, and all who have been so deceived by the euphemistic language of “choice” and “reproductive freedom,” likewise recognize that all persons – whether born or pre-born – share an “inalienable right to life” that in every instance trumps another’s phantom “right to choose” premeditated murder.

Most importantly, even the Family Research Council admits that they are not happy with many of Brown's views but withheld criticism in pursuit of short term goals:

Social conservatives held back criticism of Brown's social views--and, in some cases, openly supported him--because they believe a Brown win fulfills a short term goal of blocking President Obama's abominable health bill. Of course, the Republican Establishment would like us to believe that Scott Brown's moderate platform on life and marriage is a recipe for conservative success in 2010.

So it remains to be seen just how long the current infatuation with Brown lasts and if, when he comes up for re-election down the road, right-wing groups who are happy with his election now will be change their tune and end up backing a "true conservative" primary challenger later.

Obviously, that is a long way away ... but given that the Right doesn't really support Brown now, it is entirely possible that he might eventually find himself the next Dede Scozzafava or Charlie Crist.

AFA Gets In on the Trans-Bashing, Barber Outdoes Himself

Kyle — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:02:02 +0000

Via Raw Story, we see that the American Family Association is giving the Traditional Values Coalition a run for its money in the race to see which group can release the most bigoted statement regarding the appointment of Amanda Simpson:

The American Family Association (AFA) believes the appointment is a severe mistake, because it puts the weight of the federal government behind the normalization of sexual deviancy.

Tim Wildmon, president of AFA, said, "'Amanda' is a biological male in every cell of his body, and no amount of surgical mutilation is ever going to change that. It's a mistake for our president to appoint such a sexually confused individual to a position of public responsibility.

"Gender is assigned by the Creator at the moment of conception, and no healthy society should ever regard sexual mutilation, even if it's self-inflicted, as something that's normal and merits approval. But that's exactly the kind of signal the president has sent here. This appointment should be rescinded immediately."

Bryan Fischer, AFA's director of issues analysis, adds that there are some important psychiatric issues that need to be considered here: "According to the American Psychiatric Association, transgenderism is a mental health 'disorder.' That's their word, not ours. This means bluntly that mental health professionals believe that Simpson is suffering from mental illness. Simpson needs therapeutic help, not a position where's he's shaping public policy.

"As they say in Washington, 'personnel is policy.' By this appointment, the president has normalized sexual confusion, sexual mutilation, and mental health disorders, and has contributed to the terrible practice of defining deviancy down in America. This appointment is bad for America."

And if anyone has been hoping to get an opportunity to listen to ten minutes of Matt Barber and Concerned Women for America bashing "Mr. Amanda Simpson" and going on about how "he" (as they insists on referring to Simpson) desperately needs psychiatric therapy and "spiritual healing ... so that he might come to a relationship with Jesus Christ," well you are in luck. Barber warns that America is "rebelling against God's natural law and natural order" and says he doesn't know "how much longer we can expect Him to leave His finger of blessing upon our nation."

Pure Bigotry Driving Attacks On Amanda Simpson

Kyle — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:43:28 +0000

After years of monitoring the Religious Right, I always assume that I have more or less become immune to being shocked by their displays of naked bigotry ... but then they always manage to surprise me.

Take, for instance, the newest backlash against Amanda Simpson, a transgender appointee to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security where she will serve as a senior technical adviser monitoring the export of U.S. weapons technology.

Despite her thirty years of experience and degrees in physics, engineering, and business, all the Right can focus on is her gender, claiming that her appointment is part of some conspiracy to criminalize Christianity (and note also how they insist on referring to Simpson as "he"):

“He may very well be qualified for this position but it appears that he was not picked (merely) for his qualifications, he was picked because of his wardrobe,” [Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs for the Liberty Counse] commented to CNA. “That is not diversity or tolerance. It's political correctness run amok” ... Barber continued to express his concern regarding the future ramifications of Simpson's appointment, arguing that it is part of a larger movement within the current administration.“With hate crimes legislation and ENDA (Employment Non Discrimination Act) and other radical GLBT pieces of legislation that are being pushed by the Obama Administration,” Barber told CNA, those who disagree with the GLBT perspective “literally can and will face criminal or civil penalty.”

Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth voiced similar concern on the Focus on the Family Action website on Jan. 4. “Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama Administration? How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby,” he said.

Barber added that in his opinion “there is no doubt” that Simpson's appointment “is an effort to normalize” transgender issues and “desensitize” American society.

And I know I should be shocked by anything I find in WorldNetDaily ... but I can help but shake my head in disbelief at articles like this, with its repeated use of the term "he" and inclusion of wholly irrelevant details:

Mitchell Simpson, now known as "Amanda" following a sex change, is said to have been appointed senior technical adviser at the Commerce Department. He purportedly began work today.

...

Simpson, 49, is a former test pilot who made the gender switch 10 years ago while working in Tucson, Ariz., for Raytheon Missile Systems, a major Department of Defense contractor where he became deputy director. According to the Arizona Daily Star, Simpson underwent six surgeries at a cost of $70,000 to make the transition from male to female. He had his Adam's apple removed, breasts added, forehead ground down and genital surgery.

...

Simpson told ABC News he's worried that people will assume he was hired because he is a transgender and not on his merits.

What does any of this have to do with Simpson's qualification for the job? Nothing whatsoever.

This is nothing more than a personal attack based entirely on Simpson's gender and a flagrant display of undisguised right-wing bigotry.

Right Loses It Over Transgender Appointee

Kyle — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:40:35 +0000

Amanda Simpson is believed to be the first openly transgender presidential appointee, after being named senior technical adviser in the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, where she will monitor the exports of U.S. weapons technology.

But she fears that the Right will ignore her thirty years of experience and degrees in physics, engineering, and business and focus instead on her gender:

But what gnaws at her, she says, is the fear of being labeled a token who was hired because of her sexual identity rather than on her merits.

"Being the first sucks," she told ABC News.com. "I'd rather not be the first but someone has to be first, or among the first. I think I'm experienced and very well qualified to deal with anything that might show up because I've broken barriers at lots of other places and I always win people over with who I am and what I can do."

...

"[There will be] questions like: Is this a token? Are you here to do a job or just to fill a quota or appease other people? In that regard it makes it a bit more difficult," she said. "I'm sure I will have to do and intend to do a far superior job than any other person. But I'm sure I will always be second guessed."

And of course that is exactly what is happening:

"Simpson's nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group, making it appear that this appointment of a male-to-female 'transgender' activist to a high level Commerce Department position to be payback to his far-left base for their political support," Monica Schleicher, spokeswoman for Christian group Focus on the Family, said in statement.

"Efforts to promote 'transgenderism' in public policy deconstruct one of the most fundamental concepts known to mankind. It renders gender, the most basic organization of social systems, completely meaningless. In doing so, activists like Simpson are asking the rest of society to radically reorder the ways in which the culture makes reasonable and rational accommodation for the two genders," she said.

And predictably Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera are likewise outraged:

"Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration?" asked Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth. "How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby."

According to most estimates, "transgender" individuals account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of the population. Yet, LaBarbera said, they have convinced the Obama administration to affirm their position that gender is fluid and changeable.

"We should consider what transgender activism is about," he said," which is essentially recognizing civil rights based on gender confusion."

Matt Barber, associate dean at Liberty University, said the appointment "boggles the mind."

"This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong," he said. "This is about political correctness.

"President Obama, before he was inaugurated, told the world that he had signed off on every single demand of the homosexual-activist lobby."

LaBarbera said it's just another way to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism.

"It's always the incremental change that keeps moving forward and keeps getting more radical," he said. "It's hard for the American people to keep up."

You know, I can at least understand the "logic" behind the right-wing opposition to appointees like Kevin Jennings or Chai Feldblum since they were placed in positions at the Department of Education and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission respectively where they could theoretically have an impact on policy in a manner that the Religious Right would oppose.

But Simpson is at the Commerce Department monitoring the export of U.S. weapons technology ... and apparently transgender people shouldn't be getting jobs in the federal workplace. The Right's opposition to her is nothing more than flat-out bigotry.

The Pathetic State of the Anti-Gay Right

Kyle — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:35:09 +0000

Last week we noted that Peter LaBarbera was reporting that anti-gay right-wing groups, led by Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber, were threatening to boycott the next CPAC convention if the conservative gay organization GOProud was allowed to remain as a co-sponsor.

LaBarbera's piece contained his paragraph:

It boils down to this: there is nothing “conservative” about — as Barber inimitably puts it — “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” Or two women awkwardly mimicking natural procreative relations or raising a child together in an intentionally fatherless home. This does not mean that people practicing those and other immoral (and changeable) behaviors cannot think and act conservatively on other issues like lowering taxes, cutting government spending, ending abortion, etc. But let’s be honest: the “proud” in GOProud is not about pride in opposing the death tax, or defending the right to bear arms; it’s about proudly embracing sinful homosexual behavior – and that is hardly a conservative value.

On Friday, Exodus International took issue with Barber's quote and contacted Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver about it, who responded by denying that Barber had ever said such a thing:

“Neither Matt Barber nor anyone with Liberty Counsel wrote or made any such public statement that is being alleged in this blog. Liberty Counsel promotes the traditional family of one man and one woman because we believe that such relationships are best for society and for children. While we strongly disagree with the sexual politics and agenda of activist organizations and individuals, we also believe that each person is entitled to respect. While there are some that hate us because of our message of sexual integrity, redemption, change, and hope, we have never, and will never, confuse the person with the agenda. We have never sought to dehumanize people to promote our message. Our message is one of redemption through the power of Jesus Christ.”

LaBarbera then showed up in the comments to the Exodus post and insisted that Barber had indeed made the comments in question and that Barber had given him permission to quote him.

Then Barber weighed in to say that they were both right - he had made the statement, but before he started working for Liberty Counsel:

“This is for clarification only. As affirmed in Liberty Counsel’s statement, neither I nor anyone with Liberty Counsel ever publicly ‘wrote or made’ the comment in question – an unapologetically direct and accurate depiction of the sin of sodomy (a sin that God directly and accurately calls both an ‘abomination’ and ‘detestable’). Some years before I began working with Liberty Counsel, I made the comment in private conversation with Peter LaBarbera. At the time, Peter asked if he could ‘quote me on it’ and I said yes."

Barber is among the most vicious of anti-gay activists. He routinely launches attacks calling gays "homo-fascists" and liberals modern day Baal worshipers, while likening homosexuality to incest and bestiality ... but he wants it known that while he did make the statement in question and stands by it wholeheartedly, he didn't make it while he was working for Liberty Counsel.

As if that makes one iota of difference.

Staver's claim that they "believe that each person is entitled to respect" is utterly laughable given his own history of outrageous anti-gay statements. Liberty Counsel was fully aware of Barber's rapidly anti-gay views when they hired him away from Concerned Women for America, and to try and claim that Barber's views don't represent the organization because he made them several years ago is pathetic considering that it was because of those views that Liberty Counsel hired him in the first place.

Religious Right Threatens CPAC Boycott Over Gay Group's Sponsorship

Kyle — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:57:57 +0000

Earlier this year, GOProud, a new gay conservative group, appeared on the scene intent on finding ways to sell the conservative agenda to gays.

Their approach has been to eschew the "traditional" gay issues like hate crimes protections or the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in favor arguing that healthcare reform would be bad for gays, that "the inheritance tax is really a gay tax," or claiming that the best way to stop hate crimes is to expand gun ownership.

But GOProud does also support things like marriage equality and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell ... and for that reason the Religious Right's professional anti-gay activists at Americans for Truth and the Liberty Counsel are now threatening to boycott the annual CPAC conference if GOProud is allowed to serve as an official co-sponsor:

Folks, for years religious conservatives have been complaining about getting the shaft from CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. There is usually only a token panel or two dealing with “Culture War” social issues like abortion and homosexuality (and rarely one explicitly on fighting the “gay” agenda) – as organizers seek to appease the CPAC libertarians, some of whom support goals like homosexual “marriage” that are anathema to socially conservatives.

Now CPAC’s tenuous ”Big Tent” could collapse altogether as social conservatives led by Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber threaten to launch a boycott of the conference (scheduled for Feb. 18-20, 2010) unless CPAC drops a homosexual activist group, GOProud, as a co-sponsor. Barber, my good friend, an AFTAH Board Member, and the Director of Cultural Affairs at Liberty Counsel, is leading the charge to keep the CPAC sponsorship list … conservative.

...

It boils down to this: there is nothing “conservative” about — as Barber inimitably puts it — “one man violently cramming his penis into another man’s lower intestine and calling it ‘love.’” Or two women awkwardly mimicking natural procreative relations or raising a child together in an intentionally fatherless home. This does not mean that people practicing those and other immoral (and changeable) behaviors cannot think and act conservatively on other issues like lowering taxes, cutting government spending, ending abortion, etc. But let’s be honest: the “proud” in GOProud is not about pride in opposing the death tax, or defending the right to bear arms; it’s about proudly embracing sinful homosexual behavior – and that is hardly a conservative value.

I challenge every thinking conservative to explain why we should jettison our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage (which clearly rejects homosexual acts as immoral) for some new, secularized brand of “conservatism” that fails to conserve natural, normal, and noble sex within God-ordained marriage. Where does the expansion of “conservatism” stop? Would CPAC welcome “Republicans for Abortion” as a co-sponsor? How about “Conservatives For Higher Taxes”? We doubt it. So let’s stop the double-standard on one issue — homosexuality — that happens to be politically incorrect in this decadent age.

The American Family Association is also voicing its opposition:

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association and host of the radio program Focal Point with Bryan Fischer. He says CPAC chairman David Keene and CPAC organizers have a serious problem on their hands.

"The bottom line is that homosexuality is not a conservative value," Fischer states emphatically. "There are any number of co-sponsoring organizations that I believe are going to have a real problem with the fact that they are giving such a prominent place to an organization which is such an active proponent of gay rights."

"And it's GOProud, they're identifying themselves with the Republican Party...and yet their legislative agenda is directly contrary to the platform of the Republican Party."

As I wrote last year, though there is significant overlap, those who attend the CPAC conference have distinctly different priorities from those who attend the strictly Religious Right conferences like the Values Voter Summit.

It'll be interesting to see how CPAC organizers managed to handle this controversy. I'm guessing that GOProud will eventually "voluntarily" withdraw their sponsorship.

Matt Barber vs Adam Lambert

Kyle — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:54:23 +0000

Last week we mentioned that Liberty Counsel had filed a complaint with the FCC against ABC "for airing an outrageously lewd and filthy performance by Adam Lambert on November 22, 2009 during the 2009 American Music Awards."

The complaint has apparently led ABC to cancel several upcoming appearances by Lambert on other shows and Liberty Counsel's most militant homophobe Matt Barber is quite pleased:

"The issue is not so much about homosexuality, although I believe the preponderance of Americans find public hyper-sexualized acts of homosexuality particularly off-putting," Matt Barber said. "But the issue was more of indecency and what is decency. And frankly the issue is one of law. We believe this performance met the threshold for violation of federal law and violation of FCC regulations. And the Supreme Court has held time and again that there’s not a First Amendment right to engage in public indecency as evidenced by the outcry and complaints that poured into ABC. We believe that this violated contemporary community standards in terms of what is and what isn’t decent."

...

"I would say this is inappropriate period," Barber said. "This is not HBO or some of these cable networks where that type of indecency and filth has come to be expected. This is television where people just flipping through channels could have stumbled onto that. People unaware of what’s coming down the pike in terms of the indecency being performed. And it’s just really, frankly, not appropriate for network television, period, to mimic one man performing oral sex on another man."

The LA Times also asked Barber why Liberty Counsel had filed a complaint against the Lambert incident and not, say, against Janet Jackson's Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction":

Many of those critics say Lambert is being targeted because he is a gay male, as Janet Jackson, who opened the American Music Awards, grabbed the crotch of a male dancer and went unscathed by critics.

The director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel told The Times today that his firm was not aware of Jackson's performance.

Really? That's odd, because just days after the Jackson incident, Mat Staver and Liberty Counsel issued a press release about it:

Mathew Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, which is sponsoring the Day of Purity project, commented, “Janet Jackson apologized for her actions by stating that she was sorry ‘if” she offended anyone. I have to ask, did her actions offend you? If so, are you going to sit back and do nothing, allowing our pop culture to corrupt the minds of our youth, or are you going to do something about it? The Day of Purity gives all of us an immediate opportunity to make a difference, to change lives, to restore our culture.”

As far as we can tell, Liberty Counsel never filed a FCC complaint about Jackson, nor did they have anything to say when Pink did exactly the same thing as Lambert at the Bilboard Awards.

Matt Barber: The Arbiter of All That Is Right

Kyle — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:56:16 +0000

As I was going through my RSS reader today, I saw a headline from a OneNewsNow article on Will Phillips, the 10 year old boy in Arkansas who says he cannot pledge allegiance to the United States while it continues to deny equality to the LGBT community, and thought to myself "I'll bet that article quotes Matt Barber."

And sure enough, it does:

Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel believes the boy has been "utterly manipulated and exploited by adult moral relativists who are indirectly using him and other children as political pawns in the burgeoning culture war that is reaching a boil."

Barber further finds that "it's really a testament to the level of success that liberal and secular and homosexual activist propagandists in Hollywood and in our public schools and in much of our elitist establishment organizations have enjoyed."

The lesson this incident sends, according to Barber, is that it is time for parents to responsibly teach their children the correct, Christian message concerning homosexuality.

So not only has Barber taken it upon himself to determine who is and who is not a real Christian, he's also the one who decides just what constitutes proper parenting.

Are You a Real Christian? Better Ask Matt Barber

Kyle — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:30:25 +0000

Last month, a coalition of clergy formed to support marriage equality in Washington, DC. Calling itself Clergy United for Marriage Equality, the coalition issued the following declaration:

We are District of Columbia clergy and religious leaders of many faiths, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations. We represent religious institutions in every ward in the District. We have worked together over many years for peace and justice and now join our voices again to speak a faithful word for freedom and equality.

We declare that our faith calls us to affirm marriage equality for loving same-sex couples.

The declaration was signed by approximately 200 representing nearly every faith, but Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel, who is not a minister, isn't fooled and declares that every person who signed this declaration is not a real Christian:

Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel, hopes the faith community is not fooled by the coalition known as D.C. Clergy United For Marriage Equality.

"Well, this is just a cheap political stunt," he responds. "These are a group of leftist secularists essentially dressed up in the garb of clergy....[W]hat do you do call clergy who abandon the fundamental tenets of their faith and adopt instead the lies of the world? I call them counterfeit clergy."

Barber adds that "they want to have their religion cake and eat it too." He explains.

"They are going to push a leftist political agenda that runs completely counter to biblical principles," he asserts. "The ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of same-sex marriage flies in the face of every major world religion."

Maine Has Made Matt Barber Proud

Kyle — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:45:07 +0000

The results from yesterday's various elections are rather a mixed bag: Republican gubernatorial candidates won in New Jersey and Virginia, while right-wing darling Doug Hoffman lost in New York. The anti-discrimination ordinance passed in Kalamazoo and the domestic partnership law in Washington appears to be winning as well, while the right-wing effort to repeal marriage equality in Maine was victorious.

And to make that loss even more bitter, we are now going to be subject to a bevy of hateful press releases like this typically classless one from Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber:

Matt Barber, Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action, issued the following statement on news that the voters of Maine have rejected counterfeit “same-sex marriage” by 53% - 47%:

“There’s good news and bad news here,” said Barber. “The good news is that even in one of the most liberal States in the Union, Maine, the people have once again rejected the ridiculous and oxymoronic notion of ‘same sex marriage.’ The momentum has again shifted – hopefully for good this time – in favor of protecting legitimate marriage.

"A counterfeit is a counterfeit. An orange is an orange no matter how much you want it to be a turnip. This isn’t about ‘marriage.’ It’s about hurting and broken people desperately seeking affirmation of an objectively deviant lifestyle. One that, even in their heart of hearts, they know to be a dead end. As for the militant ‘No on 1’ homosexual activists? I’m reminded of spoiled children dressing up and playing house, refusing to come in when mom calls for dinner".

“Here’s the bad news. The margin of victory could have been greater. Many behind the ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, rather than simply telling the truth, chose the Neville Chamberlain approach. They merely circled the wagons around the word ‘marriage,’ even suggesting that ‘domestic partnerships’ (‘gay marriages’ by another name) are acceptable. This makes no sense. If that’s a viable compromise, then why not simply allow 'gay' duos the word ‘marriage’? It’s an incongruity that demands an explanation.

"This is an historic battle for the minds and souls of our children – for our very culture. The mealy-mouthed approach must end. This is not just about ‘marriage.’ It has everything to do with forced affirmation of homosexuality – under penalty of law.

"Indeed everyone who fought hard to defend marriage in Maine is to be congratulated, but if it weren’t for a brave group of truth tellers – Paul Madore, Peter LaBarbera and Brian Camenker – who came to Maine in the final hour to hold a press conference and address the pink elephant in the room – homosexual deviancy and the radical ‘gay’ agenda – counterfeit marriage might have prevailed."

Even in victory, Barber is simply incapable of demonstrating even an iota of class or respect.

Barber Cops To His Con

Kyle — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:19:04 +0000

Via Pam's House Blend, I see that Matt Barber has finally fessed-up to the fact that his new "book" is nothing but a collection of previously published columns:

"The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" is a select collection of Matt Barber’s greatest hits: incisive and deeply thoughtful culture war commentaries he’s penned over the past few years. The book also recounts the fascinating series of events that launched Matt as one of America’s rising conservative stars. Barber – a former undefeated professional boxer and current Liberty Counsel attorney – pulls no punches. His thought provoking though often hysterically funny writing style tends to delight those who agree and infuriate those who do not. Liberals beware; you just may be the next conservative convert after reading “The Right Hook.” (Foreword by David Limbaugh.)

Of course, there is still no need for anyone to actually buy Barber's book, because all of the columns are readily available on-line, as are the "fascinating" introduction by Barber and foreword by Limbaugh.

Why anyone would drop $30+ for a collection of Barber's inane columns when they can easily get the entire thing for free is beyond me.