new

Anti-gay activist Scott Lively closed out 2015 by publishing a couple of open letters to his fellow anti-gay activists begging for money and urging them to join him in pushing to the passage of Russian-style anti-gay laws in America and elsewhere.

Lively bragged that he is being targeted by gay activists because his Abiding Truth Ministries is "one of the most feared and hated pro-family organizations in the world ... because we know more about the history, strategies and tactics of their movement than just about anyone on our side." The downside of being so "feared" is that he is now facing a lawsuit stemming from his anti-gay activism in Uganda, which is why Lively was begging for donations:

My friends, SMUG v Lively is truly a David v Goliath battle. I’m running a one-man office on a shoestring budget of less than $120,000 per year, provided almost entirely by donations of $50 and $100 from average people. Our donor base is small, mostly elderly, and very difficult to expand due to the success of the anti-Lively propaganda. While Liberty Counsel has been funding our legal defense, this lawsuit has nevertheless caused us major financial hardship and seriously threatens our future.

Frankly, I question whether ATM will survive the decade without greater support from the individuals scattered across the society who recognize the danger of the LGBT agenda and are willing to stand with us financially against it. That can only happen if the people who already support us encourage their like-minded friends and allies to donate to us.

In a separate "letter to the international pro-family movement," Lively declared that "the Leaders and Activists of the LGBT movement are malicious deceivers and evil-doers, deliberately subverting civilized society and viciously attacking all opponents to advance their selfish and self-destructive interests" and called for anti-gay activists to focus on preventing the passage of antidiscrimination ordinances that protect sexual orientation in places where they don't already exist and repealing them where they do.

Lively went on to recommend that his fellow anti-gay activists likewise work to pass Russian-style laws banning gay "propaganda" in America and around the world:

We need to build international pro-family solidarity on a foundation of genuine moral authority, meaning it must rest on the premise that homosexuality itself is personally and socially harmful, and not pretend that our only social and political interests are the "welfare of children" or the "definition of marriage." That pretense is a product of the same diseased pro-family "leadership" that marched the American pro-family movement from one disastrous defeat to the next for the past three decades, and it is now being exported to the rest of the world by the same men.

The beauty of the Russian law is it cuts right to the heart of the real problem of LGBT advocacy: the recruitment of children. What I mean by recruitment of children is not primarily the sexual exploitation of young people by adult homosexuals, though that represents a dark current within the larger “gay” culture, especially among the men. What I mean is the normalization of homosexual conduct and culture to children and youths, leading them to engage in homosexual experimentation among themselves and subsequently self-identify as "gay." An entire generation of American, British and Canadian children has been enslaved to this corrupt culture and ideology through the very propaganda that Russia has now banned.

While numerous countries of the African continent have chosen a much stricter approach, seeking to deter all homosexual conduct through harsh criminal sanctions, the Russian law balances the privacy rights of adult homosexuals (who choose to live discretely outside the mainstream of society) with the need of the nation to protect its children from the ravages of sexual perversion. It deters the LGBT lobby from attempting to mainstream the "gay" lifestyle, while granting the individual members of its community the "right to be left alone" that was the original stated goal of their movement in its early years, before it adopted the militant fascist tactics it is known for today.

Yesterday, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, claimed that the Obama administration has “let loose” criminals and brought “massive” numbers of “violent terrorists” into the U.S. so that the president can eventually tell people to “give up your Second Amendment rights because I let all these terrorists in.”

Gohmert unveiled the elaborate plot while guest-hosting “Washington Watch,” the Family Research Council’s radio show. Following an interview with a pastor who claimed that the Antichrist revealed in the Bible may be the same person as the Mahdi of Shia Islam, Gohmert connected gun violence in the U.S. to issues like immigration and refugee resettlement.

He insisted that the White House is spreading criminals and terrorists around the country in order to justify implementing new gun laws and undermining the Second Amendment, claiming that two-thirds of all Muslims believe that Sharia law should trump the U.S. Constitution

"The places in the country where there’s so much death from guns are places that have very strong gun control, so it’s rather ironic that we have a president and Hillary Clinton, a wannabe president, who's telling us after they have allowed so many people to come into this country as refugees; we know just this year there were at least a dozen people who came in, were brought into this country as refugees, most of them given citizenship and then they have been charged this year, some have been charged, some have been convicted already, of being terrorists. So the president has an open, porous border, people are pouring across and we know that some violent people have come in across our southern border. They come in, every week we read of new violent crimes, murders, rapes, obviously the vast majority don’t do that, but when you have a porous border, you get people who are criminals.

Then we learned again this week that it may be 179,000 or so that we know of who are illegally in the country, have been picked up by the administration but have been let loose on the interior of our country. You know the name Caitlin [sic] who was killed out in San Francisco by an illegal alien, a criminal illegal alien, and fortunately every alien that’s here illegally is not committing felonies but there are those who are.

So the president has presided over hundreds of thousands, millions really, being in the country illegally, at least 179,000 that, as I understand it, they have detained previously but have let loose on the country who have committed crimes, including murder, rape, robbery. And with all of those people that are coming into the country, some of whom are violent criminals, coming into our interior, some of them are actually picked up by Homeland Security and shipped all over our country, no matter whether they’re sick or not, I’ve seen them shipped out while they’re sick, but they’re shipped all over the country, not knowing for sure whether they’re violent criminals or not. So then we have people in the country that should never have been allowed in the country.

Refugees that have been allowed in the country, some of whom are violent terrorists, and they’ve been let in the country, and then when they do some act of violence, we’re told, and I know they haven’t said these words but basically by the position the administration is taking, they’re saying, ‘Yep, we’ve let all of these terrorists, these criminals come into the middle of our country, so all of you law-abiding citizens are going to have to give up your Second Amendment rights because I’ve let all these terrorists in; we can’t let terrorists go in and buy guns so we need to be really restrictive.’ So law-abiding citizens are going to have to give up a big portion of their Second Amendment rights because we’ve allowed all of these terrorists to be in our country without doing anything to remove them. Yes they’ve removed some, but there’s a massive number they haven’t. As members of Congress, we are supposed to, we take an oath and we are supposed to be defensive against all enemies foreign and domestic. The president is. We owe an oath to the Constitution. Then we see reports that some folks, maybe two-thirds of people who believe in Allah, actually would like to see Sharia law take over the place of our Constitution. You cannot be an American citizen and believe Sharia law should supplant our Constitution."