On his radio program today, Glenn Beck spent a bit of time discussing the case of Kermit Gosnell and the media's supposed refusal to adequately cover the story. Despite that fact that until last week, Beck's The Blaze had barely mentioned the story, Beck blamed the media for failing to cover it and announced that he was going to delve into it in potentially graphic detail on tonight's television program.
In Beck's view, the Gosnell case and "almost everything that is going on in our society, I think, was hastened by the National Organization of Women" [sic] because the organization convinced women that they were no different than men.
And when that happens, "society goes to hell" because men stop respecting women "and society starts to careen out of control":
On Friday's radio broadcast, Bryan Fischer was discussing the importance of praying for elected leaders, especially President Obama since "virtually every single one of his policies is out of alignment with the will and the word of God."
The discussion prompted Fischer to make a bizarre point involving Adolf Hitler in which he asserted that the fall of the Nazi regime and the suicide of Hitler himself "happened in response to the prayers of God's people."
As Fischer explained it, God was trying to do everything in his power to reach Hitler while also respecting his free will "just like God is doing with Barack Obama," citing Ben Carson's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast as proof.
But, Fischer said, it is not doing any good as God has been "giving Barack Obama opportunity after opportunity to hear and respond to the truth and, trust me, the day could come when God says 'I have given him enough chances ... it's time to bring about some kind of a change'" before quickly adding that the change might be nothing more than a new president in 2016:
Charisma news editor Jennifer LeClaire is not the only one concerned about the prospect of openly gay athletes playing in the NFL, as "Doctor Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt is also sounding the alarm, warning that if NFL players come out as gay, youth coaches will start "recruiting children into the homosexual lifestyle and punishing Christians because they voice an opposition to that sort of thing in the locker room."
"I think the Devil is afoot here," Klingenschmitt warned, saying it "is a demonic use of the sporting industry":
Back in 2011, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled a recommendation made by the Food and Drug Administration to make the morning-after pill, known as "Plan B," available without a prescription and without restrictions.
Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled that the restrictions put in place on Plan B by the HHS were "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable" and struck them down.
And to Matt Barber, this all smacks of "collusion" between the judge and the Obama administration (starting at 3:23):
It seems a little redundant to me, in fact, that this Federal District Judge Edward Korman that he required, ordered, the Food and Drug Administration to lift any age and sale restrictions on Plan B.
Well, this is the Obama FDA, so that's in perfect keeping with what this radical, pro-abort president is trying to do. You know, you even have to wonder what kind of collusion is going on. So I'm sure this is a "don't throw me in that briar patch" kind of situation in terms of this judge ordering the FDA to do something that President Obama would be inclined to do and has shown he's inclined to do in the first place.
Barber's theory, literally, makes no sense.
It was the Obama administration that placed the restrictions on Plan B, overruling the recommendations made by the FDA. And those restrictions, put in place by the Obama administration, have now been struck down by a Regan-appointed judge. So obviously, the Obama administration was not inclined to do this in the first place.
Maybe Barber ought to do a bit of research before filming these daily commentaries so that he might actually have an idea what he is talking about instead of incoherently spinning out illogical conspiracy theories.
In an email sent out earlier this week, the Family Research Council urged activists not to make any donations to the Republican National Committee until it "grows a backbone" and starts defending the Religious Right's agenda with more vigor:
Until the RNC and the other national Republican organizations grow a backbone and start defending core principles, don't give them a dime of your hard-earned money. If you want to invest in the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who reflect your values and organizations you trust--like FRC Action. At least then you can relax, knowing that your money will be spent advancing faith, family, and freedom!
This announcement is generating lots of press for FRC, so we feel that it ought to be pointed out that FRC has been saying this since at least 2008, when it first grew outraged that then-Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, Rep. Pete Sessions, met with the Log Cabin Republicans (emphasis added):
According to a press release from the pro-gay "marriage" group, Log Cabin Republicans, one of the first stops for the newly elected Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), Congressman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), was the fundraising dinner for the homosexual organization. The release states that Representative Sessions said that the GOP cannot win elections and reach out to voters if it continues to oppose the issues that Log Cabin stands for, presumably including same-sex "marriage." My team sought clarification from Sessions' office and was told he did speak to the Log Cabin group, but that a copy of his remarks was not available. If the Log Cabin portrayal is true, it is disturbing on a number of accounts. One, Sessions' new position as the head of the NRCC is to train and recruit new candidates for the Republican Party. If this is his idea of "campaign advice" then the Republicans better prepare for a longer term in the minority then they faced prior to 1994. Secondly, if the GOP is serious about reaching out to new voters, especially African-Americans and Hispanics, then it should look closely at the exit polls on issues important to families. Both minority groups strongly support traditional family values that embrace life and protect marriage, two things the Republican Party once stood for also. Under these circumstances, pro-family voters should reserve judgment about giving their financial support to either political party.
The Republican National Committee (RNC) is at the center of another controversy, this one regarding nearly $2,000.00 spent at a bondage-themed strip club outside of Los Angeles. Information about the $1,946.00 dollar expenditure at Voyeur West Hollywood became public when the RNC released its most recent financial disclosure report. The public controversy over the expenditure led to the firing of the staffer yesterday who had incurred the expense. This latest incident is another indication to me that the RNC is completely tone-deaf to the values and concerns of a large number of people from whom they seek financial support.
Earlier this month the RNC made a big deal about hiring "renowned Supreme Court lawyer" Ted Olson to represent the RNC in a campaign finance case that is expected to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, this is the same Ted Olson that is trying to overturn the results of the marriage amendment in California. The outcome of Olson's challenge to Prop 8 goes far beyond nullifying the votes of nearly 7 million voters in California; his efforts could lead to the overturning of amendments and laws in all 45 states that currently define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
I've hinted at this before, but now I am saying it--don't give money to the RNC. If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values. Better yet, become a member of FRC Action and learn about the benefits it offers, including participating in the FRC Action PAC which can support candidates who will advance faith, family and freedom!
For years now, FRC and others in the movement have been issuing idle threats to the GOP about withholding support and leaving the party, but every time an election comes around, they all dutifully fall right in line.
Yesterday, Janet Meffered responded to reports that a Michigan high school had canceled a speech by Rick Santorum by declaring that soon "Christian who supports real marriage might be made to wear a yellow patch on the sleeve, a ‘badge of shame’ to identify us as ‘anti-gay haters.’ Kind of like the Jews in Nazi Germany.”
On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer discussed the same story and made a similar prediction, saying "we're getting to the point where these homofascists are going to force us to wear on our sleeve some kind of identifying marker so people will know who the racists and the homophobes and the bigots are":
On his radio program today, Glenn Beck continued his truly unhinged crusade against Common Core by pointing out that Exxonmobil supports it while alleging that the company is only doing so because someone in the government called in a favor and maybe even secretly promised them drilling rights for doing so.
The all-encompassing reach of Common Core has led Beck to decide that he will not allow his children to ever attend college because he will not allow them to be indoctrinated and become part of "the system that is coming." Beck then became very serious and cautious, telling his audience to "just be aware that there are many ways to mark people" and warning them to "be very careful":
On Tuesday evening, the President and the First Lady hosted the latest "In Performance at the White House" event which consisted of a tribute to Memphis soul music.
And Glenn Beck was reasonably outraged about it on last night's program, demanding to know why the Obama's are living like royalty when global economic and social collapse is imminent. Beck even posted paintings of Barack and Michelle dressed like Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette while warning that "we're headed for a monarchy," only this time "maybe Marie Antoinette and King Louis keep their heads while all of their subjects lose theirs":
A few weeks ago, we posted some audio clips from a "WallBuilders Live" radio program in which David Barton explained the concept of just war theory during which he justified the brutal treatment of Native Americans by white settlers and the American government on the grounds that they needed to be destroyed in order to be taught a lesson and eventually made civilized.
Shortly thereafter, WallBuilders posted a message on its Facebook page claiming that Barton was not "justifying" this sort of treatment but merely "explaining" what had happened:
David was not justifying, but merely explaining the historical context of what happened, in the same way that he explained the British march to the sea. He made a parallel between the two as to tactics and strategy that were used during war at that time. David was explaining the historical events regarding King Philip's War, not the atrocities that were in general committed against the Indian tribes and nations, which we in no way condone. There is a big difference between justifying and merely explaining or reporting.
Like so much of Barton's work, this explanation holds up only so long as one blindly accepts Barton's nonsensical interpretation and doesn't bother to verify what he says, which is pretty easy since we produced a transcript of it at the time.
As anyone can see, Barton was not merely "explaining" what happened but was actively defending it on the grounds that "you cannot reason with certain types of terrorists." As Barton said at the time, the Indians had "declared war on all the white guys" and so "we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over" until they got the message:
You have to deal, a lot of it, with how the enemy responds. It's got to be based on what the enemy responds [to,] you cannot reason with certain types of terrorists; and see that's why we could not get the Indians to the table to negotiate with us on treaties until after we had thoroughly whipped so many tribes ... What happened was the Indian leaders said "they're trying to change our culture" and so they declared war on all the white guys and went after the white guys and that was King Philip's War. It was really trying to be civilized on one side and end torture and the Indians were threatened by the ending of torture and so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until they said "oh, got the point, you're doing to us what we're doing to them, okay, we'll sign a treaty."
Take, for example, what happened in the western plains wars in the late 1800s when we were taking on the plains Indians. I'm not talking about treaties, I'm not talking about behavior of Americans toward Indians or vice versa, there were violations on both sides of nearly every treaty. I'm talking about what happened in ending those wars after Custer and everything that went on.
People complain about the fact that the American military and buffalo hunters went out and wiped out all the buffalo in the western plains. Doing that was what brought the Indians to their knees because the Indians lived on those wide western plains where there were very few towns; Indians didn't go into town to buy supplies, they went to the buffalo herds, that's where they got their meat, that's where they got their coats, the hides provided coats, they provided covering for their teepees.
If you don't have the buffalos, those Indians cannot live on the open western plains without those buffalo and so what happened was the military wiped out the supply line by wiping out the buffalo. That's what brought those wars to an end, that's what brought the Indians to their knees and ended all the western conflict.
The focus of the radio program was a discussion of just war theory and Barton's purpose in bringing up this issue was to explain that these tactics were justified specifically because they do not appear to be justifiable.
Barton was not merely "explaining" what had happened, but was justifying it on the grounds that when your enemies refuse to abide by the "rules of civilization, you still have to secure the life and the property and the protection of your citizens" in whatever way you can.
Last month, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by American Atheists seeking to prevent a pair of beams in the shape of a cross that was pulled from the debris of the collapsed World Trade Center from being included in the official 9/11 Memorial and Museum.
On today's "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Mat Staver and Shawn Akers discussed the lawsuit, with Akers calling it "religious McCarthyism" and saying that it is ironic that "extremists from a particular religion brought down the Twin Towers, but the atheists are coming in to finish the job":
The Religious Right’s anti-anti-bullying efforts are beginning to swing into high gear as the Day of Silence, which is run by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and centers on making schools safer for LGBT students, approaches on April 19.
The boycott campaign is backed by anti-gay groups such as Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women for America and Faith2Action, which urge public schools to resist “GLSEN's socio-political goals and its controversial, unproven, and destructive theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality.”
Harvey warns that the Day of Silence “has become a central showpiece in this homosexual agenda in our schools” and offers “inaccurate and harmful information in schools about homosexuality.”
Rather than “preventing harm to kids,” Harvey warns the Day of Silence “encourages more kids to approve of or enter a lifestyle which itself will be incredibly harmful to them. So instead of allowing kids to be manipulated, it’s a good idea to keep your kids at home that day.”
“The compassionate hearts of kids are manipulated into approving of deviant lifestyles and practices,” Harvey states, maintaining that gays and lesbians do “not need to be involved in such behavior and God can rescue anyone who wants a different life.”
We’ve been telling you for several weeks about the pro-homosexual Day of Silence and why Christian families are staying home from school that day. Here’s a little more background: for a number of years Christian groups and parents nationwide have increasingly become concerned about the growth of inaccurate and harmful information in schools about homosexuality. The Day of Silence, coming up on or around Friday, April 19, has become a central showpiece in this homosexual agenda in our schools.
My overwhelming concern about this day centers around three things: 1) It encourages sympathy for homosexuality, which is wrong; 2) it implies that no one can object to homosexuality without being hateful and that’s also incorrect; 3) it does all this while pretending to be about justice and preventing harm to kids. The truth is that this is victim posturing that encourages more kids to approve of or enter a lifestyle which itself will be incredibly harmful to them. So instead of allowing kids to be manipulated, it’s a good idea to keep your kids at home that day.
We’ve called this the Day of Silence Walk Out and you can find out more at DOSWalkOut.net. Why did they start this Day of Silence protest to begin with? Students sometimes even have tape over their mouths and they pledge to remain silent all day. Why? Because they claim that homosexuals have been routinely silenced and victimized and don’t have a voice. You may be thinking, now hold on just a minute! Indeed, it’s a typical leftist victim strategy. Not that we don’t sympathize with any student who is bullied for any reason but this is pure political propaganda, manipulating a sensitive situation and we don’t have to allow our kids to sit there in class while sometimes even the teachers are going along with this.
Unlike the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) would have you believe, schools, parents and kids do not have to condone immoral and harmful behaviors like homosexuality and gender bending to prevent or stand up against bullying. This is a diversionary tactic. High moral sexuality standards are helpful, not hateful. The goal of these adult radicals though is to use vulnerable kids to carry this inaccurate message for them. Meanwhile, the compassionate hearts of kids are manipulated into approving of deviant lifestyles and practices.
So when you stand up against misinformation remember you are standing against behavior, not against the person. That person does not need to be involved in such behavior and God can rescue anyone who wants a different life.
As Jacobs recalled it, she and her husband Mike and some friends were taking a vacation in upstate New York when, while sitting at lunch one day, "the Lord began to tell me that there was a terrorist attack being planned in that little town."
So Jacobs rose and went outside when God instructed her to share that information with a group of man standing outside the restaurant, who just so happened to be a group of local pastors.
Together they all mobilized their prayer networks and "everybody began to pray and it was exposed; there was a sleeper cell in that area that got exposed":
Yesterday, Cathie Adams, the president of the Texas Eagle Forum, delivered a presentation to the Southeast Texas Tea Party on the dangers of environmentalism and Agenda 21 in which she made the case that the environmental movement is like a watermelon: "green on the outside and Marxist red on the inside."
Adams said that environmentalists are blasphemers because "these people worship the creation instead of the Creator" and that is why "our children are being taught now in public schools to capitalize the "E" of "Earth"; it is an object of worship."
When Adams later asked rhetorically why President George H.W. Bush went to Brazil in 1992 to sign the United Nations Climate Change convention, an audience member blurted out that he did so because "he's a traitor!" which prompted Adams to declare that "this climate change treaty is exactly the New World Order":
Back in February, Phyllis Schlafly was the guest on Rick Scarborough's Tea Party Unity call where she fielded questions from participants on a range of topics, including whether those pushing for immigration reform are doing so in order to place millions of new immigrants on government programs so as to bankrupt the nation.
Schlafly, not surprisingly, declared that that is exactly what President Obama is trying to do:
Caller: My name is Jim Mason, I am the state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots here in Nebraska. Mrs. Schlafly, concerning the illegal alien issue and the influx coming into the nation, we are looking at somewhere between ten and thirty million that will be allowed amnesty. The cost to be able to have this number on relief could be all but unsustainable for the nation. Is that the intent of these pro-illegal alien groups? Are they hoping to fundamentally change the United States away from the way that it is now? Are they trying to bankrupt the nation intentionally? I'm just curious.
Schlafly: Well, people have different motives and maybe some of them have sincere motives - I wouldn't indict everybody, but I think it's clear, what you said, that it is Obama's motive. And I do believe that that is what Obama's motive is. Now there are other people who have been co-opted into supporting him for various innocent and other reasons but I do think that these socialist-minded people really want to destroy our system. They hate us!
Anti-Islam activist Frank Gaffney was the featured guest on Rick Scarborough's Tea Party Unity conference call last week where he issued his standard warnings about the massive infiltration of Muslim Brotherhood agents into the US government.
During the Q & A segment of the call, Scarborough asked Gaffney if he thought the tragedy in Benghazi would hurt Hillary Clinton if she runs for president in 2016, which prompted Gaffney to proclaim that "no one has done more to undermine women's rights" throughout the world than Clinton by supporting the Muslim Brotherhood before asserting that both Clinton and her long time aide Huma Abedin, whom Gaffney believes to be a Muslim Brotherhood operative, need to be held accountable:
Hillary Clinton made this speech ... the irony is she spoke about the plight of women at this event and the truth of the matter is, I would argue that perhaps no one, save only the President of the United States himself, but no one has done more to undermine women's rights in a larger part of the world than Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State because she presided over and was the handmaiden of this effort to promote the Muslim Brotherhood.
And one other data point on this Rick, I believe it is going to be very important to hold her accountable for having had a women closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood at her right hand for over twelve years now and how has left the State Department where she was the Deputy Chief of Staff on the same day the Hillary Clinton left office and is almost certainly going to be helping her in her presidential run in the days ahead, Her name is Huma Abedin and she needs to be held accountable and so does Hillary Clinton.
On more than one occasion over the last several years, Mike McManus of Marriage Savers, often with his wife Harriet, has appeared on various Religious Right radio program that we monitor and spoken at their events. Mostly his message has focused on the topic of strengthening the institution of marriage, but it came as no surprise to learn when he appeared on Bryan Fischer's radio program on Friday that he shares the Right's bigoted anti-gay views.
When Fischer asked him why gay couples are supposedly uninterested in actually getting married, McManus responded that they are really just interested in "trying to destroy the institution of marriage, which they can't really participate in" before declaring that gays are afflicted with a "perversion" due to having been molested as children:
On today's radio program, Bryan Fischer took a call from a woman named Vicki in Illinois who called in to get his advice on whether or not she needed to find another church because the one she is currently attending is gay-friendly and has not only an lesbian pastor but openly gay Sunday School teachers.
Not surprisingly, Fischer urged her to get out of that church immediately, saying that being in that environment was going to corrupt her children by getting them to think that homosexuality was okay which will "destroy them in body and soul and spirit."
Instead, Fischer counseled, she needs to find a church run by a "happily married pastor" who "has a biblical view of homosexuality that it is a sin [and] that it's not something that a healthy society ever ought to embrace":
One of the most interesting things about watching Bryan Fischer's program on a daily basis is learning to understand the bizarre manner in which he views the world. And it is not his vehement hostility to Muslims, or gays, or liberals that demonstrate his warped view of reality but simpler things like how he interprets seemingly benign comments and events.
On yesterday's program, Fischer provided a good example of the sort of lens through which he views the world when he ripped President Obama for supposedly insulting the people of Iowa by sharing a story in which Michele Obama said she could understand why people would want to own guns.
While speaking in Denver earlier this week, Obama was making a point about why it is so hard to make any progress on gun control legislation, saying that people on "both sides of the debate sometimes don't listen to each other. The people who take absolute positions on these issues, on both sides, sometimes aren't willing to concede even an inch of ground."
The key to overcoming this was to build trust, Obama said, and try to understand the positions of people with different points of view. In demonstrating this, he told a story about something Michelle said to him:
And so one of the questions we talked about was, how do you build trust? How do you rebuild some trust? And I told the story about two conversations I had. The first conversation was when Michelle came back from doing some campaigning out in rural Iowa. And we were sitting at dinner, and she had been to like a big county, a lot of driving out there, a lot of farmland. And she said, if I was living out in a farm in Iowa, I'd probably want a gun, too. If somebody just drives up into your driveway and you're not home -- you don't know who these people are and you don't know how long it's going to take for the sheriffs to respond. I can see why you'd want some guns for protection.
But for Fischer, this story does nothing but demonstrate Obama's "sneering contempt for everybody in middle America; it is condescending, it is patronizing, it's insulting" because Obama is basically saying that "Iowa is some kind of third world country" and a murderous hell hole: