Miranda Blue's blog

Joe Miller Invites Extremist Gun Group To Help Launch His Alaska Senate Campaign

Just last week, we were compelled to write a post explaining that Gun Owners of America – which bills itself as a less reasonable version of the NRA – remains an influential force in American politics despite being run by Larry Pratt, a racist conspiracy theoriest with ties to white supremacists.

So we can’t really say that it’s a surprise that when Alaska Republican Joe Miller – the Tea Party candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin in 2010 – launched his second Senate campaign yesterday, he chose Gun Owners of America to help kick things off.

Miller’s launch event in Wasilla prominently featured a speech by Tim Macy, Gun Owners of America’s vice chairman, who the Alaska Dispatch reported “said his staff has been tracking Miller for years without his knowing it, in order to determine if he’s a true believer in gun rights and protecting the Second amendment.”

In an email in February, Miller proudly touted GOA’s endorsement. North Carolina Republican Greg Brannon also touted his GOA endorsement in a Senate debate last night.

As we noted last week, in any reasonable political party, GOA would be politically toxic given the views that its director, Larry Pratt, frequently shares in media appearances on behalf of the organization. For instance, shortly after a gunman killed 12 people at a movie theater in Colorado in 2012, GOA sent out a press release implying that it could have been an inside job. And there's more:

That Larry Pratt is an influential Republican lobbyist who is regularly quoted by mainstream news sources shows that it is basically impossible to be too extreme to be taken seriously in today’s right wing.

After all, back in 1996, Pratt was too extreme for even Pat Buchanan. Pratt stepped down from his role in Buchanan’s presidential campaign after his ties to white supremacists and promotion of the right-wing militia movement came to light. As Southern Poverty Law Center director Morris Dees said at the time, “He's got one foot in that far-right fringe and another foot in mainstream Washington, which makes him really dangerous."

That certainly hasn’t changed. In just the past couple of years, Pratt

Ted Cruz: Bundy Ranch Standoff 'Tragic Culmination' Of Obama's 'Jackboot of Authoritarianism'

In an interview with Texas radio host Chad Hasty yesterday, Sen. Ted Cruz said that the armed standoff between anti-government militias and the Bureau of Land Management at a Nevada ranch is the “unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government upon.”

Rancher Cliven Bundy failed to pay federal grazing fees for over 20 years because he refused to recognize federal authority over the land he was using. When the Bureau of Land Management started to remove Bundy’s cattle from federal land, militia members gathered at his ranch and staged an armed standoff with federal officials, which Bundy threatened could turn into a “range war” or another Waco. The agency eventually backed down in order to prevent violence, but militia members havestayed at the ranch and the event has emboldened the anti-government militia movement.

When Hasty asked Cruz about the Bundy standoff, the senator conceded that “the details of the Bundy matter may be complicated,” but insisted “the reason this issue is resonating…is that for five years, we have seen our liberty under assault. We have seen our liberty under assault from a federal government that seems hell-bent on expanding its authority over every aspect of our lives.”

“It is in that context that people are viewing this battle with the federal government,” he said. “We should have a federal government protecting the liberty of the citizens, not using the jackboot of authoritarianism to come against the citizens. And I think this is the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government upon.”

Cruz: Obama Provoked 'Constitutional Crisis' With Marriage Equality, Immigration, Drug Sentencing Moves

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas joined Frank Gaffney yesterday to discuss Cruz’s bill aimed at stopping Iran’s new United Nations ambassador, who had been involved in the Iranian hostage crisis, from entering the United States. The bill was passed unanimously by Congress and signed by President Obama, who had already refused to grant a visa to the Iranian official, but that didn’t keep Gaffney and Cruz from using the issue to criticize the president.

Like President George H.W. Bush had done with a similar bill, the president noted in a signing statement that the bill might not pass constitutional muster because only the president — not Congress — has constitutional authority to receive ambassadors, so he would have to take the bill as “advisory.”

This led Cruz to berate the president for his refusal to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in the courts (both Republican and Democratic administrations have refused to defend laws they believe to be unconstitutional), his executive orderdeferring deportations of some DREAMers, his widely misrepresented decision to grant the request of Republican governors to modify welfare-to-work requirements, and the attorney general’s move to broaden clemency opportunities for nonviolent offenders serving time for drug crimes.

When Gaffney asked if such actions “constitute a Constitutional crisis in our time,” Cruz responded, “That is exactly right.”

Cruz: You’re right, he did put out that signing statement, and if nothing else I have to praise him for his candor. Because one of the most dismaying aspects of the Obama administration has been that this president seems to regard all legislation as advisory. And so he said so explicitly here that the legislation was now written in the law books as part of the US code, but if he so desires he might ignore it sometime in the future. None of that surprises me because that has been the approach President Obama has taken to the entire rest of the US code, whether it has been immigration laws or marriage laws or drug laws or welfare laws or Obamacare, which he 30 times has ignored the text of the law and disregarded it.

Gaffney: Or rewritten it on his own authority. This raises the question – and I think you’ve very directly addressed it in the past, and I’d invite you to do so again – does this constitute a Constitutional crisis in our time as the result of the man simply departing from his oath, sworn responsibilities to uphold the Constitution, which clearly makes it the Congress’s role to enact legislation.

Cruz: That is exactly right.

AFA Warns 'Homosexual Aggression' Has Banned Christians From '7 Common Careers'

In a fundraising email today, American Family Association president Tim Wildmon warns that the list of careers that Christians can hold in America “is quickly shrinking as homosexuals pro-actively seek opportunities to wreck the personal business and career of any Christian who declines to support the gay lifestyle.”

The email lists “7 common careers Christians may no longer hold in America,” which it says includes photography, broadcasting and teaching. Wildmon cites a few cases in which business owners have been sued for refusing to provide services to gay people and have sought broad exemptions from anti-discrimination laws that apply to businesses operating in the public square. He also cites the case of Craig James, who was hired by a regional Fox Sports network before being fired by the national network, which he claimed was because of his “personal religious beliefs.” Wildmon claims that James, who has since been hired by the Family Research Council , is a martyr who has been banned from broadcasting thanks to “homosexual aggression.”

7 common careers Christians may no longer hold in America

April 23, 2014

Many Christians choose self-employed careers because they want to be able to run their business according to the dictates of their faith and conscience.

That list is quickly shrinking as homosexuals pro-actively seek opportunities to wreck the personal business and career of any Christian who declines to support the gay lifestyle.

Don't be fooled. This is a focused effort to ostracize and humiliate faith-based businesses and their owners. Here are a few recent examples:

  • Photography - A Christian photographer in New Mexico was fined $6700 for politely declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. The Supreme Court allowed this fine to stand.
  • Baker - A Christian baker in Oregon is facing both civil and criminal penalties, including jail time, for politely declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony. Her business has closed.
  • Florist - Baronelle Stutzman, a Christian florist in Washington, is being sued by the state attorney general for politely declining to prepare an arrangement for a gay wedding ceremony.
  • Broadcasting - Craig James was fired by Fox Sports Southwest after only one day on the job for expressing his support for natural marriage while he was a candidate for the United States Senate.
  • Counseling - Jennifer Keeton was dismissed from the counseling program at Augusta State University for her religious reservations about the homosexual lifestyle.
  • Innkeeping - The Wildflower Inn in Vermont was fined $30,000 and forced to shut down its wedding reception business after politely declining to host a lesbian ceremony.
  • Teaching - Ms. Gillian John-Charles was kicked out of a doctoral program in education at Roosevelt University for expressing in class her belief that homosexuals aren't born gay.

What you can do about it…

AFA is improving the way we communicate, so you can get the latest information quickly and effectively engage the culture when our Christian brothers and sister come under attack from homosexual aggression.

Illinois Family Institute: Exposing 'Evil' Dan Savage Is Like Uncovering The Holocaust

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute – the state affiliate of the American Family Association – is very unhappy about Dan Savage’s appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher last summer.

Two weeks ago, Higgins urged her group’s members to watch a video of Savage’s “repugnant” appearance on the show. Today, in response to criticism from a reader who was offended by the Savage/Maher video, Higgins offered a long essay titled “ Random Thoughts on the Rapacious Rainbow Revolution.”

Higgins explains in detail why she felt obligated to share the “loathsome” video because “many conservatives do not fully realize the evil nature of the enemy we fight” and “merely describing it does not adequately convey how profoundly wicked it is.” She compares her sharing of the Dan Savage video to the showing photos of Nazi concentration camps and lynchings.

“I am not equating the enormity of the evil of the Holocaust and the American genocide of pre-born babies to that of the homosexuality-affirming movement,” she clarifies. “I am, rather, illuminating the necessity of occasionally viewing the evil in our midst about which humans have a remarkable capacity to delude themselves.”

She adds that she feels she must expose the horrors that LGBT people await in the afterlife: “As Christians, however, we should remain conscious of the fact that a life of unrepentant homoerotic activity will result in eternal separation from God,” she writes. “How do we measure the magnitude of temporal suffering relative to that of eternal suffering?”

“Christians should consider whether appearing to affirm that which God abhors is pleasing to God,” she adds.

I received an email last week from a Christian who was upset that I published the loathsome video of Dan Savage even though I provided ample warning that the content was offensive. It seems appropriate, therefore, to revisit the reasons we occasionally publish either obscene hateful emails we receive, excerpts from offensive novels taught in our public schools, or video reminders of infamous homosexual "anti-bullying" bully, Dan Savage.

We do not expose the dark realities of this pernicious movement in order to be sensationalistic or titillating. We do it because Americans are inundated daily with images and words about homoeroticism intended to desensitize, sooth, and confuse. These words and images are built on a foundation of unarticulated and/or unexamined false assumptions and lies that are persuading even Christians that wrong is right.

Unfortunately, many conservatives do not fully realize the evil nature of the enemy we fight. And merely describing it does not adequately convey how profoundly wicked it is. Without a fuller apprehension of the nature and extent of the evil, many Christians are complacent and silent. Often it is only an encounter with such evil that generates a proper response from Christians.

Why view photos from Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen? Why view photos of lynchings? Why view photos of aborted babies? Why view the photo of the young napalmed Vietnamese girl? Why view photos of animals caught in steel leg traps or baby seals bludgeoned to death? Aren't these images shocking and obscene?

I am not equating the enormity of the evil of the Holocaust and the American genocide of pre-born babies to that of the homosexuality-affirming movement. I am, rather, illuminating the necessity of occasionally viewing the evil in our midst about which humans have a remarkable capacity to delude themselves.

As Christians, however, we should remain conscious of the fact that a life of unrepentant homoerotic activity will result in eternal separation from God. How do we measure the magnitude of temporal suffering relative to that of eternal suffering?

Well, here are some other ideas on which Christians should spend some time ruminating:

· Christians should consider whether appearing to affirm that which God abhors is pleasing to God.

· Christians should consider whether affirming or appearing to affirm homoerotic activity, which the Bible teaches will prevent entrance into Heaven, is a loving act.

What dupes and cowards Christians are. What poor servants of the one who was willing to die for us. While Christ died a humiliating and horrifying death for us, we're unwilling to endure any degree of discomfort for him. As we welcome each sophistical lie with a secret sigh of relief for being offered a rationalization to justify either our silence or capitulation, we facilitate evil. Those who experience unchosen same-sex attraction are not evil. They are sinners just like every other human-save one-who has ever existed. We all experience myriad powerful, persistent, unchosen feelings. Our task as moral beings is to figure out upon which of these feelings it is morally legitimate to act. Christians do no service to God, women, children, men, or their country when they refuse to speak the truth about homosexuality. Instead, we help push America into the historical abyss.

Geller Accuses Obama of Using Easter Message To 'Proselytize For Islam'

Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller is, of course, very upset that President Obama dared to mention Islam in passing in his radio address commemorating Easter and Passover this weekend, and claims that the president attempted to “proselytize for Islam" when he listed Muslims, along with Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs, as people who share a “common thread of humanity."

After speaking in detail about how he and his family would be celebrating the Resurrection of Christ and remembering “the grace of an awesome God, who loves us so deeply that He gave us his only Son, so that we might live through Him,” the president said:

The common thread of humanity that connects us all – not just Christians and Jews, but Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs – is our shared commitment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

The inclusion of Muslims on that list infuriated Geller, who accused the president of using the address to “proselytize for Islam. On Easter. It’s sick.”

“Does Obama ever mention Christians or Jews or Hindus when he makes his long-winded Ramadan messages?” she asks.

As a matter of fact, in the president’s Ramadan message last year, he expressed a very similar sentiment:

For the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims, Ramadan is a time for thoughtful reflection, fasting and devotion. It is also an opportunity for family and friends to come together and celebrate the principles that bind people of different faiths – a commitment to peace, justice, equality and compassion towards our fellow human beings. These bonds are far stronger than the differences that too often drive us apart.
 

Deace Implies Same-Sex Marriage Is As Impossible As Human Flight

Speaking with Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live this weekend, Iowa talk show host Steve Deace implied that same-sex couples who want to get married are like people who want to be able to fly.

Responding to a caller who asked what he should say to a friend who says “it’s not government’s job to legislate morality,” Deace responded that the friend has “bought into some postmodern thinking” where he doesn’t want to impose his idea of what’s “wrong and icky” on other people.

Deace compared this to fighting the law of gravity, implying that a gay person who wants to get married is like someone who jumps off a skyscraper because they think they can fly.

“I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly,” he said. “But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity.”

“It didn’t change because some judge said so,” he added.
 

Caller: I’ve got a buddy who’s semi-liberal and he says, his main premise is that it’s not government’s job to legislate morality. And I was wondering what you’ve got to say about that.

Schlafly: Well, practically ever law is legislating morality.

Deace: Phyllis is correct. Everything is morality. That’s a false objection. Question him further to find exactly out what that means. And I’m telling you, what I’m 99 percent positive that it will mean is that he’s bought into some postmodern thinking that says, ‘Well, yeah, I think this stuff is wrong and icky for me but I can’t impose my value system on somebody else.’

But of course, that’s a very slippery slope as well. I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly. But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity. It didn’t change because some judge said so. It still exists. So, chances are that’s a false objection from your friend because he’s bought into some postmodern thinking about over-judgementalism.

White Nationalists Demand Credit For Another Idea That's Gone Mainstream In The GOP

The white nationalist website VDARE is once again demanding credit for an idea that it has been championing for years that has now gone mainstream in the GOP.

Last year, we reported that VDARE writer John Derbyshire (formerly of the National Review) was annoyed that prominent Republicans were failing to credit racist VDARE writer Steve Sailer when they advocated a plan nearly identical to the ‘Sailer Strategy’: that is, the idea that the GOP can only survive by solidifying and growing its white base while alienating people of color. Sailer had been persistently advocating this tactic for over a decade when it suddenly came into vogue among conservatives who opposed the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform plan.

Now, another VDARE writer is upset that more and more immigration reform opponents are pushing another VDARE argument without giving the white nationalists credit. This time, the argument is that steady or increased legal immigration – with or without a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrations – will ruin the Republican party because immigrants are inherently liberal.

In a post on Friday, VDARE writer James Fulford highlights a recent study from the Center for Immigration Studies which argues that Republicans shouldn’t bother with immigration reform because immigrants will inevitably vote for Democrats. Fulford complains that neither the CIS report nor the conservative outlets covering it “manages to credit Peter Brimelow or VDARE.com for saying all this early and often, possibly because it they're scared of Media Matters and the SPLC.” As he notes, VDARE has been pushing the argument since as early as 2001.

The CIS report solidifies what has become a common talking point among even relatively mainstream anti-immigrant groups. CIS spokespeople repeatedly argue that the country shouldn’t “ import more” immigrants because they’ll never vote Republican anyway. Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum has also been pushing this line of argument and released its own report on the subject. Schlafly probably put the argument the most succinctly when she said in February, “These immigrants, legal and illegal, coming in don’t really understand our country and will probably vote Democratic .” She also suggested that Latino immigrants “don’t understand” the Bill of Rights and reject American values.

It’s no surprise that this idea originated in the racist underworld of VDARE. After all, the subtext of the argument is that the GOP should rely on what Pat Buchanan called a new “Southern Strategy” and dump any plans to expand its appeal beyond its mostly white base. As the “Southern Strategy” comparison makes clear, that involves both scapegoating immigrants and ignoring their voices in government.

Linda Harvey Warns 'Child-Targeting' Day Of Silence Is A Test From God

Although the anti-bullying “Day of Silence” was more than a week ago, it’s still being attacked in the right-wing media. Writing in BarbWire today, anti-gay activist Linda Harvey warns that the Day of Silence, sponsored by the gay-rights group GLSEN, is “a test from our Creator” asking parents to “draw a line in the sand about child corruption.”

Harvey writes that the “radical child-targeting group GLSEN” is pushing “perversion” and “brainwashing” kids by teaching them “false ideas, like ‘gay’ is always good.”

We guess this means that Harvey isn’t actually that tired of talking about gay rights issues.

“This is a test. This is only a test. Had this been a real child-endangering emergency, where children are taught to hate Christians, embrace sodomy and praise sexual anarchy, you would be alerted through the Emergency Broadcast System for Responsible Parents. Then you could act to save your kids!”

And of course, America’s conservative parents would do that…wouldn’t they?

Well, these atrocities are already happening, perhaps indeed as a test from our Creator, and it looks like a grade of “F” looms as a strong possibility. What’s it going to take for the grown-ups in our nation to draw a line in the sand about child corruption?

Recent developments should have every Mom and Dad on high alert. Not only are openly homosexual boys are now welcomed into the Boy Scouts of America and “gay” adult men will probably soon be embraced as troop leaders, but we just observed another year of one staged homosexual school event after another. And the school term is not over yet.

Only the most obtuse will miss what homosexual advocates are doing: aggressively defying all the usual child protection boundaries and daring parents to stop them.

The takeover of youth culture in schools is led by advocate teachers, principals and outside allies who claim “LGBTQ” identities are churning within the hearts of closeted adolescents. “Please understand my reason for not speaking today,“ reads the placard of student participants in the “ Day of Silence,“ a supposedly student-led annual event in April (held on April 11 this year) which protests the silencing and bullying of “LGBT” people. Thousands of students nationwide now participate, claims the event sponsor, the radical child-targeting group GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).

But these claims strain credulity. It’s not “student-led,” but driven by adults manipulating kids to become cheerleaders for the homosexual cause. Kids are impressionable and can be misled through persistent indoctrination. And the “Day of Silence” is not about bullying, which school officials can punish without endorsing these lifestyles. No, it’s about victim-posturing, propaganda and the willingness of schools to go along with the end result, which is the endorsement of perversion.

The anti-bullying fervor is deployed to launch pro-homosexual programs in schools that convey false ideas, like “gay” is always good; it’s an inborn identity; it’s a civil right like race; there’s no elevated health risk compared to heterosexuality; the “religious right” hates all homosexuals; their beliefs cause bullying; and those who object to any of this want “gay” kids to commit suicide.

They only have one childhood, and brainwashing lasts a long time.

Mark Krikorian Claims 'No Family Is Ever Split By Immigration Law'

Center for Immigration studies executive director Mark Krikorian insisted in an interview on VCY America’s Crosstalk yesterday that “no family is ever split by immigration law.”

Addressing situations where the undocumented parent of an American citizen is deported, Krikorian said, “No child is ever taken away from a person who is deported, because children can always go with their parents, which is what they should do.”

“No family is ever split by immigration law,” he said. “It’s the decisions of the immigrants themselves either to come here and split their families.”

Between 2010 and 2012, the country conducted 200,000 deportations of parents of U.S. citizens. An Applied Research Center investigation in 2011 found that at least 5,100 children whose parents had been detained or deported were thrown into the U.S. foster care system. Last year, President Obama issued a directive aimed at curbing detentions of parents who are the primary caregivers of minor children.

No child is ever taken away from a person who is deported, because children can always go with their parents, which is what they should do, it’s the appropriate thing to do. Or if the kids are born here, they have the right to stay too, and the parents, if they can find an aunt or somebody else for the kids to stay with, they can do that, that’s their prerogative. No family is ever split by immigration law. It’s the decisions of the immigrants themselves either to come here and split their families, or to stay here illegally, they have American children then they’re caught up into it and decide not to take their families back with them. That’s where the decision comes from that ends up splitting families.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious