Will The Bullies At GLAAD Pressure A&E To Take Duck Dynasty Off The Air After These Comments?

Posted By Janna Brock on Dec 18, 2013 in 1st Amendment, Featured, Free Speech, Homosexuality, Liberalism, Pop Culture, Videos | 320 Comments

The entertainment industry does not have the gumption to stand up to the homosexual bully pulpit. GLAAD and other militant homosexual activists have the market cornered, always jumping from one fake “outrage” to another whenever there is a perceived “anti-homosexual” statement made. The targets of these attacks are almost always Christians. Duck Dynasty is a highly successful show, with over 11 million viewers tuning in to watch the Christian, fun-loving Robertson family. The show is clean and highly entertaining. To their credit, the Robertson family has never hid their Christian faith behind a secular facade.

In an interview with GQ Magazine, Phil Robertson made some “shocking” statements that sent shivers down the twitchy spines of GLAAD activists. Free speech is not a Christian right when it comes to telling the truth about homosexuality. To the world, talking about sin in general is a controversial subject.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus,” Robertson says in the January issue of the men’s magazine. “That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.” Robertson then went on to paraphrase a verse from Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

As always, GLAAD jumps in when this has nothing to do with them. Feigned outrage is their specialty. It’s interesting that Robertson’s comments has GLAAD out for blood, but when die-hard liberal Alec Baldwin was “gay bashing,” the organization was silent. Though fired from MSNBC, GLAAD was ultimately lenient with Baldwin. But the Robertson’s are conservative Christians, so they will not get a pass. The Duck Dynasty family will get the wrath of GLAAD.

What did Phil Robertson say that wasn’t true? He called out sinful behavior. However, even if he had singled out homosexuality, he has a right to freedom of speech. Sadly, Christians are losing the fight against militant homosexuals in this arena. At least Robertson has a backbone and never caves on his beliefs. GLAAD is just looking for a fight, and a reason to take down a successful Christian program. This is their aim.

Robertson released his own statement in response:“I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

Phil Robertson, like every Christian before him, was rescued by Jesus Christ from a life of sin. He’s been there. He knows what he’s talking about. In this world that rejects the gospel with a vengeance, these are fighting words. Organizations like GLAAD fight dirty. Today, the homosexual agenda is militarized, so any perceived threat like Robertson’s honest, truthful comments is a declaration of war. A&E will face an onslaught of lobbying pressure from GLAAD to remove Duck Dynasty from its lineup. Will it work? GLAAD issued a statement in regards to the matter.

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

Wilson Cruz knows nothing of which he speaks, but there is little doubt that A&E will face enormous pressure from GLAAD and other militant homosexual activists to take Duck Dynasty off the air. This lobby wields an axe over the entertainment industry and their threats carry major weight. It would not be shocking at all if A&E gave in to the pressure. They’ll cave to political correctness and if they don’t, GLAAD will make them pay.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Google Plus.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review a Texas case and determine whether when a homeowner exercises his Second Amendment rights he gives up his Fourth Amendment rights.

In short, does the Second trump the Fourth?

The question is being presented by the Rutherford Institute on behalf of John Quinn of Texas.

Quinn’s home was the subject of a no-knock, SWAT-team style forceful entry and raid based “solely on the suspicion that there were legally owned firearms in the household,” the legal brief explains.

“Although police had obtained a search warrant for John Quinn’s home based on information that Quinn’s son might possess drugs, the warrant did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry. During the raid, Quinn was shot by police because he had reached for his lawfully owned firearm, thinking that his home was being invaded by criminals,” Rutherford explains.

Asking the Supreme Court to hear the case of Quinn v. State of Texas, Rutherford attorneys argue that making lawful gun ownership and possession grounds for police to evade the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment improperly penalizes and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State,” said that whatever the issue might be, “whether it’s mass surveillance, no-knock raids, or the right to freely express one’s views about the government, we’ve moved into a new age in which the rights of the citizenry are being treated as a secondary concern by the White House, Congress, the courts, and their vast holding of employees, including law enforcement officials.”

“The disconnect, of course, is that the Constitution establishes a far different scenario in which government officials, including the police, are accountable to ‘we the people,’” he said. ‘For it to be otherwise, for government concerns to trump individual freedoms, with government officials routinely sidestepping the Constitution and reinterpreting the law to their own purposes, makes a mockery of everything this nation is supposed to stand for – self-government, justice, and the rule of law.”

The case began in August 2006 when police in Collin County, Texas, got a warrant for Quinn’s home. Lower courts rejected Quinn’s objection to the “no-knock” entry on the grounds that because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion.

That’s even though established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence dictates that police officers entering a dwelling must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry unless there are circumstances presenting a threat of physical violence or a danger that evidence will be destroyed.

So the question remains whether police, who admit their only reason for the no-knock raid was the suspicion that a rifle might be present in the home, were justified in their decision to abandon procedures and break into the home without warning.

That’s the subject of the Fourth Amendment, which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonably searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The petition asks that the court establish that an individual’s exercise of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm in his residence does not deprive him of his Fourth Amendment protection against “no-knock” searches.

Because the raid was without warning late at night, Quinn reached for his legally owned firearm when the break-in occurred, thinking that criminals were at hand. He was shot by police and hospitalized because he reached for his weapon.

The case briefs argue that the Supreme Court never has held that suspected possession of firearms is sufficient cause to justify a no-knock entry.

The briefs also have criticized earlier court comments about the AK-47.

“The [court] seems to think than an ‘AK-47′ rifle is some sort of ‘exceptionally’ dangerous weapon. Actually, despite the faux mystique surrounding that particular type of rifle fostered by popular media, the AK-47 is not uniquely dangerous,” a footnote in the brief explains. “It is the most-used rifle in the world because there are 100 million of them, it is cheap to make and easy to repair, and because it can be chambered for a wide variety of calibers.

“When chambered for .223 caliber … it is no more dangerous than any other .223 caliber rifle such as the AR-15 – the most widely used hunting rifle in the U.S. today,” the footnote says.

“As a gun collector who prudently kept his legally owned collection safely secured in gun vaults, it was altogether possible that Mr. Quinn could have had a large number of guns in his home and no ammunition. The point here is not to argue that ‘possession’ of guns does not roughly or usually equate to possession of ‘working’ guns. The point is: an AK-47 is no more powerful – and is indeed less powerful – than many common hunting rifles.

“The police, being weapons experts, obviously knew this – but testified about the ‘dangerous’ nature of this particular gun because they knew the jury would have heard of it in the media and would know about its mystique as the weapon of choice for terrorists around the world. Clever, but misleading.”

The petition warns Americans that merely the “suspicion” that a gun is present could prompt contacts from police to be the “break-down-the-door and charge in” type if the Texas case is not overturned.

“After all, if no-knock entries are thought to be ‘safer’ for police than knocking and announcing, what could possibly incite police to ever knock? Safety can only be endangered by dangerous people,” the case argues.

“Petitioner requests this court issue a blanket, logical rule stating that suspected presence of firearms alone is never sufficient to overcome the knock-and-announce rule, and unless the police suspect that the persons involved might be dangerous, based on specific, articulable facts, then knock and announce is required under the Fourth Amendment.”