Miranda Blue's blog

Craig James: Satan Pushing Gay Rights In Pro Sports

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins broadcast his “Washington Watch” radio program live from FRC’s “Faith and Family Summit” on Friday where the major topic was, predictably, the supposed persecution of conservative Christians at the hands of the LGBT rights movement.

Perkins invited Craig James, the former pro football player who joined FRC after being fired as a Fox Sports commentator, to discuss the decision of several professional sports teams to join a brief on behalf of gay marriage at the Supreme Court.

James worried that the decision by the New England Patriots, the Tampa Bay Rays and the San Francisco Giants to join the marriage brief could cause an “implosion” in team locker rooms and intimidate players who oppose marriage equality from speaking their minds.

“If I were a current player in that locker room and my livelihood depended on me being quiet or losing it because of my belief system, I worry, I wonder,” he said. “So, that’s Satan working on us.”

Later in the interview, Perkins warned of a coming clash between LGBT rights and religious liberty, saying, “There’s no avoiding this conflict, it’s coming, as we redefine marriage and with it everything else in society. “

“It’s not so much about the marriage altar, this redefinition of marriage, it’s about altering all of society,” he added.

James agreed, adding that he had recently been studying the book of Genesis and found that the story of Adam and Eve proves that if you support gay marriage, you “have a problem with God.”

Mark Regnerus Defends Flawed Research On Same-Sex Parenting

Back in 2012, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus published a study claiming that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be molested, abuse drugs and alcohol, do poorly in school, and experience any number of other maladies. The study quickly made its way into anti-LGBT talking points around the world, even as Regnerus’ fellow academics began to find serious problems with his methodology.

The main issue with Regnerus’ work was that he based his conclusions on same-sex parenting on respondents who said their parent had been in a same-sex relationship at some point when they were a child – not necessarily adults who had been raised by a same-sex couple. Ultimately, only two of the people he studied were actually raised by same-sex couples. He also failed to control for destabilizing childhood events like divorce. Sociologist Darren Sherkat summarized the problems with the Regnerus study in a 2013 interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The key measure of gay and lesbian parenting is simply a farce. The study includes a retrospective question asking if people knew if their mother or father had a “romantic” relationship with someone of the same sex when the respondent was under age 18. This measure is problematic on many levels.

Regnerus admits that just two of his respondents were actually raised by a same-sex couple, though I doubt that he can even know that, given his limited data. Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything.

It failed to take into account normal family effects on wellbeing, to control for known​ sources of positive or negative outcomes. Indeed, since he only had two stable lesbian “couples” (or at least a young adult who said that, retrospectively, in a non-random, convenience sample), he instead just constructed differences from a group of people who were raised in unstable environments. Sexuality has nothing to do with that.

Then, earlier this year, Catholic University professor Paul Sullins published a paper with conclusions similar to those put forth by Regnerus...and similar methodological flaws.

As Emma Green wrote in “The Atlantic” recently, most social science “suggests that there are no differences between kids raised in stable households by gay or straight parents” — in other words, most scientists are finding that it’s the stability of their household, not their gender of the parents, that most affects the wellbeing of kids.

But now Regnerus is defending the findings of his and Sullins’ studies by arguing essentially that families headed by same-sex couples are inherently unstable — so there is no need to control for stability in studying the wellbeing of children raised in by same-sex parents. Regnerus told World Magazine this week that divorce is “still, so far as I can tell, the primary means by which a child comes to be in a same-sex household,” so “I think we should evaluate reality as it exists, not complain about the ideal data situation that does not”:

Critics of Sullins’ study claim it can’t tell us anything meaningful about same-sex parenting because it includes children of divorce, who are themselves more likely to suffer from emotional, behavioral, and academic problems. In order to fairly represent gay parents, critics seem to suggest, surveys should only include children who did not experience divorce and were raised from infancy by stable gay couples. In other words, the childhoods Lopez and Barwick experienced should be tossed out of the data pool.

But such “ideal” same-sex parent situations are rare and would be difficult to measure using a random representative survey. Besides, is it fair to ignore the very factor that often precedes same-sex parenting situations: divorce?

“[Divorce] is still, so far as I can tell, the primary means by which a child comes to be in a same-sex household,” said Mark Regnerus, a University of Texas at Austin sociologist whose own survey of same-sex households in 2012 found children of gay parents were more likely to be unemployed, depressed, unhealthy, promiscuous, and to have a negative view of their childhood. “I think we should evaluate reality as it exists, not complain about the ideal data situation that does not.”

It’s not surprising that since same-sex marriage — and the child custody rights that come with that marriage status — is a relatively new development there isn’t a huge pool of data on children raised by married same-sex couples. But that doesn’t mean, as Regnerus suggests, that sociologists should simply conflate same-sex parenting with household instability.

Ken Cuccinelli: 'We're Being Invaded…One Person At A Time'

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who now heads up the Senate Conservatives Fund, told talk show host Steve Deace in an interview yesterday that America is being “invaded” by immigrants “one person at a time” and that President Obama is guilty of “encouraging the invasion” with his executive actions.

Discussing the decision of Republican leaders in Congress to ally with Democrats to pass a Department of Homeland Security funding bill, Deace asked Cuccinelli: “Is there any affront to the Constitution this president could commit that would cause the current Republican leaders in Congress to really, substantively attempt to do something about it and stop it? Is there anything he could do? Anything?”

“I can’t think of one,” Cuccinelli responded. “I mean, other than surrendering to everybody — I mean, we’re being invaded. We’re being invaded, right? One person at a time, we’re being invaded. And the president isn’t protecting us from invasion, he’s encouraging the invasion, and he’s doing it unconstitutionally."

“He’s assumed power after power that’s allocated to Congress and they’ve supinely rolled over under the Republican surrendership of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and Steve Scalise and Kevin McCarthy, and there’s no reason to expect that’s going to change," he continued.

“I mean, what’s more important that’s coming up than what we’ve seen in the last week or two months?" he asked. "Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Not to say that the other things we’re going to deal with in coming months aren’t important, Steve. It’s just that clearly what we’ve been through both constitutionally, in terms of our sovereignty and the rule of law, you’re never going to top that.”

Cuccinelli used similar rhetoric in a Facebook post last year in support of then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s questionable decision to send the Texas National Guard to the southern border to confront Central American child migrants. “The border states that are being directly invaded by illegal immigrants – Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico – may constitutionally deal with the invasion themselves, at least as it relates to attempting to stop the flow across their own borders,” Cuccinelli wrote at the time. “And there is nothing President Obama or those in Washington can do to stop any of these states, if they are determined to act.”

Steve King: Boehner Threw A 'Tantrum' About DHS Vote, Kicked Foes Off 'Very Important Diplomatic Mission'

In an interview with Iowa-based radio host Simon Conway on Wednesday, Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King revealed that House Speaker John Boehner kicked him and fellow anti-immigration Republicans off a “high-profile diplomatic mission” in “retribution” for their votes against a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Conway told King that he was surprised the speaker didn’t step down from his post after a revolt from Republican members handed him an embarrassing defeat, ultimately forcing him to pass a DHS spending bill with the support of just 75 members of his caucus in alliance with Democrats.

“In times gone past, other speakers would have said, ‘That is a vote of no confidence in my leadership from my own caucus, I have to step down,'” Conway said. “I know he’s not going to step down and I don’t think there’s an appetite to challenge him.”

“Well, that appetite is growing here in this conference,” King responded, “and you can tell it by just the dialogue and discussion that’s taking place.”

He added that the speaker is “currently throwing tantrums” and seeking “retribution” against members who bucked him on the DHS votes.

“In the last 30 minutes, I have learned that a very important diplomatic mission that I was scheduled to go on that had been signed off on, certified, authorized, everything all booked, the order came down from the speaker’s office, ‘that shall be rescinded.’ And the people who he most objects to for disagreeing with him are now grounded to the United States of America by order of the speaker,” King told Conway.

That on top of the ads being run against Republicans by the American Action Network, King said, “is retribution on the highest scale that I’ve ever heard of.”

Later in the interview, King complained that undocumented immigrants covered by President Obama’s executive actions would be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit (despite the fact that the actions are projected to increase tax revenues) and that it provides a way for some immigrants to embark on a path to citizenship, which King said meant that “illegal aliens can go to vote and choose the next leader of the free world.”

“And when I say he eviscerated the Constitution, I think everyone who’s listening now understands what that means,” he concluded.

The president has waived the application of the law, he’s made up laws of his own, and now he as an administration that will be sending checks to illegals knowingly and willfully without even a breath of saying that want to try to reverse that. You know, a president who can make up law on his own, as he has done a number of times and gotten away with it, you would think he could also just simply issue an executive edict that they would not be issuing those kind of, writing checks to illegals who have filed under the Earned Income Tax Credit.

So, here’s your driver’s license mandated by the federal government, here’s your Earned Income Tax Credit, here’s your child tax credit that billions of dollars go out of the country every year for people who are living in the United States illegally, and now he’s created a path to citizenship so illegal aliens can go to vote and choose the next leader of the free world. Who would have thought, even three years ago, that this country would have been drug this far. And when I say he eviscerated the Constitution, I think everyone who’s listening now understands what that means.

Huckabee: Obama Has An 'Innate Desire To See America A Weaker Country'

Mike Huckabee stopped by Steve Deace’s radio program yesterday to discuss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress and the ongoing negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program.

Claiming that Obama doesn’t see how dangerous Iran is, Deace asked Huckabee: “Is it because he doesn’t love America? Is it because he has a worldview that blinds him to the realities of good vs. evil?”

“I believe he does not want America to be the superpower that we have been,” Huckabee responded. “It’s almost as if he’s afraid of that. He believes that America would be better off as ‘one of the boys’ instead of the big brother.”

Huckabee went on to blame House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for turning the American relationship with Israel into “a political and partisan issue, God help us all.”

When Deace claimed that the parties no longer agree that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Huckabee agreed: “What has changed is Barack Obama’s influence over foreign policy. What has changed is his innate desire to see America a weaker country rather than a stronger country. And some Democrats are more interested in protecting Obama than they are in protecting America, and that’s the real sad fact.”

Joseph Farah Is 'Just Asking': Will Obama Actually Leave Office In January 2017?

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah personally believes that President Obama will leave office when his second term is up in January 2017, but senses that “there is great concern out there across the fruited plain” that the president will try to stay in office permanently, so he evidently considers it his journalistic duty to explore why this conspiracy theory may be true.

“[W]hy do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?” Farah asks in a column today. “I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why.”

Farah then goes on to cite evidence of Obama’s possible power grab, including that the president that “respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power,” has said “he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office,” and, of course, “the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office.”

Question: Why are Americans so certain there will be a presidential election in 2016 and that Barack Obama will leave office in January 2017?

Answer: Because it’s the law and because it’s American tradition.

However, we currently have a man in the White House who respects neither the law nor the American tradition of peaceful changes of power.


And then, of course, there’s the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office. In fact, if he’s telling the truth about his parentage and the “birth certificate” he produced after years of demands from the public is real, he could not possibly be a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.

So with all of this history – and much more, in fact – why do we assume Obama will step aside willingly from the presidency following an election in 2016?

I’m not saying he won’t. I’m just asking why. And judging from the number of questions I’m getting along these lines from the public, I’d say there’s great concern out there across the fruited plain.

Maybe we assume he will respectfully leave office after two terms because he has publicly said he would. In 2013, Obama said he and his family might remain in Washington after leaving office.

But that begs the question of whether Obama is truthful.

Again, do I think Obama will leave office in January 2017? Yes I do.

But, with a track record like this – and, actually much worse – should we simply take it for granted?

Kobach Defends Latest Claim About Anti-White Obama Conspiracy

Back in November, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach took a call on his weekly radio program from a listener who was worried that if Latinos became a majority in the U.S., they would embark on an “ethnic cleansing” of whites. Rather than simply refute the caller’s suggestion, Kobach – a leading anti-immigrant voice in the GOP -- responded by saying that President Obama was eroding the rule of law so while he didn’t “think it’s going to happen in America” he did “wonder what could happen.”

After we reported on the exchange, Kobach claimed that his remarks had been “ripped out of context” and that he was simply trying to be “polite” as the caller presented his paranoid predictions about the consequences of changing demographics.

So we weren’t entirely surprised this week when Kobach was presented with another paranoid prediction of whites as the victims of a government run by people of color and decided to go along with it too. As we reported yesterday, Kobach took a call from a listener who suggested that the Obama administration might be on the verge of declaring an end to the criminal prosecution of African Americans “regardless of the crime.” Kobach responded that while he thought it was “unlikely,” “it’​s already happened more or less in the case of civil rights laws” and “I’ve learned to say with this president, never say never.”

Now, Kobach is being forced again to defend his comments, and this time is standing by them, citing the Obama Justice Department’s decision to drop voter intimidation charges against the Fox News villains of the New Black Panther Party. Despite the claims of right-wing activists, there is no evidence to suggest that the Justice Department dropped the case against the small-time radical group because of the race of its members.

Kobach told the Wichita Eagle  that the New Black Panther Party case shows that the Obama administration has already fulfilled the caller’s nightmares “in one limited context":

Kobach dismissed criticism.
 
“My point was to bring attention to the Obama Justice Department’s position that some civil rights statutes can’t be enforced against people of color,” Kobach said. “For example, one of the Obama administration’s first actions it took in 2009 was to drop the slam-dunk charges against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation.”
 
Kobach said the Justice Department dropped the charges specifically because of race, a claim that has been disputed.
 
“The point is the Obama administration has already done what the caller suggests in the context of voting civil rights statutes,” Kobach said Thursday. “So it’s already happened in one limited context. No, I don’t think it will happen in other contexts. I made it clear I don’t think that’s likely to happen.”

Correction: This post originally misidentified the newspaper that Kobach gave his response to. It was the Wichita Eagle, not the Kansas City Star.

Kris Kobach: 'Not A Huge Jump' To Think Obama Could Ban Criminal Prosecution Of Black People

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, one of the chief architects of the anti-immigrant movement’s legal and legislative strategies, told a caller to his weekly radio program last week that while he thought it was “unlikely,” it would not be a “huge jump” to predict that the Obama administration could call an end to the prosecutions of African Americans for any crime. Claiming that “it’s already happened more or less in the case of civil rights laws,” Kobach told listeners that “I’ve learned to say with this president, never say never.”

Kobach was discussing the University of Minnesota’s decision to stop including race and other physical descriptions in email alerts of crimes on campus unless they have “sufficient detail that would help identify” a perpetrator, when a listener named Stu called in to share a theory.

“Given the situation in Minnesota, given the recent story that Obama was instructing immigration enforcement to not enforce the immigration laws against illegal aliens, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch, Kris, to envision an announcement that any black person accused of a crime, charged with a crime, is not going to be prosecuted, regardless of the crime,” he said, adding that “we’ve already seen it from Eric Holder in his failure to prosecute the Black Panthers.”

Holder, Kobach agreed, “basically made it clear….that the civil rights laws were only to protect minority races, and he was not going to be enforcing them to the benefit of white people who were discriminated against on the basis of their race. So, that’s basically what you’ve described.”

“So the word is going to come down that there just won’t be any prosecutions of black criminals,” Stu predicted. “And I can see it happening. I don’t think I’m nuts for envisioning it.”

“Well, it’s already happened more or less in the case of civil rights laws,” Kobach responded. “So I guess it’s not a huge jump, I think it’s unlikely, but you know I’ve learned to say with this president, never say never.”

Kobach got national attention back in November when a caller presented the outlandish scenario that a Latino majority in the U.S. would embark on an “ethnic cleansing,” to which Kobach responded in a similar noncommittal way, saying that while he didn’t “think it’s going to happen in America,” under Obama “things are strange and they are happening.”

Alex Jones: Liberals Are 'Demonic Villains' Who 'Want Blood' And Are 'Going To Kill Everybody'

Joel Gilbert, a conspiracy theorist filmmaker who followed up his 2012 opus on President Obama’s secret communist father with a recent movie comparing the president the Wizard of Oz, joined Alex Jones yesterday to discuss Obama’s “game plan” to stage a radical Marxist takeover of America.

Jones was, of course, in complete agreement, telling Gilbert, “That’s what I’ve found when I’ve been around socialists and communists at events over the decades.”

“I’ve been around a lot of them at all sorts of behind-the scenes Democratic conventions,” he said. “They’re really like criminal, bank robber types, like felon types I’ve been around before that are really creepy and have bad will towards people. And behind the scenes they’ll go, ‘Listen, when we take over we’re going to kill everybody. We want blood.’”

“They really are demonic villains, but on the surface, it’s like ‘I’m liberal.’ They are just so sick.”

Phyllis Schlafly Worries Immigrants 'Don't Want To Be An American And Abide By Our Constitutional Laws'

In an interview with WorldNetDaily’s radio network posted today, Phyllis Schlafly declared that she was “tired of” Republican presidential “losers,” and said that at last week’s CPAC she was impressed by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

In particular, Schlafly liked Jindal’s comments about immigrants not becoming “hyphenated Americans,” saying that “these illegals…don’t want to be assimilated into America.”

“I also thought a very good speech was made by Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who covered a lot of important issues, and particularly the fact that we do not want a lot of these illegals to be assimilated, and they don’t want to be assimilated into America,” she said. “I think anybody that’s let into this country for permanent residency should want to be an American, and if they don’t want to be an American and abide by our constitutional laws, we shouldn’t let them in.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious