[Preface: I am writing this article on Memorial Day, 2016, in the City of Cherbourg, France, one of the first and most important cities liberated from the Nazis in the Allied invasion of Normandy in World War II, when the United States and Russia were united in the common cause of defeating Nazi fascism. I dedicate this article to the memory of my father, Maurice Lively, who later served in the US Army in Korea (at the depths of Russian/American hostilities) and to President Ronald Reagan, whose vision of a Russia restored to its Christian foundations and whose work to destroy the Communist stranglehold there has largely been realized. This is published with a reminder that the center of Marxist evil in the world has shifted from Russia to America and to the EU where it thrives at the heart of the so-called Progressive movement that is now so close to defeating Christianity in the west. On this Day of Remembrance, let all true lovers of freedom vow to resist the Marxist monster in our midst as aggressively as we once fought it in National Socialist Germany and Soviet Communist Russia. ]

There aren’t many things about Barack Obama’s foreign policy I would want any politician to emulate, but there is one thing I would like Donald Trump to do if he becomes President: apologize to the world for the actions of his predecessor! Especially regarding Obama’s attempt to force the fascist LGBT agenda on everyone, everywhere in every possible way.

After that Mr. Trump should shut down the anti-Russian war-propaganda that the Obama/McCain/NeoCon axis relaunched in 2013 after the Russians passed their law banning homosexual propaganda to children. That law — a monumental achievement in the fight to preserve Judeo-Christian civilization — highlighted the glaring contrast of values between the now anti-Marxist Russia and the now pro-Marxist US and EU, and shifted the contest for influence in the still family-friendly nations of the former Soviet Union in Russia‘s favor. Within a few months several nations, including Ukraine, moved toward adopting a similar law and for a short while it looked like an international pro-family counterrevolution would emerge to challenge Obama’s dangerous global LGBT blitzkrieg.

Whether or not the passage of that law was a cynical political ploy by Russia (as some pundits wrongly claim), Mr. Obama and Germany’s Chancellor Merckle could have easily countered it by simply articulating and affirming America’s and Europe’s traditional family values to reassure those nations being lured eastward by Russia’s pro-family stance that we respected their beliefs. What a tremendous blessing that would have been for everyone, including those interested in building friendship instead of hostility between the US and Russia.

Instead Obama chose to abandon the “reset button” policy he had previously announced toward Russia and moved to revive the cold war. Pushing the world closer to nuclear war was deemed preferable to putting the “gay” agenda on hold.

I believe and have stated previously that Obama’s devotion to the LGBT agenda was his chief motivation for orchestrating (with the help of his pal George Soros) the Ukrainian coup to oust pro-Russian president Viktor Yanucovych in 2014 — in defiance of the EU (remember Victoria Nuland’s “F*ck the EU” comment in the planning stages of that coup? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o ).

That coup — or “regime change” if you prefer — created the current tensions deliberately. Obama knew that Russia’s vital strategic interests in the Crimea would force the Russians to annex it rather than lose it to the US and EU (the Ukrainians have always been pawns in this proxy war). And then, accompanied by John McCain on the war drums, an old medley of anti-Soviet propaganda themes was dragged out of mothballs and re-worked to convince US news media-watching population (especially the conservatives — since we were most at risk of recognizing Russia as a pro-family ally) that Russia, not the US was the aggressor, and (ridiculously) that the Baltics and other former Soviet countries could soon be at risk of a Russian ground invasion.

That was and is a contrived pretext at best but one that seems plausible to Americans with cold-war era memories but little knowledge of the enormous positive changes in Russia in recent years. And one that has since been bolstered by three years of Soviet-style anti-Russian propaganda in both the left and right leaning major media.

(It’s quite disappointing that conservatives who can spot “progressive” political bias from a mile away on a whole slate of domestic social issues turn around and give credence to the same lying journalists and media organs when it comes to foreign policy. Especially after watching Russia demonstrate such diplomatic maturity and military finesse in Syria — while building mutual cooperation and respect with Israel — in such glaring contrast to Obama and Clinton’s disastrous ineptitude in that region.)

In concert with the smear job came the economic sanctions, collapse of the oil prices and other machinations designed to bring Russia to its knees, which so far have failed, in large part (I believe) because the Russians are vastly strengthened as a people and a nation due to the rise of the Russian Orthodox Church and the growing revival of their Christian faith. Russia is not the godless “Evil Empire” of the Soviet Union any longer. (That demon moved to Germany in the early 90s and reinvented itself as the EU). Russia is not flawless by any means, but it is a country of good people that could be a great friend of America if we stopped letting Obama and the GOP establishment poison the relationship to further their nefarious elitist and anti-Christian agenda.

I suggest that Mr. Trump could do the world a great favor and dramatically ratchet down global tensions by following Mr. Putin’s example of pushing back the Marxists and the gangsters within his borders (yes, he had his own versions of the Clinton and Obama crime syndicates to deal with) and inviting the church to reclaim its rightful place in steering domestic policy norms back toward faith and family values. Then by redirecting the US State Department to promote greater family-centered cultural cooperation with the Russian people (and all the people of the world we have offended and harmed by pushing sexual deviance on their children). With a return to authentic family values would come a natural desire to steer away from war and its evils, and a new basis for seeking common ground in all geo-political affairs. And as always, the climate for doing business would improve when our goals are driven by a common desire to pursue mutual benefit rather than exploitation and control by force of will and arms.

In his run for president, Mr. Trump has seen the true face and character of America’s domestic enemies in both the “Progressive” movement and the GOP establishment. Hopefully he will (if elected) have the vision and courage to rebuild America’s moral and patriotic infrastructure in such a way as to severely diminish the influence of these anti-family Marxists and to increase cooperation with countries like Russia which are doing the same.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil”… Who call regression progressive, and progress regressive. (Isaiah 5:19-23 paraphrased)

The reprobate Kenyan usurper posing as President of the United States — the one who defends infanticide and champions the global normalization of sexual anarchy in its most perverse forms — has called upon the world to raise its standards of morality. With the cool condescension that has become his trademark, Barack Obama recently extended his international apology tour to Hiroshima, where he proclaimed to the planet “we must re-imagine our connection to one another as members of one human race.” Lofty idealism from the center of the nest of Cultural Marxist vipers that is called the Obama Administration — where such vague abstractions so easily justify the raw abuse of every organ of the most powerful office in the world in the pursuit of global political and cultural hegemony for an ‘oligarchy’ of predatory corporatists.

The irony of Marxism-driven crony capitalism seems to be lost on the American public after several generations of dumbing-down in “progressive” public schools and universities, as is the hypocrisy of a lecture on moral restraint in science and technology by the president who has perfected assassination by robotic drones, lauded the inhuman experimentation and marketing of human embryos by Planned Parenthood, and pushed the world closer to nuclear war out of a visceral hatred for the pro-family moral conservatism of the now anti-Marxist Russian Federation and its resurgent Russian-Orthodox state church (and a well-founded fear that Russia could lure back the still family-oriented former Soviet countries absent Obama’s new cold war).

But those with a Biblical worldview are not deceived by Mr. Obama, nor the self-proclaimed “progressive” movement he heads by virtue of his role as its chief spokesman, nor the war-mongering wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing progressives of the GOP establishment.

Yet even among the enlightened there are few who directly challenge the claim that the agenda of the Marxists represents progress. For example, we allow these pompous and self-righteous moralists-without-moral-understanding to perpetuate their narrative about a supposed leftist “tide of history” without interruption, and by our silence allow their fantasy to become self-fulfilling prophecy.

It would greatly benefit the world for American conservatives to start educating their neighbors on the meaning of true “progress” in human civilization.

The root of civilization is heterosexual duality, the “one-flesh” paradigm of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 without which human life and the natural family would be impossible. And the story of civilization’s progress is the story of our collective embrace of virtue over vice in our relations with one another: self-restraint instead of self-indulgence. It is the essence of the teaching of Jesus Christ on human affairs — which happens also to be a self-evident truth for anyone of any religion who seeks to recognize the hand of God in Creation (Romans 1:18-20, 2:14-15).

Thus the “progressive” goal to eliminate legal and social policies that favor heterosexual norms, monogamy and family-centered communities — and that discourage sexual promiscuity — is not at all “progressive.” It is regressive! It represents the unraveling of the social fabric, not the weaving of it.

In nearly everything the “progressive” perspective is upside down and backward. Good is evil, evil is good. Capital punishment for self-confessed murderers is morally indefensible. The permission to kill innocent unborn babies during the birth process is a moral imperative. Tolerance for lethal-disease-spreading voluntary sex acts that have killed millions is our highest social value. Public disapproval of these acts is a loathsome form of anti-social conduct so egregious that it justifies the suspension of the constitutional right to free speech. And on and on.

This is not a novel analysis. But it’s rarely translated proactively into a rebuke to those who use the word “progressive” as if it really means progress.

Our cultural opponents are not progressives, they are regressives, and we should all agree to challenge them on this fact every time they use the term from this day forward.

Ps. And lets not forget to pray for them to be saved and restored to sanity, even Mr. Obama.

For those with eyes to see, the culture war we’ve been fighting for over half a century — the war of Christianity vs. Marxism — has entered a new phase. The Marxists have for all practical purposes defeated the American church, the last major barrier to global government, and the battlefield has shifted and broadened to the international community of the developed western world. There, as here, the Marxist elites have already successfully implemented LGBT cultural supremacy and granted favored status to Islam, to neutralize Christian political influence (in all but a few pockets of resistance, such as the countries of the former Soviet Union).

Having thus severely weakened the western nations their new emphasis is the elimination of national boundaries, while creating the infrastructure for global governance under the pretext of “climate change” and “sustainable development.” That “Transforming Our World” agenda was formally adopted September 25, 2015 by the UN General Assembly in a campaign led by Barack Obama and endorsed by Pope Francis.

They are moving so very swiftly now that they have awakened the sleeping giant of nationalistic populism internationally. That has produced the Donald Trump phenomenon, BREXIT, and the rise of the so-called “Far Right” in numerous countries. An ideological world war has begun that will result in enormous political and social chaos that the elites will attempt to use to their advantage by expansion of the police state — but with a globalist flavor.

Much of the American church is stuck in the value voter strategy of the past decades (one which I have fully embraced for most of my adult life), placing its hope in Ted Cruz, the magnitude of whose loss reflects just how much “value voter” influence has diminished — a fact that should sober all of us, even those many Christians who support Trump. If Mr. Cruz had run against Dole, McCain or Romney he would have won the primaries in a landslide and become the darling of the conservative movement. But the political landscape has changed — dramatically and irreversibly — because the globalists have defeated our moral-values agenda and have begun their one-world end game.

The fight now is existential for the concept of national sovereignty that underlies all forms of government in the world political order — even the strongest and best of all of these forms, our Constitutional Republic (as it was envisioned by our Founders and honored by our grandparents).

After World War I, those who failed to adapt themselves to the new paradigm of war built the concrete-bunkered Maginot Line in France as the ultimate, unconquerable defense against German aggression. But in WWII, the Germans just drove around it.

As American Christians, let’s not make the mistake of fighting the last war rather than the next one. The battlefield has changed and we can exploit that change to our advantage if we’re smart. Let’s help the populists defend national sovereignty and defeat the Cultural Marxists, AND be fully prepared to reoccupy the positions of cultural influence that the Marxists stole from us as they are pushed back across the cultural battlefield — similar to the way the Russian Orthodox Church under Putin has re-claimed the positions of cultural influence in the Russian Federation from the Soviet Communists.

Friends,

A supporter in Taiwan just finished converting our “NOT ‘Just Another Sin'” brochure to video format and it looks fantastic!

https://tv.gab.com/channel/scottlivelyministries/view/not-just-another-sin-video-brochure-637e1071ad7bb6a9634dfa24

This 9 1/2 minute video is a great way to teach the fundamentals of the Bible regarding homosexual sin, and a great summary of Bible bullet points on this timely topic for pastors and Christian leaders to use as a resource.

Please pass it on.

Blessings,

Dr. Scott Lively

The print version of this brochure is available here:
www.scottlively.net/2014/08/19/not-just-another-sin/

The 18-page article based on this brochure is available here:
www.scottlively.net/2014/12/26/the-forgotten-last-days-warning-about-homosexuality-in-the-bible/

I’ve received criticism from several Catholic readers of my recent article in which I opined that the Trump phenomenon represents the rise of nationalism in response to an escalation in the globalists’ pursuit of a one-world government.

http://theapologeticsgroup.com/history-politics/the-best-analysis-ive-read-to-date-on-the-2016-presidential-elections/

They are unhappy that I included Pope Francis on a list of “globalists” with Obama, Cameron, Merkle and others.

To the extent that my Catholic friends’ dismay is limited to my lumping Francis with Obama I hereby issue the clarification that I do not believe that these two men share the same character or motivation. I think Obama is an evil man whose enthusiasm for child killing and sexual anarchy is not simply political expedience but his actual ideology. I think Pope Francis is merely left-leaning in his otherwise Catholic worldview (but not as liberal as the media misrepresents him to be), probably due to the heavy influence of Marxism-inspired “liberation theology” in South America, where he is from. That alone establishes a huge chasm between these two men, even if they both belong on a list of world leaders who desire to see the world governed eventually by one central authority.

So to that bigger question. Does the evidence show that Pope Francis supports the globalist agenda I outlined in my article?

The fact is that Francis, after meeting with Obama at the Whitehouse, gave the historic keynote speech at the UN that endorsed and launched its so-called “new universal agenda” — a 17-point list of priorities for global governance — in commemoration of the UN’s 70th anniversary. Here are his own words, reported by the Vatican:

“The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope. I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.” http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2015/september/documents/papa-francesco_20150925_onu-visita.html

And then Obama invoked that speech just days later in a global call to fight “climate change“ and ensure “sustainable development.” http://www.cruxnow.com/life/2015/09/28/obama-invokes-pope-francis-at-the-united-nations/

Friends, “sustainable development” and “climate change” are heavily loaded globalist euphemisms. See a simple summary and translation of those euphemisms as expressed in the 17 points of the UN’s 2030 Agenda here: http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/09/25/agenda-2030-b-s-translator-how-to-read-the-uns-new-sustainable-development-goals/

Whatever moral and ideological differences they may have, Obama and Francis are clearly cooperating to promote this agenda across the world.

I’m not a Catholic basher. I love my Catholic friends, some of whom are among the most Christ-like people I’ve ever known. I had great respect for Pope John Paul II, whom I considered to be a very Godly man, and for his successor Pope Benedict. I see many positive aspects of the Catholic church despite what I perceive as theological errors.

As a student of the Bible and its first century and Hebrew roots I don’t align with any denomination, nor do I claim the label of “Protestant.” Jesus said He was the Way, Truth and Life, and that anyone who loved others, even family members, more than they loved Him wasn’t worthy of Him. His Word the Bible reveals unmistakably that He is not a respecter of persons, not even the Apostles and the Patriarchs. Everyone is subject to and measured solely by His standard of Truth.

My theology is to love Truth and speak it plainly even at the cost of causing discomfort to others, and without regard to the titles or positions of the people it implicates. When I ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2014 I stated frankly and consistently that abortion is murder, homosexuality is an abomination to God and that I had no interest in winning the race but only to have a platform to promote Biblical values in the political arena. http://www.scottlively.net/the-run-for-governor/

My outspoken opposition to the homosexual agenda around the world has won me the designation of Public Enemy #1 of the global homosexual movement by the Human Rights Campaign, and a bogus US federal lawsuit by Ugandan homosexuals charging me with “Crimes Against Humanity.” http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/the-grotesque-persecution-of-scott-lively.

In truth, I see Pope Francis as an agent for global government, working in cooperation with other globalists, though I don’t believe they’re likely in harmony about what that government will look like in the end. (I suspect Francis would like those others to be subservient to the Catholic Church.) I know that he is a Jesuit, and that Jesuits have a very long history of political intrigue in church/state matters. Building church influence in governmental systems is their raison d’etre. That’s not necessarily nefarious, though the order has been expelled from numerous countries over the centuries — as they readily admit (http://www.jesuit.org.uk/suppression-and-restoration-Jesuits). The point being that it’s no outrage to accuse a Jesuit of having a political agenda.

In this present American political context, where nationalistic rebellion against globalism seems to be the defining characteristic, it is not unfair to put Pope Francis on the side of the globalists, and indeed he injected himself into this election to defend the global agenda on immigration (as I defined it in my article) just last month: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/19/world/americas/pope-francis-donald-trump-christian.html?_r=0 .

In conclusion, I want to beg my Catholic friends forgiveness regarding any genuine errors they may find in my reasoning or statement of facts, and conversely, to urge them not to let loyalty to denomination blind them to unpleasant facts. Et veritatis confortati (let truth prevail).

Prepare for Serious Violence in the Presidential Election

To start with I’m not endorsing anybody. I believe America has been under judgment since SCOTUS ruled in Everson v Board of Education (1947) that Jefferson’s “Separation of Church and State” metaphor had become the constitutional law of the land, effectively de-throning the God of Heaven and claiming the power in itself to put God (and everything worshiped as God ) under its own feet. We’ve seen steady moral and social degeneration of the nation ever since, except for a brief semi-revival under Reagan.

Our presidential candidates and most of the congressional ones have been chosen for us by the elites, and each crop of them has been a steadily less palatable assortment of “lesser of two evils” — None of whom except Reagan took back a single foot of ground on the cultural battlefield while in office on this long march to serfdom.

Under Obama, Cameron, Merkle, Pope Francis and other co-conspirators, the globalists have clearly begun making their final move to a one-world government, using George Soros’ “open borders” strategy and flooding the US and EU with third-world immigrants to destabilize and weaken national resistance, while simultaneously setting up a system of global taxation and control under the guise of a bogus “climate change” crisis.

The moral fabric of the targeted nations has also been severely compromised by the oppression of our natural family social foundation through the facilitation of LGBT supremacy.

The Obergefell “gay marriage” case was the coup-de-grace in the United States, rendering the generation-old “value voting” strategy of the conservative movement totally moot — showing that a handful of globalist federal judges could nullify our every accomplishment, no matter how dearly bought in time and treasure nor how widely supported in the public.

The nation was flooded with perversion within, while already being flooded with third-world invaders from without.

What occurred then, both in the US and EU was the rise of the “silent majority,” that mass of humanity whom we have always claimed to be people who share our Biblical values, but in actuality seek their own personal self-interest first, however they may perceive it. Many of them likely share our concern for family values, but that’s obviously not what motivates them — or they would have joined us long ago in the culture war.

And so here in the US (and in the EU — especially re the Brexit vote and Eastern European border closings) we have watched the emergence of populist nationalism on the right grow like yeast in a lump of bread dough until it overflows the top of the pan — while “social justice” Communism has done precisely the same on the left.

Friends, this phenomenon is entirely unique in American political history! The established political norms and systems are shattered — though many still act as if they still apply, not just among the “establishment” but also among “values voters.”

But this is not unique in world political history! This is a less militarized version of Germany 1932 minus the antisemitism and street brawls (though I think the latter is coming after the primaries). It’s the Nationalists vs the Communists and I think we just saw the first glimpse of what its going to look like at the Trump rallies in Illinois and Ohio: Commie agitators trying to bust up the events, meeting Nationalist resistors not afraid to punch back.

These so-far simply normal and patriotic American Nationalists are NOT Nazis by any stretch of the imagination, despite the historical parallels to Germany, but look at how close the parallels are:

Who were the original agitators in Germany? People forget that it was actually the Bolshevik-backed Communist bully-boys that ruled the streets in pre-Nazi Germany — giving rise to the National Socialist counter-force that eventually defeated them. Unlike here in the US today, both forces were evil, but the Communists were marginally worse, at least at first.

(If you want to get a greater sense of just how close the historical parallels are, complete with the turbulent social undercurrent of “gay”-driven sexual anarchy, read Chapters 1 and 4 of my book The Pink Swastika — here: http://www.scottlively.net/the-pink-swastika-5th-edition/ ) But I digress…

The American left is used to bullying conservatives with impunity because the formerly Christian-dominated right eschewed violence and in-kind retaliation as un-Christ-like, and, of course, the leftist media always gives cover to their fellow-travelers on culture war issues. I have experienced this many, many times as a pro-family speaker harassed and sometimes shut down by leftist, primarily “gay” Brown Shirts.

But the Trump army (again, NOT Nazis by any stretch of the imagination despite the historical parallels) is not dominated by value-voter Christians, though many are a part of it. It is dominated by secular conservatives — the silent majority who have been chafing for decades under the yoke of what some have termed “weaponized political correctness.” They’ve been gritting their teeth and bearing it so as not to risk their jobs or face character assassination, stewing and fuming in the privacy of their homes and thoughts.

But now a mob has formed and it has a super-powerful billionaire leader who never apologizes to the left or lets the media steer him. There is now safety in numbers — vast and increasing numbers — and a chance to push back against the bullies (who, as always, cast themselves as victims and scream “Fascist!” while throwing their Molotov Cocktails and rocks).

Meanwhile on the left, the Communists who have been working for decades to establish their Socialist Utopia on the ashes of Judeo-Christian civilization (with tremendous help from Obama), finally see it within reach under Bernie Sanders (or his ideological successor). They have enormous power and in their mass-delusion share a maniacal sense of entitlement: they believe “the end justifies the means,” especially violent means since that has always been central to their ideology from the dawn of Marxism.

We’ve seen glimpses of this in the black-masked Anarchists, “Earth First”ers, the Black (Lives Matter) Panthers, and the “Act-UP” bullies. These types are in charge of the leftist mob now. They will not accept Corporatist-shill Hillary even if she wins the primary. https://www.yahoo.com/politics/some-sanders-supporters-say-its-bernie-or-bust-155205844.html   More importantly, they will not tolerate Trump under ANY scenario. They will have their way! (so they think) through street violence.

That’s the scenario we face, in my analysis. We’re headed for a mini-Civil War in this election, raising the specter of Obama potentially using it as a pretext to suspend elections and stay in power under martial law. I know that’s an extreme result and I’m not predicting it will occur, just saying that it might.

In my view it’s better for the nation in the short term for the Nationalists to win. For one thing I think the economy would soar, despite sabotage by the left, but as I’ve said many times, secular conservatism when fully implemented is just as toxic to Biblical values as secular liberalism.

Many Christians will get swept up in the populist mob, and be very willing to overlook its flaws and excesses while some aspects of Godly values rise for a time with the broader conservative tide. If nothing else, an effective push-back against Cultural Marxism would create a cultural vacuum that Christians could quickly exploit.

But in time, the rift would grow between Christian and secular conservatives and Bible-believing Christians would begin to seem more and more “liberal” in comparison to the increasingly harsh and punitive secularists.

Remember, the pendulum always swings to the opposite extreme, and we Christians won’t (or shouldn’t) be willing to stay on the bandwagon as it swings ever further to the right.

But that particular challenge is probably a fair piece down the road. A concern, but not a present crisis.

The challenge today is to respond appropriately to the attraction and excitement of the populist uprising. My only advice to my fellow value voters is to keep your clarity of purpose firmly rooted in the Biblical world view, and participate in this extraordinary political season only to the extent that you can reconcile your personal actions with your faith. Don’t succumb to mob psychology.

And remember that regardless of how this election ends, only God can “Make America Great Again!” As far as I can see, there’s no mention by any of the candidates of reversing Everson v Board of Education and restoring Him as the exclusive God of this nation and there can be no genuine, lasting recovery of America without Him.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the scripture says. But the corollary is true as well: cursed is the nation that prefers so-called “religious pluralism” over the First Commandment (“You shall have no other god before Me”).

In the long-term big-picture perspective it makes little difference what human being presides over its inevitable demise, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to make the best of whatever situation we find ourselves in.

###

PS.  The day after I wrote this, the following article appeared on Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/

The following is a flyer I distributed during my 2014 run for Governor of Massachusetts.  I believe the ideas presented in it represent an important basis for Right/Left bridge-building:

Understanding Sexual Disorientation: A Natural Law Analysis of Gender Identity Disorder

Natural law is very simply the byproduct of accurate perception of the natural order by a rational mind devoted to truth-seeking. America’s Founding Fathers held this perspective and defined such truths to be “self-evident” in the Declaration of Independence.

The Apostle Paul wrote that God reveals the truth about the natural order of human sexuality and gender, and about His authorship of it, so clearly that people have no defense for false perceptions of it and actually suffer His anger for suppressing it (Romans 1:18-32).

Even secular Aristotle rooted his invention of the scientific method, foundation of all modern secular science, in the natural law presupposition. His axiom, called Teleology, held that the purpose of any thing can be discerned from its design and function. Thus the purpose of the eye is to see, and the purpose of human sexuality is to bond men and women together in self-contained natural families, which collectively establish natural communities, which makes civilization possible. These are self-evident truths.

The phenomenon of gender identity confusion is also self-evident to any truth-seeking person with a rational mind. Pope John Paul affirmed this most succinctly when he observed that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.” But people, especially the most powerful ones, tend to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” to rationalize their indulgence in disordered conduct (Romans 1:18), and consequently western societies have witnessed the so-called sexual revolution smother our former natural law social consensus under a tsunami of irrationality cloaked in pseudo-science.

But truth abides, and truth-seekers continue to discover it easily by simple observation.

The truth about the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) coalition is that all of its members hold one thing in common: gender-identity disorder. And the category into which they fall is determined by the degree to which they deviate from gender normalcy.

In his landmark 1945 article, The Meaning of Normal (Yale J. of Biology and Medicine), Dr. Charles King noted that “Normalcy is that which functions according to its design.”
The heterosexual physiology of human beings is self-evident. The very concept of gender necessarily derives from our male/female complimentary design.

The masculinity of normal men and femininity of normal woman is also self-evident, as is the fact that each gender shares some of the personality traits of its opposite — in a roughly balanced proportion that slightly favors the characteristics associated with one’s male or female design.

Gender identity disorder occurs when a person’s gender-balance tips to either a masculine or feminine excess. The greater the imbalance, the more severe the gender-identity dysfunction.

When the gender-identity imbalance contradicts the person’s physiology (a man acting like a woman, or a woman like a man), the most extreme result is deliberate surgical mutilation of one’s body — transsexualism.

When the imbalance leans the other direction — toward excessive masculinity in men or femininity in women — the extreme is a complete loss of complimentarity, resulting in animalistic brutality in men (the Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde phenomenon) and utterly slavish passivity in women. These conditions are so clearly disordered as to make denial of this fact a form of insanity.

The self-evident solution to gender identity disorder is simply to help people regain a balanced male/female equilibrium. How that balance may be restored, as a practical matter, is the province of healers employing Aristotle’s “scientific method.” But it can certainly never be achieved if we continue denying plain truth in favor of a politically-correct mass-delusion that insists sexual disorientation is good and normal.

###

A more thorough treatment of this subject may be viewed here: http://www.scottlively.net/2016/02/11/the-common-root-of-lgbt-dysfunctions/

The “gay” movement promotes itself as a coalition of “sexual minorities:” Lesbian, “Gay,” Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT). “Transgendered” is a category that includes all people who seek to change their physical appearance to that of the opposite gender from which they were born. It includes both transvestites, who limit their gender alteration to clothing and cosmetic changes, and transsexuals, who have their bodies surgically altered to resemble those of the opposite sex.

One day, while pondering the relationship between homosexuality and transgenderism, I was reminded of Genesis 1:27, in which God explains that He created all human beings in His image as male and female (i.e.. “His image” is both halves taken together). I have often sermonized on this topic: that He created us not just as two genders, man and woman, but that each of us, regardless of physical gender, is intended to have a balance of masculine and feminine qualities. Jesus Himself exhibited this principle in His earthly ministry: on one hand comparing himself to a “mother hen” wanting to protect Jerusalem under her wings (Matthew 23:37) and on the other forcefully driving the money changers from the temple with a whip that he made with His own hands (John 2:15).

Naturally, men tend to have more masculine qualities — task orientation, aggression, risk-taking, for example — and women tend to have more feminine qualities, such as relationship orientation, nurturing and security-mindedness, but each of us has some of both. It’s what allows men and women to understand and appreciate each other and to cooperate in family life and the raising of children.

Society’s failure to understand and respect this principle has been the source of many problems, such as when men scorn their own moderating feminine qualities in favor of a destructive ultra-masculine “machismo” or other devaluation of females and femininity. Consider modern China, where the customary killing of girl babies has created a gender imbalance of 30 million extra boys who will be without wives.

Contempt for the feminine is clearly not the Biblical view, though many professing Christians over the centuries have held it. In the United States, the blame for the rise of militant secular feminism can be laid squarely at the feet of an earlier generation of American men who abused their masculine authority to mistreat women, on the theory that they were inferior. The secular feminism that has arisen in response to men’s failures is equally destructive to social health (but that’s a topic for another book).

The Biblical view is that men and women are equal in value, different in function (e.g. Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 5). This principle is the essence of heterosexuality: a balance of the complimentary forms and qualities inherent in our male/female duality. The principle sounds almost Taoist (perhaps an indication of its universality), but is solidly Biblical. Men and women are made to fit together, in every sense of the word.

From this starting point, it struck me that a whole new understanding of homosexual and transgender disorientation becomes possible. They are both the result of gender imbalance and can be plotted on a scale that measures the degree of imbalance.

The Scale of Gender Balance

Let us envision a seven point scale in which the center represents gender normalcy and the ends represent extremes of masculine and feminine imbalance. Gender normalcy (GN) is the state of having a close to even balance of masculinity and femininity — not a perfectly even balance, which would amount to androgyny, but just enough of an imbalance to cause the average man to be more masculine than the average woman and vice versa.

Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————–Extreme Femininity

Gender normalcy itself encompasses a range of slight gender imbalance. We all know men and women who are more masculine or feminine than the average. What makes them normal, despite their greater than average imbalance is that they function according to their heterosexual design. They are attracted to the opposite sex and in fact often choose a spouse whose own degree of imbalance is the reverse of theirs (e.g. a very feminine woman marrying a very masculine man).

For various reasons, including those listed in the prior segment, a person can suffer gender imbalance severe enough to harm their sense of gender identity. The more pronounced the imbalance, the more psychologically affected the person will be. This range of unhealthy gender imbalance encompasses all of the various so-called sexual minorities, which can be plotted on the scale based on the degree of gender imbalance they represent. For example, the most severe gender imbalance in men to the effeminate side is represented in the category we call transsexuals.

Male Transsexuals: Men Imbalanced to the Feminine Extreme

Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————–Extreme Femininity

Male to Female Transsexual (MTS)

What defines a male-to-female transsexual? A complete rejection of masculine identity. The identification with the feminine side is so complete that the man will hire a surgeon to remove his penis, replace it with an artificial vagina, and fit him with breast implants: this is a male to female transsexual (MTS). This person (who will always remain genetically male) is at the furthest feminine extreme of the gender imbalance scale. He has completely rejected masculinity and all that it represents.

Female Transsexuals: Women Imbalanced to the Masculine Extreme:

Extreme Masculinity—————( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity

Female to Male Transsexual (FTS)

What defines a female-to-male transsexual? Exactly the reverse process to the male transsexual. The woman so completely rejects her feminine nature that she wants to “become a man.” Since this is genetically impossible, she pursues the next best thing: cosmetic surgery to make her body look like that of a man.

Transvestites

What is a transvestite? A transvestite is a person whose gender imbalance is severe enough to cause him or her to want to be perceived by others as the opposite gender. A Male Transvestite (MTV) will dress as a woman, and a Female Transvestite (FTV) will dress as a man. The imbalance is not so extreme that the person will seek cosmetic surgery, and he or she may actually spend most of their time clothed appropriately for their sex, but their sense of gender identity is disordered and manifests in an attempt to masquerade as the opposite sex on a part-time or full-time basis.

Extreme Masculinity—————( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
Female Transvestite (FTV)                                      Male Transvestite (MTV)

Effeminate Male Homosexuals and Masculine Female Homosexuals

The next, less severe form of gender disorder in men is Effeminate Male Homosexuality (EMH). A man in this category acts much like a woman. He doesn’t dress in women’s clothing or change himself with surgery, but there is no mistaking that his sense of gender identity leans strongly to the feminine. This is the “classic” male homosexual type, in many ways a caricature of womanhood; this is the type of homosexual most likely to come to mind when one hears the term “gay man.” Some of this is due to media stereotyping, but it is also self-evident that a homosexual man acting like a woman will stand out more than a homosexual man with more masculine leanings.

The parallel form of gender disorder in women is Masculine Female Homosexuality (MFH). A woman of this type acts like a man. She doesn’t necessarily dress in men’s clothing, although she might. The social taboo regarding women dressing like men is much less pronounced than for men dressing like women, so it is difficult to draw a line between the outward manifestation of female transvestites and lesbians in the same way it can be drawn between that of effeminate homosexual men and male transvestites. In addition, female gender identity disorder is based much more on fear and rejection of one’s own gender than on attraction to and identification with one’s opposite gender. A woman in this category fits most people’s idea of a lesbian, a slightly masculine-acting woman whose gender disorder manifests itself in same-sex attraction but not in a complete rejection of her femininity.

Our scale is getting a little crowded, so we will divide it by gender, but it remains the same scale for both females and males.

WOMEN
Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
(FTS) (FTV) (MFH)                                 Lesbian Fems (LF)

MEN
Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
”Gay” Bullies                                                                  (EMH) (MTV) (MTS)

The Hidden “Sexual Minorities”

So far on our scale of gender imbalance we have plotted the “sexual minorities” that are most visible in our society, but there is another full side to the spectrum that is not as obvious to the casual observer. This side includes the categories of gender disorder in which the individuals are afflicted with an absence of the gender qualities associated with the opposite sex: men with too little of the feminine, and women with too little of the masculine.

“GAY” BULLIES AND LESBIAN SISSIES

Masculine Homosexual Men, AKA “Gay” Bullies.

Moving toward the opposite extreme of the scale, the male categories are measured by their degree of rejection of females and femininity. These are masculine-oriented homosexual men. The existence of this type of homosexual comes as a shock to some people. When they think of homosexuals, they think of effeminate men who act like women, but, in my observation, there are at least as many masculine-leaning homosexuals as there are effeminate ones.

But these are not simply masculine men, they are anti-feminine men. Importantly, they are less against women per se than against effeminacy — especially in other men. The further one tends to the masculine extreme, the greater his rejection of and hostility towards effeminacy. (In my observation, effeminate homosexuality and transgenderism seem to be a product of childhood gender identity disorder as described above, while masculine-oriented homosexuality in men seems to be a product of childhood or adolescent sexual abuse.)

The first category therefore is the classic “gay” bully, and his victims are often effeminate homosexuals. It is very common to hear “gay” activists refer to these “gay bashers” as “latent homosexuals,“ and I believe they are correct, though I suspect that many of these men are not latent, but active (though often self-loathing) homosexuals.

Lesbian Fems, AKA “Lipstick Lesbians”

Gender imbalance, when it crosses the line from gender normalcy, is not just an overabundance of the qualities of one gender. As we observed above, it is also a rejection of the complimentary qualities of the opposite gender. This results in an unhealthy manifestation of the remaining gender qualities. In men it is most obvious in the level of aggression. In women, it is most obvious in the approach to interpersonal relationships. The greater the imbalance toward the feminine extreme, the greater the degree of emotional dependence on other people, especially the romantic partner or partners. This is often reflected in intense jealousy and possessiveness among lesbian partners, leading frequently to domestic violence.

“Lipstick lesbians” are lesbians who want to appear feminine, but who don’t want to be romantically or sexually involved with men. As with the men who occupy a parallel position on the male scale, the “gay” bullies, they tend to blend into society. No one really notices a lesbian who is dressing and acting like a woman, or a “gay” man who is dressing and acting like a man. These are the “invisible” homosexuals who, if they are activist-minded, often can play the part of secret agents in the pursuit of “gay” political goals. No one knows they are homosexual unless they intentionally reveal themselves.

These women commonly enter “heterosexual mimicking” relationships with “butch” lesbians, who take the role of the man.

SUPER-MACHOS AND MONSTERS, DOORMATS AND SLAVES

Super-Machos

Along with a rejection of effeminacy, comes a loss of the feminine-associated qualities that serve to moderate male behavior. The less influenced a man is by these moderating qualities, the more aggressive, even brutal he becomes. This is not to say that gender normal men cannot be “ultra-masculine.” Some are, but usually their attraction to women creates an incentive for these men to moderate their behavior to be more acceptable to women (the characters often played by the actor John Wayne come to mind here).

In contrast, Super-Machos are both ultra-masculine and anti-feminine to the point of misogyny. They actively reject the moderating influences of the feminine as weakness and cultivate a persona of brutal forcefulness. The best examples of this type were the male homosexuals of the Nazi Sturmabteilung, also known as the Brownshirts.

Many people wonder how the Nazis could have been homosexual, when homosexuals were among the targets of their brutal social engineering policies. The secret is that many of the Nazi leaders were masculine-oriented homosexuals, while many of their political enemies in the German Communist Party were effeminate homosexuals.

Monsters

At the furthest extreme of the scale are men whose gender imbalance has left them without any hint of feminine restraint. Fortunately there are few of them, because they are capable of the worst atrocities. Many of the guards of the Nazi extermination camps were of this type. In our society, such men have often been responsible for mass murders, serial killings, torture slayings, and the like. They seem less like men than like animals to us, since we recognize that a fully human nature is made up of complementary, balancing and mutually restraining male and female components.

Doormats & Slaves

The final categories in the scale represent escalating degrees of the dependency phenomenon in women. These are women who are deeply emotionally dependent on their (usually) lesbian partners or male partners, to the point of neurosis. Lacking all but a trace of the masculine in their personality, they are virtually unable to assert themselves. In the most extreme examples, they live as the literal slaves of their partners. These partnerships often include or are based upon sexual bondage and domination and/or sadism and masochism (BDSM). Significantly, due to the supersubmissive nature of these women, they are frequently bi-sexual, since it is extremely difficult for them to withhold consent from anyone, male or female, who gains a position of authority over them in the context of a romantic or sexual relationship.

WOMEN

Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
(FTS) (FTV) (MFH)                               Lesbian Fems (LF), Doormats, Slaves

MEN
Extreme Masculinity————–( GN )—————-Extreme Femininity
Monsters, Super-Machos ”Gay” Bullies                        (EMH) (MTV) (MTS)

Conclusion

Allow me to state very clearly at this point that this scale of gender imbalance is my own invention, based solely upon my observations and analysis. It is not the product of controlled scientific studies, nor has it been reviewed or endorsed by medical or psychiatric professionals. I am not a medical doctor or mental health professional, just an attorney and pastor with 25 years of ministry focus on LGBT issues.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find something similar to this scale in the scientific literature, because I believe these observations are not only intuitive but objectively accurate, but I have not yet found such a source, nor am I searching for one. I believe this scale stands on its own as a reasonable and logical model of homosexual/transgender dysfunction.

In terms of the Biblical support for these ideas, we find them in two areas. First, in the recognition of multiple categories of homosexual dysfunction. This includes 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “…[b]e not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [sodomites], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” Note that Paul differentiates “sodomites” from “effeminate” which may be taken either as a reference to masculine and feminine-oriented male homosexuals, or to homosexual and transgendered men, or both.

It also includes Old Testament passages addressing “dogs” (male, probably effeminate, homosexual prostitutes; see Deuteronomy 23:18).

Masculine oriented homosexuality (recognized by its predatory nature) is seen in Genesis 19 (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah) and Judges 19 (the homosexuality-related incident that sparked the Benjamite civil war).

Second, we find a firm Biblical opposition to the confusion of gender, beyond what is implied by Genesis 1:27. Deuteronomy 22:5 reads “The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

As always when dealing with statutory Biblical law, we note that while the strict letter of the law may not always be applicable in a modern context (see Romans 7:6), the spirit and principle of the law remains constant and binding, in this case reflecting the fact that gender distinctions matter to God. This principle is specifically reaffirmed throughout the New Testament as well (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 as to physical appearance, Matthew 19:4 as to gender identity).

###

Postscript: As of the writing of this article I am still subject to a federal lawsuit charging me with “Crimes Against Humanity” for preaching against homosexuality in Uganda. Perhaps the top example of my allegedly malicious hatred of homosexuals given by the plaintiffs and their media and activist supporters is that I supposedly told the Ugandans that all homosexuals are monsters who engage in mass murder and other atrocities. The basis for that utterly false and frankly evil misrepresentation is this teaching, which I presented in lecture form in Uganda

(see for yourself how grossly they misrepresent what I said here: http://www.scottlively.net/2015/08/25/view-my-2009-uganda-conference-that-led-to-the-smug-lawsuit/)

and which is re-printed from Chapter 4 of my book “Redeeming the Rainbow: A Christian Response to the ’Gay’ Agenda” here: http://www.defendthefamily.com/rtr/

I believe you can always tell which facts and arguments are most damaging to the LGBT supremacist agenda by measuring how outrageously “gay” propagandists misrepresent them. By that standard, this teaching on the common root of LGBT dysfunction is highly valuable pro-family information. I urge you to distribute it to your friends and allies.

Post-Postscript: I apologize for the awkwardness of my attempt to depict this scale graphically. If you or someone you know would be interested in volunteering to create a graphic to depict the Scale of Gender Imbalance in LGBT Sufferers, I’d love to hear from you at sdllaw@gmail.com.

UPDATE:  The excellent graphics at the top of the page were created by a supporter in response to my request.

I am Dr. Scott Lively, an attorney, pastor and President of Defend the Family International. For the past quarter century my ministry has been devoted to exposing and opposing the now-global homosexual movement, primarily in the United States, but with activity in more than thirty countries. I have been named public enemy number one by the world’s largest homosexual organization, the Human Rights Campaign, labeled a “hate group” by the uber-leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, and targeted for personal destruction by the George Soros-funded Center For Constitutional Rights in a federal lawsuit (utilizing a team of fourteen lawyers), charging me with “Crimes Against Humanity” for preaching a reasoned, factual and non-violent message against homosexuality in Uganda.

I am in truth just a simple Christian missionary, running a one-man office with an annual budget of less than $120,000, but the enormously wealthy and powerful international homosexual network considers me one of it’s greatest threats. Why? Because I know nearly as much about their history, strategies and tactics as they do and my life’s work has been to empower and equip pro-family activists around the world with those facts.

Importantly, I have personally experienced or been an eyewitness to every form of harassment, intimidation and sabotage that homosexualists’ employ to destroy anyone who dares to stand up to them. While I have known both male and female homosexuals who seemed like genuinely decent people despite being ensnared in sexual disoriention, I can confirm the warning of the Bible in Romans 1:24-32 that (in contrast) 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.

I have paid a heavy price for the authority with which I speak, and I urge you to give credence to my testimony.

We must above all be honest with ourselves. With the Obergefell v Hodges so-called “gay marriage” decision of the United States Supreme Court, the American pro-family movement has been set back dramatically — to a position equivalent to that of the pro-life movement in 1973. Indeed, Obergefell is rightly described by many as the Roe v Wade of the homosexual issue, which fact has profound implications for us all.

My ministry is one of only a dozen or so single-issue pro-family organizations in the United States who speak the truth about homosexuality boldly and unapologetically, most of which are similarly small and not well funded. With a couple of exceptions, the larger multi-issue Christian conservative groups are shackled by fear of the politically-correct media and are unwilling to base their arguments on the abnormality of homosexuality itself, acquiescing to many key homosexual demands such as civil unions and sexual orientation regulations, thereby severely undermining their moral authority.

One by one, all of the influential secular institutions of the United States have capitulated to a decades-long campaign of homosexual bullying and to such a degree that today even the once staunchly conservative US Chamber of Commerce has become a tool of “gay” social engineering.

The American public education system (from pre-school through graduate school), our social media giants, and the majority of our news and entertainment media are not just pro-homosexual, but militantly so.

Our government is in the hands of a man called “The First Gay President” by Newsweek magazine (which intended it as a compliment), who has made the global advancement of homosexuality such a priority of his administration that over $700 million has been devoted to it in just the past three years.

Only the Christian church (and Torah-faithful Jews) continue to stand against the homosexual agenda in America and most of the western world. However, subjected as it is to constant, aggressive pro-“gay” advocacy and suppression of pro-family dissent in the popular culture and key institutions, the church is weakening, especially among its most vulnerable members, the youth.

That is the unfortunate reality not just in the United States, but the UK, Canada, the EU, and much of the rest of the western world.

Yet, though our situation is dire, even in the United States there remains work that can be done to reverse the current trend for those with long-term vision. And if we adopt a global perspective, and are willing to build intra-national cooperation with morally-conservative countries (who still represent the vast majority of the world’s population), there is realistic cause for optimism.

In my view as a veteran Christian missionary to the international pro-family movement there are three things we must do.

Inoculate the Church Against “Gay Theology”

First, we must protect and strengthen the Christian church by promoting Biblical literacy and fidelity regarding sexuality, marriage and family. Satan’s greatest weapon against mankind has always been to sow doubt about God’s Word and to present a plausible counterfeit alternative to those weak in faith and knowledge. The question, “Did God really say that?” was his trap in the Garden regarding the first sin, and it is his trap today regarding homosexuality. The more ignorant that Christians are of the Bible’s stark warning about the personal and sociological dangers of homosexuality, the easier they are deceived.

For example, the now globally ubiquitous and seductive lie that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable, is directly and unmistakably refuted by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, meaning that Christians who agree that “gays” are “born that way” and cannot change are literally denying Christ‘s authority and power, to their own spiritual peril.

Importantly, that lie is only one component of so-called “Gay Theology,” a sophisticated and detailed revision of Biblical teachings on homosexuality in one unified and comprehensive package. Launched as a new variant of “gay” political propaganda in the 1980s by the openly homosexual historical revisionist John E Boswell of Yale University (who died in 1994 of AIDS), “Gay Theology” quickly evolved into a powerful tool of LGBT political activism and a central doctrine of numerous left-leaning Christian denominations. “Gay Theology” today represents the great heresy of our time and is advancing rapidly throughout the world, primarily among young people.

I have created a short pamphlet titled “NOT Just Another Sin” which outlines the Biblical case against homosexuality from Genesis to Revelation in a chronological series of bullet points. I expanded upon and explained how these references, when taken together, represent “The Forgotten Last Days Warning About Homosexuality in the Bible” in an 18-page article with that title. Both of these resources are located here: http://www.scottlively.net/2014/08/19/not-just-another-sin/

Whether or not you choose to utilize these particular free resources or others that may be available on the Internet, it is essential that the church awaken to this threat and begin inoculating all Christian believers against “Gay Theology.”

Repeal or Amend All Sexual Orientation Regulations and Restore the Right to Discriminate Against Homosexual Conduct

Second, we must redirect our focus against homosexuality itself and not secondary cultural battles. The Bible warns, and human experience confirms that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural and perverse conduct with severe personal and social consequences.  It is not only appropriate, but necessary to social health and order to discriminate against homosexual conduct and ideology — even as we distinguish the person-hood of those who identify as homosexuals from their destructive lifestyle.

“Love the sinner, hate the sin,” is a well-used and beautifully succinct summary of Christian theology on the matter, but somewhere along the way our movement got so focused on trying to show love for the sinner that we stopped reminding people why they should hate the sin. Probably because we got tricked into a posture of defensiveness by the “gay” movement’s cynical tactic of equating all disagreement with their political agenda as hatred and fear of the “gays” themselves (thus the term “homophobia,” which literally defines all disapproval of homosexuality as an anxiety disorder).

Not surprisingly, it was about that time in the American culture war when the pro-family side started losing the battles. Previously, when our campaigns exposed facts about homosexual practices, crimes, “gay” history, the relationship of homosexuality to pederasty, disease and mental illness, “hate-crime” hoaxes, and the corrupt conduct of “gay” leaders and activists, we won. When we started self-censoring those facts to try to prove we weren’t “haters,” we began to lose.

Recognizing our vulnerability, the “gays” began devoting themselves fully to pushing “anti-discrimination” policies defining “sexual orientation” as a basis for civil rights minority status. These Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) enshrine into law the logical premise that disapproval of homosexuality is morally wrong and must be publicly discouraged. They turn reality on its head and lead ultimately to the criminalization of Biblical Christianity. Moreover, wherever they have been enacted anywhere in the world, these SORs have proven to be the seed that contains the entire tree of the homosexual political agenda, with all of its poisonous fruit: “gay” marriage, “gay” adoption, indoctrination of public school children with “gay” propaganda, public funding of “gay” institutions, etcetera. Once the seed is planted, the entire agenda comes forth in steady incremental stages while dissent is increasingly punished.

It is this same flawed logical premise that allowed homosexuality to be granted the status of a “human right” in international law, one that increasingly now trumps the authentic human rights of religious freedom and natural family values.

In countries that have not yet adopted SORs, the pro-family movement should devote itself to preventing their enactment, and even passing prophylactic legislation recognizing the right of individuals, churches and businesses to favor natural family values and discriminate against homosexual conduct and ideology. Where SORs have already been enacted they must be repealed or amended to favor freedom of speech and religious liberty. I have drafted a model prophylactic statute for the American context, and a separate version of this model which may be used to amend existing SORs. Both may be adapted for use in other countries: http://www.scottlively.net/2013/07/24/the-first-amendment-supremacy-clause-fact-sheet/

Persuade Family-Friendly Nations to Adopt the Russian Ban on Homosexual Propaganda to Children

Third, 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.

I have been falsely accused of masterminding the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill which initially included the death penalty for repeat homosexual offenders, though I had strongly encouraged the Ugandan Parliament to emphasize rehabilitation and prevention, not punishment in my address to its members in 2009. However, I am proud to say that I believe I played a small part in the adoption of the Russian law by advocating for such a policy in a 50-city speaking tour of Russia and the former Soviet Union in 2006 and 2007, ending in St. Petersburg where I published my Letter to the Russian People outlining my public policy recommendations. St. Petersburg became the first city to pass the law a couple of years later. http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=5225300

My purpose in writing this Letter to the International Pro-Family Movement is to have a similar influence in the direction of public policy in other family-friendly nations.

I urge every pro-family advocate across the world to personally adopt the three simple goals outlined in this letter and to work toward their implementation. I further offer my services as a consultant, lecturer and/or strategist to assist pro-family advocacy groups around the world to achieve these goals.

Lastly, let us all pray that 2016 will be the year when the LGBT global campaign to homosexualize the world will finally be turned back.

Your Ally in the Cause of Truth,

Dr. Scott Lively
Sdllaw@gmail.com
www.defendthefamily.com
www.scottlively.net

Earlier this week I wrote an article about the threat that the “Crimes Against Humanity” lawsuit SMUG v Lively poses to the survival of my ministry. http://www.scottlively.net/2015/12/28/smug-v-lively-in-the-boston-globe/

Today I want to address the greater threat posed to the United States Constitution and our national sovereignty by this case.

First, it must be recognized that a central goal of the leftist elites in both major US political parties and the US judiciary is the sublimation of American courts to an emerging globalist judicial system. Increasingly, rulings by our supreme court cite foreign legal norms, consistent with the Socialists’ “Tide of History” metaphor. That agenda is advancing rapidly on many fronts, but none more aggressively than through the misapplication of a 1789 “piracy-on-the-high-seas” law called the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Its misuse as a weapon of “social justice” was pioneered in the early 1980s by the so-called Center for Constitutional Rights, the Manhattan-based Marxist law firm driving the SMUG litigation against me.

On April 22, 2013, the Supreme Court dealt a setback to that agenda by ruling that Americans cannot be sued in US courts under the ATS for their conduct on foreign soil. Quoting the press release of my attorneys at Liberty Counsel:

“The Supreme Court today held that the federal Alien Tort Statute (ATS) cannot be used to challenge foreign conduct in United States courts. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the High Court held that the ATS does not ‘reach conduct occurring in the territory of a foreign sovereign.’ The decision is a severe blow to foreign entities and individuals that have sought to use the ATS – with alarming success in the last three decades – to bring foreign disputes in U.S. courts. These international groups had made a cottage industry out of asking U.S. courts to apply the amorphous and ever-changing dictates of ‘international law,’ even when it conflicts with U.S. law or the United States Constitution.

“Liberty Counsel currently represents Pastor Scott Lively in one such case brought against him by Sexual Minorities Uganda, which calls itself “SMUG.” In its lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, SMUG claims that Mr. Lively violated ‘international law’ when he criticized homosexual conduct while visiting Uganda. SMUG is asking the Court to punish a United States citizen for his alleged speech in Uganda – speech that would be entirely protected in the United States. Liberty Counsel had previously asked the Court to dismiss SMUG’s frivolous lawsuit, partly on the grounds that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to conduct outside the United States.

“The Supreme Court has now accepted Liberty Counsel’s argument and has made it the law of the land. On the basis of the just-issued decision in Kiobel, Liberty Counsel has again asked the Massachusetts federal court to dismiss SMUG’s lawsuit.”
https://www.lc.org/newsroom/details/supreme-court-ejects-foreign-suits-from-u-s-courts-1

Alarmingly, however, the SMUG v Lively suit survived.  Judge Ponsor ruled in his denial of our Motion to Dismiss that the case should continue, since my alleged conspiracy with Uganda officials to allegedly persecute homosexuals in that country might have been conducted in part on US soil — activity which he compared to a terrorist making a bomb in the US and shipping it to Uganda to be detonated.

Now, to whatever extent Judge Ponsor’s reasoning reflects the beliefs of our federal judiciary as a whole, the Alien Tort Statute is not only alive and well, but more threatening than ever to Americans’ rights to free speech and religious liberty under the US Constitution.

Even more alarming, however, is the fact that the SMUG case relies ultimately on foreign law, specifically Article 7 of the statutes of the International Criminal Court (ICC), based in The Hague, Netherlands. The United States (to the ire of every leftist activist in the western world), is not a party to the Treaty of Rome that established and regulates the ICC. Yet its standards have been allowed in the back door, as it were, in the SMUG case. A SMUG victory would necessarily recognize ICC’s legitimacy in our federal courts, with deeply disturbing implications for all Americans, and for the supremacy of our constitution relative to international treaties.

But it gets worse. In a Motion to Dismiss, the judge must assume that all of the facts alleged by the prosecution are true and then apply the law to those facts. If the facts are insufficient to meet the legal standard, he must dismiss the case for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Judge Ponsor denied our Motion to Dismiss, which means that he had to have concluded that the facts alleged by SMUG did meet the legal standard for “Crimes Against Humanity of Persecution,” Article 7(1)(h), of which I am accused, leaving only the question of whether the alleged facts were true.

The problem is that SMUG alleged only eight incidents of “persecution” by the Ugandan government over a ten year period, with only one of them, the murder of SMUG activist David Kato, remotely approaching the gravity of a Crime Against Humanity. (However, at the time that SMUG filed its lawsuit, Kato’s confessed killer was already serving a 30 year sentence for the crime: a “gay” prostitute whom Kato had bailed out of jail to be his live-in house-boy. It was a garden-variety “gay on gay” murder entirely unrelated to any alleged government campaign of persecution.)

But “Crimes Against Humanity” is a category of the most egregious possible crimes in the civilized world. It was codified in international law to prosecute Nazi officials after WWII for their notorious atrocities — crimes deemed so horrific that they “shocked the conscience of the nations” and justified the rejection of German national sovereignty as a legal defense. (The Nazis had first legalized their atrocities before they committed them.) And the Introduction to Article 7 specifically states that “its provisions…must be strictly construed, taking into account that crimes against humanity as defined in article 7 are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.”

You can read the statute for yourself here:

Click to access ElementsOfCrimesEng.pdf

So, for Judge Ponsor to have concluded that SMUG’s facts met the elements of Article 7(1)(h) of the Rome Treaty, he had to have dramatically broadened and liberalized the scope of the statute, and, importantly, to have extended its protections to homosexuals as a class, since they are not included in the list of protected categories, nor is the denial of civil rights based on sodomy or sexual orientation “universally recognized as impermissible under international law.”

The staggering implication is that commonplace “civil rights violations,” of the sort litigated routinely in major America cities, could suddenly fall within the definition of “Crimes Against Humanity” here in our own country if SMUG prevails. And internationally, the weight of a US Federal Court ruling would be lent to the efforts of the leftist elites to criminalize “homophobia” globally, and deny morally conservative countries around the world the right to oppose the legitimization of sexual perversion in their societies.  It’s the “Holy Grail” of the global LGBT lobby.

It seems quite bizarre to bystanders that I am being sued civilly in America for allegedly violating an International Criminal Court statute by allegedly “conspiring” with Uganda government officials who have not themselves been charged with any crime in the International Criminal Court, and that my “conspiracy“ amounts to preaching Biblical standards of morality that our constitution was expressly written to protect. However, I know that I am not much more than a pawn in a diabolical legal and political strategy to destroy American sovereignty and bring this nation under the authority of a global Socialist government.

They’ve chosen me because I’m relatively powerless and easy to malign.  Politically-speaking, I don’t have “friends in high places” or affiliations with major Christian media or other conservative institutions. But this case deserves far more attention than it has received among American patriots and constitutionalists. SMUG v Lively is really SMUG v America — America as we once knew it before freedom-hating Marxists like the Center for Constitutional Rights came to power.

As a Christian pastor my trust is in Jesus Christ and I know He will bless me for my refusal to surrender to those who hate Him and His Word.  But I am also an American who shares our Founders’ conviction that resistance to tyranny is obedience to God, and I know the threat this case represents to this land I love. My prayer is that the larger conservative movement would become more aware of this case, and it would cause its members to remember and return to the Biblical standards that once served as an impenetrable protective shield around our constitutional rights and national sovereignty.

I would also ask for their support to my ministry, which is standing in the gap and taking the arrows for cause of freedom. Please donate here: http://www.defendthefamily.com/help/donate.php

In Him,

Dr. Scott Lively
www.defendthefamily.com
www.scottlively.net

Article 7 (1) (h)
Crime against humanity of persecution
Elements
1. The perpetrator severely deprived, contrary to international law,21 one or more persons of fundamental rights.
2. The perpetrator targeted such person or persons by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity or targeted the group or collectivity as such.
3. Such targeting was based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious,gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, of the Statute, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law.
4. The conduct was committed in connection with any act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute* or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
5. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.
6. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

*murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, sexual violence, enforced disappearance of persons, apartheid, [or] other inhumane acts [“great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act”].

Introduction: Since article 7 pertains to international criminal law, its provisions, consistent with article 22, must be strictly construed, taking into account that crimes against humanity as defined in article 7 are among the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, warrant and entail individual criminal responsibility, and require conduct which is impermissible under generally applicable international law, as recognized by the principal legal systems of the world.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/12/27/springfield-court-battle-over-gay-rights-uganda/pgnIaBV2LHfzC8MqhfAzrK/story.html

This morning the Boston Globe published an update on the SMUG v Lively lawsuit which accuses me of “Crimes Against Humanity” for preaching against homosexuality in Uganda.

Conservatives know all too well that our Leftist counterparts in the LGBT movement are shameless liars who will use any means available to them to destroy those who oppose their selfish agenda. But never in the modern world has any pro-family advocate faced the level of malicious persecution that I have.

I have great sympathy for the bakers, printers and other small business owners who have been closed down through the outrageous abuse of domestic anti-discrimination laws by “gay” activists. For government employees whose rights of conscience are callously trampled. For students at every grade level whose attempts to affirm natural family values in the classroom are penalized and suppressed. And for therapeutic ministries whose work to help young sex-abuse victims reorient to heterosexual normalcy has been criminalized by tyrannical Democrat-controlled state legislatures. These are clear examples of persecution of Christians (and Torah-faithful Jews).

But none of these approach the level of persecution that I have faced since 2009 when the international LGBT network picked me to be their scapegoat for the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill (AHB).

Although I never advocated hatred or violence against homosexuals there or anywhere, and from the beginning opposed the AHB as overly harsh and draconian. And although there has been nothing in Uganda’s opposition to the LGBT lobby that remotely resembles “Crimes Against Humanity” (e.g. torture, murder, concentration camps or genocide). And although SMUG has not provided a single piece of evidence linking me to any specific incidents of alleged persecution of homosexuals in Uganda…

…despite these essential facts, my name and this ministry have been (globally) maliciously characterized as a force of evil in the world comparable to Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich for whom the category of “Crimes Against Humanity” was invented at Nuremberg. Their propaganda campaign has been so extensive, and echoed across such a wide swath of the “elite” leftist media (The New York Times, The Guardian in England, The National Post in C, ABC Nightly News, etc) that even many conservative Christians pastors in America (who should know better) have believed it. And since March of 2012 I have suffered under the emotional strain and operational burden of a landmark federal lawsuit (whose presuppositions and implications are central to Leftist goals and ideology both domestically and internationally), in a Massachusetts District Court, against a team of 14 lawyers. If they prevail, they could saddle me with potentially millions of dollars of debt in damages and attorney fees — and an injunction intended to silence my pro-family advocacy forever. (Thank God for Liberty Counsel, and my brilliant attorney Harry Mihet, who are fighting hard and so well against overwhelming odds).

Meanwhile, the laughably misnamed Center for Constitutional Rights which is driving this lawsuit, is raking in untold fundraising riches from every corner of the leftist universe as the “heroic defenders of the persecuted Ugandan homosexuals.” That’s on top of what they’re getting from George Soros and other left-wing mega-donors, who are undoubtedly delighted with this case.

My friends, SMUG v Lively is truly a David v Goliath battle. I’m runing 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. (Urge them to review our website and my blog – below – to recognize our value to the movement.)

It will also require that some of our elderly supporters remember Abiding Truth Ministries in their wills and other planned-giving documents.

Tiny Abiding Truth Ministries is one of the most feared and hated pro-family organizations in the world, as the intensity of the LGBT attacks attest. Not because we do what they accuse us of (you know they ALWAYS lie), but because we know more about the history, strategies and tactics of their movement than just about anyone on our side, and we’re dedicated to empowering and equipping pro-family advocates around the world with that knowledge.

There is really no other ministry that does quite what we do, and it is up to you whether we survive to continue our vital work.

Please give generously here: http://www.defendthefamily.com/help/donate.php

And please forward this email to individuals that you believe would join us as ministry partners, with your personal note of encouragement for them to do so.

For the Cause of Truth,

Dr. Scott Lively
www.defendthefamily.com
www.scottlively.net

PS. For more information see:

The Grotesque Persecution of Scott Lively

The Grotesque Persecution of Scott Lively

The Crucifixion of Pastor Scott Lively
http://barbwire.com/2014/11/15/crucifixion-pastor-scott-lively/

The image that best defines the clash of barbarism vs. civilization in the world today is that of innocents used as human shields. The barbarians use our humanity against us and force us into a moral conundrum. Do we bomb the enemy missile-launcher in the hospital complex or do we let it continue to let it rain death on our own population? We are forced by the barbarians to choose the lesser of two evils, whatever that might be and then face the scorn and wrath of whichever half of the polarized public we disappointed by our choice. It’s a tactic straight from Hell.

But even more devious and diabolical is the use of innocents as a human sword, as in the so-called “Syrian refugee crisis.” Credible reports suggest that this river of human misery — carrying God only knows how many Jihadist Trojan Horses in its current — was deliberately created by the barbarian Obama administration. It is said he was bombing civilian infrastructure in Syria to 1) deplete Syrian President Assad’s pool of available men of military age, and 2) to force Europe to take a more active part in ousting Assad by blaming him for the consequent social chaos in the European nations. The tactic might have worked if not for Russia‘s direct military intervention to preserve its Syrian ally.

http://www.sott.net/article/304154-Russian-military-discovering-that-US-airstrikes-in-Syria-targeted-civilians

Obama Rejects “Cooperation” with Putin on Syria: Washington’s War on Terror is A Fabrication, Zero ISIS Targets Destroyed…

Now this might be too much conspiracy theory for American conservatives to swallow, given the extent to which the Obama/Neocon anti-Russian propaganda has influenced the conservative movement. Many have been persuaded to give Obama a pass on his Middle East “debacles” to the extent that they conform to Neocon war strategy — which now as usual seems to be about oil and the petrodollar, and specifically about the Qutar/Turkey oil pipeline that Assad refused to allow across Syrian territory (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline).

So let’s test the old Latin maxim of police detectives everywhere, “Cui Bono?” (literally, to whose profit?), regarding the question of whether Obama is Machiavellian-enough in his character to deliberately displace millions of people and destabilize entire regions of the world to further his political interests.

Who benefits from the “Syrian Refugee Crisis?”

First in line are the Moslems, who are flooding into Europe in unprecedented numbers. Jihad by immigration, followed immediately with Jihad by terrorism. Obama’s most consistent foreign policy objective if measured by actual result rather than rhetoric, is strengthening Islam in all its forms.

Second are the Cultural Marxists, who above all other things hate Christianity. We know how regime change works as regards nations. In the Moslem immigration-invasion of Europe we are seeing the world’s first attempt at continent-wide “religion-change.” Obama is dramatically weakening what is left of the Christian identity of Europe (which in turn is offering only secular-themed counter-measures to the Islamist threat, such the “Je Suis Charlie” meme, lionizing the vile atheist magazine Charlie Hebdo).

Third is Obama pal and benefactor, George Soros and his Open Society agenda. The Soros vision of a world of borderless countries has never had a greater champion than Obama. Let’s not forget last year’s cresting wave of “child refugees” into the United States from South America, which appears in retrospect to be a dress rehearsal for the European invasion.

We were expected to believe that wave of “children” was a spontaneous reaction to un-scripted political events in their home countries. But is there any country in the world today not being manipulated by Obama’s CIA, State Department, and Marxist co-conspirators like Soros? Maybe we should ask Bibi Netanyahu, one of the few to survive Obama’s globe-hopping political hit squad, partly by exposing Obama’s deep personal hatred of him to the American people through the dramatic showdown over his historic speech to Congress (proving once again that offence is the best defense).

Fourth are the Neocons themselves, aligned most closely with the Sunni Moslem governments of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qutar, who would all greatly benefit financially if regime change in Syria allowed them to install their own pro-pipeline puppet (though the Russians have thrown a monkey wrench into that plan).

Now, some might say there’s a silver lining to the Syrian invasion in that it has prompted a populist backlash in Europe, but let’s not forget that inciting the far right while ignoring or suppressing measured conservative solutions is an age-old sub-plot of these tactics, designed to justify suspension of civil rights and enhanced police-state actions by leftist-controlled regimes. Look what’s now happening in Socialist France — and yet many conservatives are now literally cheering martial law because finally France is “doing something.”

There’s another danger to principled conservatism in the populist determination to lump all the refugees together as a single mob of dangerous Islamists, rather than as individuals to be judged on their own merits. It’s the leftists who push group identity and rights, not conservatives! But we are playing right into their hands by bending to populist mob psychology.

We’ve grown conditioned to applying group identity to illegal aliens — which in a narrow context is deserved since they each made themselves criminals by choosing to violate our immigration laws.

But refugees are an entirely different matter. No matter how many of the “Syrians” seeking asylum have evil intent, they are not one monolithic block of criminals. At least some of them are innocents who have been made refugees by the evil actions of others. (Wouldn’t you do the same to save your family if someone deliberately made your community unlivable?)

These are the “human swords” of the Obama regime-change agenda — people who genuinely did not want to leave their homes and seek safety somewhere else, and would immediately return if they could have their old lives back.

Let’s not allow the puppet-masters to steer us into simplistic populist reactions that serve their interests and not our own. Let’s place the blame where it belongs — on the globalist manipulators — while honoring our God and our principles by treating the refugees as individuals who may in fact be victims of the very same enemy.

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg spoke at the University of Chicago Law School in May of 2013, she gave a thinly-veiled heads-up to her leftist fellow-travelers around the nation that SCOTUS was not going to find a constitutional right to “gay marriage” in the then-pending United States v. Windsor case (which instead simply struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act — DOMA). Her means of telegraphing this message was a surprising critique of Roe v Wade in which she said (in essence) that Roe was a bad ruling — Not because she disagreed with its pro-abortion substance, but because it went too far too fast, creating the pro-life movement. If they had only gone more slowly, and let the frogs acclimate to the rising temperature of the water, they wouldn‘t have jumped out of the pot on that issue.

Sure enough, Windsor did not become the LGBT Roe v Wade. But, unable to restrain their zeal for the ultimate leftist cause, the elites waited only two years to force their will and claim their prize in Obergefell v Hodges by the only means available to them: 1) the invalidation of about two dozen popular (and decisive) elections — in the most conservative states — by a tiny handful of dictatorial federal judges, and 2) the delegitimization of the Supreme Court itself by the outright invention of a new constitutional “right” with no basis in law, whose majority vote relied on two Justices (Ginsberg and Kagan) who had performed same-sex “weddings” during the pendency of the case, in an unprecedented and breathtaking violation of fundamental judicial ethics.

But Obergefell, it seems, did much more than create an LGBT Roe v Wade. It awakened the sleeping giant of the Christian church while concurrently creating an immediate and actual justification for our civil rebellion. Beginning with just a trickle, an increasing number of Bible-believing Christians are now joining the ranks of the so-called “Christian Right,” which, prior to Obergefell, had been slowly but steadily waning in power since the heady days of Ronald Reagan and the Christian Coalition in the 1980s.

In the elections of early November, the extent of this seismic shift was seen all across the country as voters in Texas, Kentucky, Virginia, Ohio and Mississippi provided large majorities to conservative candidates and against leftist causes. Houston, Texas rejected special rights for transgenders by nearly 2 to 1, in a turnout that doubled that of the prior two elections, despite a 3 to 1 spending advantage by the left and threats of the loss of hosting the Superbowl in 2017. In Kentucky, an 80,000 vote majority elected outspoken pro-life and pro-family hero Matt Bevin in a stunning upset, attributed to his promise to defund Planned Parenthood and defend Christians like Kim Davis who defy activist judges on LGBT issues.

Importantly, the rise of the Christian Right parallels and compliments that of the Secular Right, which is best recognized in the Trump phenomenon, but is represented in a much wider swath of voters than just Trump supporters. The Secular Right is energized far more by the invasion of illegal aliens and the collapse of the economy, the military and our relations with foreign governments than with the collapse of morality and the natural family. But there is significant overlap of these two large and growing movements and tremendous impetus to unify against the common enemy: the Obama administration and ruling leftist elites.

There is no question in my mind that the globalists are making their move while their man is still in the White House, and we’re certain to see an increase, not a decrease, in the extent to which the Marxists overplay their hand. They really have no choice since they know that if they do not defeat the republic and establish their empire now, they will likely never again enjoy the current “perfect storm” of culture-wide institutional control, political will and muscle in the executive and judicial branches (and acquiescence in the legislative), and near-dictatorial (but crumbling) global power.

So, rather than play their former game of two steps forward, one step back (the Marxist dialectic) they are now ALL-IN. And knowing that this blatant play for power will inevitably further strengthen and energize their opposition, they have planned and are now implementing a judo move against us.

The strategy is to rapidly polarize the society to the point of violence by conservatives, which will serve as a pretext for “defensive” police-state measures to suppress what they have already begun to spin as the rise of neo-Nazism. That’s the motivation behind the Black Lives Matter campaign and the outrageous, anger-inducing policies involving illegal aliens and multi-trillion dollar debt financing of ever more bloated entitlement programs and government expansion. The elites are deliberately provoking civil unrest to justify the suspension of civil liberties and what is left of the rule of law under the constitution.

An agent provocateur (or “inciting agent”) is someone who acts deliberately to entice another to act rashly or illegaly, so they can be arrested or otherwise punished. That, writ large, is the strategy of the Obama administration and the leftist elites in their continuous and escalating provocation of the right. It is important for the cooler heads in our Christian/Secular conservative coalition to educate our people about this tactic and caution them against rash acts in the coming weeks and months. We should also be on the alert for staged incidents by our opponents that they will most likely implement if they can’t goad our own people into such acts — and we should make public our accusation that we believe they intend to do so.

By all means, let the backlash begin!  But use caution.

Pass it on.

Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) (also known as sexual orientation anti-discrimination policies) are the most devious tactic of the LGBT movement for stripping Christians of First Amendment protections and setting the stage for the “gay” takeover of any social, political or cultural entity.   These SORs are the seed that contains the entire tree of the homosexual agenda with all of its poisonous fruit.  Once implanted, the entire agenda emerges like the trunk and branches of a Manchineel tree, producing what looks deceptively like wholesome fruit but in fact is known in the island paradise in which it grows as the manzanita de la muerte, or “little apple of death.”

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/family/protection-safety/blogs/why-manchineel-might-be-earths-most-dangerous-tree#ixzz3k7xUeEyG

The antidote to the poisonous SORs is First Amendment Supremacy!  The solution is already in the U.S. Constitution and simply needs to be re-affirmed in either of two ways:

Our First Amendment Supremacy Clause is designed to amend existing Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) in cities, counties, states, corporations, schools and colleges, and other organizations to ensure that in any contest of SORs with the First Amendment, the First Amendment must prevail.

First-Amendment-Supremacy-Clause-Fact-Sheet

Our First Amendment Supremacy Bill is a stand-alone statute to be enacted by states which do not already have state-level SORs.  FASB invokes the doctrine of preemption to “preempt the field” and mandate First Amendment supremacy over SORs within any sub-unit of its government and other entities within its jurisdiction.

First Amendment Supremacy Bill Fact Sheet

Send copies of these fact sheets to every pro-family political activist and public official you know and urge them to adopt the First Amendment Supremacy strategy.

Vigorously oppose any new SORs at any level.  Attack them as “Gay Fascism Bills” because that’s what they are.  (it worked in Springfield, Missouri http://www.scottlively.net/2012/07/09/christian-red-alert/)

It is SORs that have allowed the LGBT activists to take down Christian bakers, printers, florists, bed and breakfast hotel owners and others, and hung a sign saying “hateful bigot” around the necks of every Bible-believing Christian in America.

It is SORs that have allowed LGBT activists to take control of a vast number of huge corporations whose resources, identity, and community goodwill they are now cynically plundering to advance their selfish and destructive agenda.

Vigorously oppose the Federal Equality Act, which is an SOR at the federal level (ten times more dangerous than the SCOTUS “gay marriage” ruling).

Remind everyone that SORs are always sold as if they are limited to protecting homosexuals and transsexuals from employment and housing discrimination (despite almost zero evidence of such discrimination in America for at least 20 years), but in fact are ENFORCED as blanket prohibitions on all disapproval of the LGBT agenda!!

The LGBT agenda is poisonous, but we have the antidote in the First Amendment.  Use it, or lose it!

This is an updated version of a previously published article.

The 2016/2017 academic year has begun and once again American school children with be deluged with “gay” propaganda.

In many elementary and secondary schools across America October will be designated as LGBT History Month . It is certain to feature prominently in California where promotion of homosexuality to all school children is now mandated by law. And it is likely to be observed in all of the classrooms controlled by the nation-wide Gay Lesbian Straight Teachers Network (GLSEN), whose founder Kevin Jennings was appointed “Safe Schools Czar” by President Obama. Now that the United States Supreme Court has declared “gay marriage” to be a constitutional right by judicial fiat in the Obergefell case, we can be certain that “gay” history lessons for all American public school students is not far behind. This atrocity is guaranteed to occur on a wider scale immediately if for no other reason than GLSEN’s network of LGBT teachers, who already conduct such indoctrination sessions with no meaningful outside scrutiny, have now been embooldened and empowerd by the court.

LGBT History Month is not yet universally adopted by public schools. Nevertheless, throughout October hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of innocent school children will be subjected to the most despicable brainwashing ever conducted in American classrooms. They will be taught, through carefully constructed lesson plans, to view homosexuals as a superior class of human beings whose influence on society has been wholly benign, but whose contributions to society have been limited due to irrational prejudice and bigotry. They will learn the importance of protecting homosexuals from societal “homophobia,” perhaps even emanating from their own parents, and that homosexuality is a perfectly normal and healthy (and unchangeable) form of sexual identity. In other words, they will be indoctrinated in provably false and thoroughly biased pro-“gay” propaganda.

In the interest of balance, I’d like to offer a few facts that are not likely to make it into the curriculum.

Let’s start at the very beginnings of the modern homosexual movement to highlight its very earliest pioneer. And for our source lets avoid even the slightest hint of anti-homosexual bias and turn to the pre-eminent scholarly journal of the LGBT community, the Journal of Homosexuality, and one of its most respect contributors, Gert Heckma PhD, of the Gay Studies department of the University of Amsterdam. In his 1989 article, titled “Sodomites, Platonic Lovers, Contrary Lovers: The Backgrounds of the Modern Homosexual” (Vol. 16, No 1. 1989) Heckma writes:

“The most important exception to the philosophes’ ambivalent politics of the body was D.A.F. Marquis de Sade, who based his political philosophy precisely on sodomy…Sade used sodomy as a particularly good example of what seemed to be unnatural, unreasonable and purposeless, but which could in no way be proven to be against nature or reason. Sade’s Philosophy in the Boudoir (1795) was a clear apology for the decriminalization of pederasty [man/boy sex] and sodomy…Sade emphasized that there were no rational arguments against any form of social behavior, be it prostitution, lust murder, or sodomy, and he strongly opposed the suggestion that theft, prostitution, sodomy or lust murder were against nature….

“In 1772, Sade was sentenced to death for sodomizing his manservant and for poisoning prostitutes…Nothing is known about his homosexual proclivities except for the sodomy of his manservant and his writings. But his most scrupulous biographer, Gilbert Lely, has asserted that he was a homosexual with no remorse….It was against…family politics…and the church and its institutions that Sade rebelled — albeit without much success — thus beginning a political struggle for the rights of pederasts.”

But that was long ago and far away. What about the modern homosexual movement here in America? Let us turn to another unimpeachably pro-”gay” source, the book Gay American History (1976) by Jonathan Katz, winner in 2003 of the Brudner Prize of Yale University, celebrating his “lifetime accomplishment and scholarly contributions in the field of lesbian and gay studies.” From this source we learn that the very first “gay rights” organization in the United States was the American chapter of the German-based Society for Human Rights (SHR), formed in Chicago by a man named Henry Gerber on December 10, 1924 (p.388).

Gerber had served with the U.S. occupation forces in Germany from 1920 to 1923 and had been involved with the German SHR. Gerber legally chartered the group without revealing its purpose and began publishing a pro-homosexual journal called Friendship and Freedom (p.389), patterned after the German chapter’s publication of the same name (p.632n.). In 1925, however, the organization collapsed when Gerber, Vice President Al Menninger and another member were arrested on charges of sexual abuse of a boy, all three having been turned in by Menninger’s wife. The Chicago Examiner ran a story titled “Strange Sex Cult Exposed,” and spoke of “strange doings” in Menninger’s apartment (p.390-392).

Another inconvenient fact unlikely to be cited by GLSEN brainwashers is that the German SHR, the world‘s first organization to define homosexuality as a struggle for “human rights,” was formed in 1919 by Nazi-aligned German nationalists (shortly before the formation of the Nazi Party), and that it’s most prominent member was Ernst Roehm, later to become supreme leader of the dreaded Nazi SA or Storm Troopers. Roehm was also, incidentally, a pederast, meaning that like Gerber he was an adult homosexual male who seduced teenaged boys.

This pederastic theme at the core of the “gay” movement did not end with Gerber. His eventual successor, Harry Hay, founder of the Mattachine Society in 1950 was an outspoken defender of NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association.
Hay’s Mattachine Society was the first openly homosexual organization to survive, and Hay himself is rightly remembered today as the “Founder of the Modern Gay Movement.” In The Trouble With Harry Hay, sympathetic biographer Stuart Timmons wrote that when NAMBLA was denied a role in the 1986 Los Angeles “Gay Pride Parade,” marcher Harry Hay donned a sweatshirt printed with the legend, “NAMBLA Walks With Me.” Timmons writes that Hay, “could not contain his outrage” that NAMBLA was excluded (p.296).

Hay was a featured speaker at NAMBLA’s annual membership conference, June 24-25, 1994: “[He] gave an inspiring talk about reclaiming for the 1990’s the spirit of homoerotic sharing and love from various ancient Greek traditions of pederasty. A remarkably balanced and sensitive account of the conference appeared in the August 23 Advocate from a writer who was invited to attend (NAMBLA Bulletin, September, 1994:3).

NAMBLA was in turn founded by leading “gay” activists including David Thorstad (who also founded the Gay Activist Alliance) and Thomas Reeves who wrote this choice tidbit about another icon of “gay” history, the Stonewall Riot.

“Almost every one of the early openly homosexual writers was a pederast. Pederasty was a constant theme of early gay literature, art, and pornography. The Stonewall riots were precipitated by an incident involving an underage drag queen, yet that detail was not viewed as significant. Curtis Price, a fourteen-year-old, self-described “radical hustler,” formed the first gay liberation organization in Baltimore. Many of the leaders of early gay liberation and the founders of the major gay groups in the U.S. were boy-lovers (Reeves in Pascal, Marc (ed), Varieties of Man Boy Love :47).”

Incidentally, Harry Hay was Obama “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings’s inspiration for founding GLSEN which might explain why Jennings himself had ties to NAMBLA and actively condoned pederasty: see http://www.examiner.com/article/kevin-jennings-is-he-any-less-dangerous-than-jerry-sandusky

Importantly, the anniversary of the Stonewall Riot, June 28, 1969, is celebrated today as “Gay Pride Day” (and is why all of June is celebrated as “Gay Pride Month”). That day marks the official turn to militancy in the LGBT movement, when its leaders abandoned the Mattachine Society goal of tolerance, as exemplified by its slogan “the right to be left alone,” and adopted in its place to the hard-core radicalism of Herbert Marcuse’s Frankfort School of “Cultural Marxism.” Marcuse demanded an end to “the repressive order of procreative sexuality” and the elimination of “the monogamic and patriarchal family.”

Following his model, the LGBT movement has ever since pursued a vision of total LGBT cultural and political supremacy in America and around the world. My article “Gay Agenda, What “Gay” Agenda? details this transformation. http://www.scottlively.net/2014/07/06/gay-agenda-what-gay-agenda/
I could go on and on but it only gets worse. The point is that the “gay rights” movement is not benign. Its history is a poisoned stream whose head waters begin in the swamp of Sadean perversion and whose direction was set by the same people who created the Nazi Party. In America its course has run mostly through underground sewers until the past few decades when control of the movement fell into the hands of modern marketing experts who have hidden the truth under a white-washed facade of their own shrewd design. And it is this sugar-sweetened poison that is about to be spoon-fed to America’s public school students. It is a potion of dangerous lies and it is to our great shame that this once Christian nation will allow these innocent children to consume it without so much as a whimper of protest.

Update:  Subsequent to this article, Mr. Ruse published a piece titled “The Grotesque Persecution of Scott Lively,” which in the big picture mitigates the effect of his first article addressed below, and for that I am grateful.  http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/the-grotesque-persecution-of-scott-lively

I am mystified as to why Austin Ruse would denigrate my ministry in his column titled “Anatomy of a Mythical Boogeyman” at Crisis Magazine: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/anatomy-of-a-mythical-boogeyman. I have always held a good opinion of the man and our few encounters have been cordial and respectful. I am also puzzled that he would accuse me of being difficult to work with, unless he means that he and other pro-family leaders are afraid to be associated with me out of fear of controversy.

I think for my part I’ve shown great restraint in my few criticisms of the “mainstream” pro-family movement, and instead looked for ways to serve our common interests by taking on the harder tasks that nobody else wants to do — like documenting the homosexual roots of Nazism in my book The Pink Swastika (co-authored by Orthodox Jewish researcher Kevin E. Abrams) and publicly defending the Russian ban on homosexual propaganda to children which I think is a model for the world.

Ruse is correct that the LGBT propagandists have created a monstrous mythology about me by vastly exaggerating my influence in the culture war, but neither am I, as he suggests, just a camp follower of the pro-family royalty who’s been “bumming around the pro-family movement for years.” My resume and credentials speak for themselves.

Sadly, the arrogance reflected in Mr. Ruse’s comments may be the key to understanding why the “mainstream pro-family movement” has failed so spectacularly in defending America against the LGBT agenda. Time and again I’ve watched the know-it-alls in the big pro-family ministries — pumped up by enormous fundraising campaigns like a football player on steroids — push aside the lowly but effective grass-roots activists and take control of local and state battles, only to lose them by pandering to political correctness instead of telling hard truths without apology. The very people who work so hard to exclude our own street fighters from the battles run like frightened school-girls whenever the Marxist media looks cross-eyed at them. Their political strategies are almost entirely driven by fear of being called “haters” and trying to prove they aren’t. It’s pathetic.

Worse than pathetic, it is moral malfeasance because, as our self-appointed leaders, they have helped to emasculate an entire generation of American Christians by their example of timidity and man-pleasing. I’m not naming any names (and they’re not all guilty) but if you’ve been a pro-family foot-soldier for a decade or more you probably know which ones I’m talking about. Where have the mighty men like Dr. James Dobson and Dr. Ken Hutcherson gone?

When I first started reading Austin’s article I was pleased and excited. I thought finally one of the “titans” of the pro-family movement was going to come to my defense. But as I read on I realized that the whole article was designed to distance the “mainstream” movement from me because now that the “gays” have turned me into their ultimate “boogeyman” they’re trying to hurt the mainstream groups by suggesting they might somehow be associated with me.

Marxist strategist Saul Alinsky taught his followers to 1) pick a target to be the symbol of their opposition, 2) freeze the target in place through unceasing propaganda, and 3) publicly destroy the target to set an example to those who oppose them. I’ve somehow become that target: the sacrificial scapegoat of the LGBT movement. And, short of a miracle of God, I will be publicly destroyed, if not through the “Crimes Against Humanity” lawsuit then by some other means. If we have learned nothing else about the agitators of the modern LGBT movement, we know they are as relentless and implacable as their ancient counterparts in Sodom, who would not desist from their siege of Lot’s home even though they were struck blind by God.

I’ve done nothing to warrant being ostracized by fellow Christians like Austin. I’ve never advocated hate or violence against anyone. The accusations in the lawsuit and on the “gay” blogosphere are false. The facts I’ve exposed about the “gay” movement and history in my writings are true. I’m not a wild-eyed crazy like the late Fred Phelps. The only justification Austin and his associates have for shunning me is that I make them uncomfortable, and my plain-speaking gets in the way of their public relations schemes.

One of the things I respect about my Catholic brothers and sisters (that many Protestants don’t quite get), is their understanding of the value of suffering for Christ. My suffering is admittedly miniscule compared to the heroes of the Bible and of the present day in places like the Middle East, but I nevertheless feel honored to suffer for Him. It is a great privilege to be persecuted for Christ’s sake, as the Bible says everyone who desires to live Godly in Him will be. Persecution is the refiners fire that burns away our attachments to the things of this world and enhances our spiritual awareness. It is the fire that will soon bring revival to the believing remnant of the church while the faithless futilely seek shelter in compromise.

We’ve entered a new season in His story, one in which the ability to keep one foot in the church and the other in the world will quickly become impossible: like a man trying to straddle a chasm that opens up beneath him and widens until a choice must be made on which side to stand. In this new season, thinking and planning in terms of “marketing strategies” and “appealing to the secular mind” instead of just quoting the Bible and trusting God will fail us even more dramatically than they did before.

I’ve made my choice to stand with Jesus and to speak the plain, hard truth of His Word without compromise or apology no matter what the cost may be, even my life (Revelation 12:11). There is a small army of us already standing together in this pledge. I invite everyone who truly believes in Him to experience the extra blessing of enlisting in this army voluntarily today rather than waiting to be drafted in the dark days ahead — or, God forbid, to try to dodge that draft by siding with the enemy.

How was it that Gideon could defeat the vast army of the Midianites with just 300 men and a batch of clay pots, while in 42 years of all-out effort, our sizable army of pro-life activists has barely scratched the paint on front bumper of the pro-abort juggernaut of death (which has slaughtered — realistically — as many as 100 million babies since 1973 in the most gruesome and inhumane methods possible and now sells their harvested organs on the open market)?

How is it that a relatively tiny handful of homosexual activists, themselves representing less than 2% of our population, has managed in the same period of time to establish a reign of homo-fascism in the United States that has turned centuries-old American values upside down and has turned its large Christian plurality (if not majority) into criminals (if they dare to cling to the teachings of the Bible)?

Isn’t it true that one man with the flimsiest of plans could utterly defeat the abortion industry and the LGBT agenda in short order — if God backed Him? So why have virtually all our efforts failed?

It’s really pretty simple. The American church just doesn’t have God’s favor anymore.

The brutal truth is the church has lost the so-called culture war and is now under occupation, like the French under the Nazis, with nothing left to do but organize resistance and plot to overthrow the occupiers through a political revolt.

But those efforts are also guaranteed to fail if we don’t first answer the only question that really matters:

“Why don’t we have God’s favor?”

Some will say “It’s because we’re killing the unborn,” or “the pastors aren’t teaching Christian responsibility to vote,” and such like. But I tell you these are only symptoms of the disease, not the cause.

We don’t have God’s favor because we have officially rejected Him as the God of our land.

Our Supreme Court, the highest earthly authority in the United States, ruled on February 10, 1947 that it had the power to set itself above God and everything worshipped as God.

That ruling, of course, reflects the character and goal of the Antichrist as stated in II Thessalonians 2:4, but it became the official law of our land that day in Everson v Board of Education where, writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black declared, in essence, that America was now a Secular Humanist nation in which all religions are equal and equally subservient to the U.S. Supreme Court. Everson was the case that falsely and arrogantly declared Jefferson’s metaphor “the Wall of Separation between Church and State” to be a principle of constitutional law.

Then in 1961, Black wrote the opinion in Torcaso v Watkins that held Atheism to be a religion, entitled to equality with belief in God, legally empowering every Atheist activist in America to begin to drive Christianity from public life as a “violation of the separation of church and state.” Prayer in the public schools was first to go, and today only minor vestiges of our Christian heritage survive in the public square — and only so long as they are deemed “cultural traditions” and not religious symbols.

What is worse, We the People, including most Christians, have meekly acquiesced to this change. Where we once collectively prided ourselves on having a “God-fearing society,” we now boast of our “religious pluralism” and revise the history we teach our children to claim that the first Americans came here to find “religious freedom” rather than to exercise “Christian liberty.” Even some of the most stalwart defenders of activist Christians in America (organizations and individuals I greatly admire) today define their mission as a fight for “Religious Liberty” rather than a fight for “Biblical Values.”

What exactly is “religious liberty” in a nation that has lowered the God of the Bible to equality to Buddha and Mohammed and even Satan as a matter of constitutional law? Isn’t it merely the right to believe what you choose so long as you concede that God is no longer King over the nation?

How thoroughly and how shamefully we have devalued the blood of America’s founders who died on the battlefields of the Revolutionary War with the cry “No King but Jesus” on their lips — and the blood of all the other patriots through the centuries for whom “American values” meant Godliness and morality, not child-murder and sexual depravity.

The greatest of all possible sins is not rape or murder, or even genocide. It is to break the First Commandment: “Thou shall have no other gods before Me.” But that is precisely what we have done as a nation, and the reason we are reaping a curse and not a blessing (Deuteronomy 28). And it is why none of our efforts to “restore Biblical values in our land” is bearing fruit beyond the saving of souls due to our ministry and the blessing the we personally receive for being faithful. The land itself is not being cleansed by our work.

Josiah, the most righteous of all the kings of Judah and the ultimate model of “social activism,” did far more than we could ever do to restore his nation through fighting evil (just read 2 Kings 23 for proof). Nevertheless, though Josiah was personally rewarded by God, the curse remained on Judea because the nation itself did not repent.

If we are under the same curse as Judah, not even prayer can save America. Of Judea, God told the prophet in Jeremiah 7:16 “So do not pray for this people nor offer any plea or petition for them; do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you” and again in 14:11-12 he said to Jeremiah “Do not pray for the welfare of this people. When they fast, I am not going to listen to their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I am not going to accept them. Rather I am going to make an end of them by the sword, famine and pestilence.”

The evidence suggests that America is cursed for rejecting God and caught in a death spiral from which there is no escape but the path of Nineveh. When warned of impending destruction, the entire city of Nineveh repented in sack-cloth and ashes, and God withheld His wrath.

Will we be like Judea and believe falsely that God would never destroy America or will we be like Nineveh and repent in sincere humility?

God gave only one remedy for the disease of apostasy. It is found several places in the Bible including 2 Chronicles 7:14. Look it up and memorize it if you haven’t already done so. Because there is simply no other way out of this mess.