C3

Buster Wilson Claims Gays in the Boy Scouts Will Lead to Abuse, Death and the Destruction of America

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson is a B-list version of Bryan Fischer, but he does a good impersonation in his latest rant against the Boy Scouts of America for considering a change in their ban on gay members. Wilson claims that gay men sometimes have “as many as a hundred or more partners” and will put Boy Scouts in “compromising” situations. He even argues that a ban on gay scouts is a good thing because excluding them will prevent them from being bullied and contemplating suicide:

There is no mistaking the fact that homosexuals are known, by their own admission, to have multiple sexual partners, sometimes as many as a hundred or more partners. Shocking, I know! But you see we make a dreadful mistake when we think of the homosexual relationship in the same vein as we would think of the average heterosexual relationship. They are not the same and they do not function the same.

I know that all homosexuals are not pedophiles. But, are you willing to take a chance with the life of your son that a homosexual that has been placed in the position of a Scout Leader, will not, will never put your son in a compromising situation? Really? If you do, you’ve redefined “faith” in a whole new way for me. The Scout oath requires a Scout to commit to “God and Country” to be “morally straight.” I don’t see how a Scout could ever make an oath before God to be morally straight when he has submitted himself to be led, trained, educated and modeled after one whom God has already described as immoral.

The gay community is very concerned about gay children being bullied and wrestling with suicide. I am dreadfully worried about those issues as well. No one, including me wants a child to be bullied and certainly we would never want a child to wrestle with much less choose suicide. But what could happen when you place a gay kid in a group of straight kids in a closed environment such as Scouting: is there not an increased worry of bullying and rejection that might cause a child to think of suicide?

Wilson makes it quite clear that he believes gay Scout leaders will molest children:

Imagine with me a troop of young boys, ranging in ages from 12-16. These young boys are going to be out in the woods, away from their parents. Not just away from their parents but away from any contact with their parents. Back in my day, there were no cell phones. And today, most camps sites are out cell range.

They would be out in the woods for 2-4 days, nights, depending on what time of the year it was. They will sleep in pairs or threes, in sleeping bags, in tents or out in the open. They will shower and wash in the creeks or lakes that outline their camp site. It would be nothing for boys to wonder about with their shirts off, or sometimes just in their underwear or swim suit because they had just been to the latrine or to the swimming hole. These will all be under the direction of the Scout leader who led them there.

Now, you could say that I am setting up a scenario that is just my own. That there are no reports of the kind of activities that my evil mind is conjuring up, that our homosexual friends want nothing more than to lead these young men to maturity and personal growth and I’m evil for believing that such horrible thoughts could actually become reality. But then, I would refer you again, to my friend Bryan Fischer’s latest article where he reminds us all of the Jerry Sandusky story.

Seeing that Sandusky is married to a woman, he would not have been barred by the BSA’s current ban on gays.

He goes on to argue that children will be “challenged” and “compromised” by gay Scouts as they will not “be safe in that environment.” After smearing gays as child molesters, Wilson naturally accuses gay people of trying to “denigrate” and “smear” others.

There will be multiple occasions for them to be out in the woods alone—without you mommy and dad, without any way to get a hold of you mom and dad—and you’re going to send them out there in the woods with a man who is an avowed homosexual? You really have safe that they are not going to be challenged or compromised? Then I say you have a faith that redefines the whole issue of faith as far as I’m concerned. How you would ever believe that your child would be safe in that environment. And why the Boy Scouts are doing this? I can tell you why they’re doing it. They’re doing it for the same reason that every other organization or area of American life would succumb to the demands of the homosexual lobby: they’re doing it because of political correctness and they’re doing it because of the Alinsky-style opposition that is in place, if you oppose homosexuality they will mock you, they will denigrate you. They will belittle you, they will smear you and talk about you being intolerant and unloving and un-Christ-like. If you are a Christian organization they will call you a hate group.

Wilson even warns that if the U.S. continues to “succumb to the pressure of political correctness from the forces on the side of the homosexual agenda,” then God may “rain down destruction” on America as he did to Sodom:

There’s also this level of understanding this as a bad decision spiritually. I’m a Bible-believer, I’m a Christian and I think many people who listen to this program are and in our Bible we see God rain down destruction on an entire city and people group because of the wickedness of homosexuality. I don’t want to continue to see every area of life in America succumb to the pressure of political correctness from the forces on the side of the homosexual agenda. I am worried about what God will do with this nation if we are not careful.

Schlafly Says 'Feminist Ideology' Unfairly Blames Men for Sexual Assaults

As the Obama administration continues to be a complete nightmare for antifeminist activist Phyllis Schlafly, the Eagle Forum president is out with a new column attacking Defense Secretary Leon Panetta over his decision to end the ban on women in combat. She claims the policy shift is “lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists” and even makes a bogus analogy to the NFL.

Schlafly said that the rate of sexual assaults “will skyrocket” if the ban is removed and also attacked the “feminist ideology” for blaming men for such incidents: “Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims.”

In a newsworthy act of political cowardice, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ran through the Pentagon’s exit door as he announced he is striking down the 1994 Combat Exclusion Law. His timing means his successor, presumably Chuck Hagel, will inherit the task of defending the order to assign women to front-line military combat.

Of course, Panetta doesn’t want to be grilled about his order. It’s lacking in common sense and it is toadying to the feminist officers who yearn to be 3- and 4-star generals based on the feminist dogma of gender interchangeability and on their desire to force men into situations to be commanded by feminists.



Military women are already complaining about increased sexual assaults, and of course those problems will skyrocket. Only men will be deemed at fault because it is feminist ideology that men are innately batterers and women are victims. [emphasis added]



How do you answer the fact that women do not have an equal opportunity to survive in combat situations, and did you consider the fact that women in the military get injured at least twice the rate of men? Please explain why the National Football League does not seek diversity or gender equality with female players.



A lot of people have a very sanitized view of what battlefield fighting is all about. They seem to think it means a quick gunfight and then returning to the base with separate shower and toilet facilities and a ready mess hall.

Donnelly: 'Lives Are Lost' if Military Drops Women in Combat Ban

The last few years have been tough on Elaine Donnelly, as the Phyllis Schlafly protégé appears to have lost the battle over her group’s two main priorities: maintaining the ban on openly gay service members and excluding women from combat positions. Donnelly, the head of the Center for Military Readiness, appeared on Secure Freedom Radio last week with Frank Gaffney to demand that Congress intervene and block the Obama administration from permitting women to serve in combat.

She predicted that “lives are lost” if women have the opportunity to serve in such units, which she arged would make the military’s mission “more difficult [and] more dangerous.” “This is the political agenda of the President,” Donnelly said, “we see the outgoing Secretary of Defense planting on the Pentagon the flag of feminism right next to the LGBT gay activist flag.”

Gaffney: What does it mean for the war fighting capabilities of the United States that we are relaxing the standards or we are enabling people who will not be able to meet them to get access to and become part of the military cadre?

Donnelly: When you complicate matters in infantry battalions you make life and missions there more difficult, more dangerous, bottom line: lives are lost. There is no excuse for doing this. We know that women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men and it’s been that way for decades. This is the political agenda of the President that is being imposed on the one institution or the one organization that he can order as Commander-in-Chief and everybody has to salute and make it work. That includes the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they are going along with this even though they have not disclosed the results of the marine tests. Now if the marine tests supported the goal of women being in the infantry, don’t you think we would’ve heard about it by now? Instead, we see the outgoing Secretary of Defense planting on the Pentagon the flag of feminism right next to the LGBT gay activist flag. These people are in charge of the Pentagon unless Congress intervenes and Congress has the responsibility to intervene. Under the Constitution, Congress makes policy, not the President, not the Joint Chiefs and certainly the field commanders who will have to implement these diversity metrics in order to get promoted.

PFAWF’s Young People For Program Welcomes More Than 115 Student Leaders at Annual Summit

This weekend People For the American Way Foundation’s Young People For Program held its 2013 National Summit in Washington, DC.  Attended by 117 young leaders from 64 different universities, this year’s Summit – “Creating Change that Lasts” – was a smashing success. 

Student leaders attended workshops on topics ranging from budgeting to media outreach to succession planning. In addition to the 2013 student leaders, nearly fifty alumni from past years returned to support the weekend’s events.  Presidential Medal of Freedom award recipient Dolores Huerta, women's rights advocate Sandra Fluke, and associate director of the White House Office of Public Engagement Ronnie Cho all joined as guest speakers.
 

PFAW Foundation

Religious Right Activists Warn of Pedophilia if Boy Scouts Open Doors to Gay Members

After news reports came out today that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may drop its national policy banning openly gay members in favor of “passing any decisions on gay membership to the local level,” outrage among Religious Right activists has just begun.

For example, American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer suggested the move would allow Jerry Sandusky-like pedophiles to become troop leaders:

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd followed suit.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which launched a boycott of UPS after the company stopped donating to the BSA for failing to meet its non-discrimination guidelines, said that the inclusion of openly gay members undermines “the well-being of the boys under their care”:

"The Boy Scouts of America board would be making a serious mistake to bow to the strong-arm tactics of LGBT activists and open the organization to homosexuality. What has changed in terms of the Boy Scouts' concern for the well-being of the boys under their care? Or is this not about the well-being of the Scouts, but the funding for the organization?

"The Boy Scouts has for decades been a force for moral integrity and leadership in the United States. Sadly, their principled stances have marked them as a target for harassment by homosexual activists and corporations such as UPS which are working to pressure the Boy Scouts into abandoning their historic values.

"The mission of the Boy Scouts is 'to instill values in young people' and 'prepare them to make ethical choices,' and the Scout's oath includes a pledge 'to do my duty to God' and keep himself 'morally straight.' It is entirely reasonable and not at all unusual for those passages to be interpreted as requiring abstinence from homosexual conduct.

"If the board capitulates to the bullying of homosexual activists, the Boy Scouts' legacy of producing great leaders will become yet another casualty of moral compromise. The Boy Scouts should stand firm in their timeless values and respect the right of parents to discuss these sexual topics with their children," concluded Perkins.

In an email to members, Perkins claimed that any policy change would have “devastating” consequences:

A departure from their long-held policies would be devastating to an organization that has prided itself on the development of character in boys. In fact, according to a recent Gallup survey, only 42 percent of Americans support changing the policy to allow homosexual scout leaders.

As the BSA board meets next week, it is crucial that they hear from those who stand with them and their current policy regarding homosexuality. Please call the Boy Scouts of America at 972-580-2000 and tell them that you want to see the organization stand firm in its moral values and respect the right of parents to discuss these sexual topics with their children.

The Christian Post, whose editor Richard Land leads the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm, interviewed a top Southern Baptist who said the potential shift in policy “boggles the mind.”

A source who has knowledge of the situation told The Christian Post last week that the BSA's top executives had met with top leaders at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention, among others, over the last few weeks to inform them of the possibility of this policy shift.



"It boggles my mind to think the BSA would make such a move," said an executive in the Southern Baptist Convention who asked not to be identified. "If they have counted the cost of this decision in terms of relationships and numbers, then I believe they have miscalculated that cost."

Porter: Obama 'Criminalizing' Opposition to Gay Rights

Before the passage of the 2009 Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Janet Porter of Faith 2 Action predicted that the hate crimes legislation would “send pastors to prison” and give legal protections to pedophiles. Of course, pastors haven’t been sent to prison and pedophilia wasn’t legalized, but that hasn’t stopped Porter from repeating even more false claims. Today on her radio bulletin, she asserted that President Obama is “declaring war against those who refuse to accept and affirm” the so-called “homosexual agenda” and is bent on “criminalizing dissent.”

Forcing acceptance of homosexuality.

If there’s one thing that President Obama made clear in his second inaugural address, it’s this. To a nation dealing with high unemployment and debts that threaten to crush everyone, he is committed to pushing the homosexual agenda forward and is declaring war against those who refuse to accept and affirm it.

After putting homosexuals who battled a police raid on a homosexual bar in the same category as those who fought for civil and women’s rights, Obama said “our battle is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”

Sounds nice, but like the pastor who was pushed out of praying at the inauguration for a sermon on homosexuality he gave twenty years ago, this agenda is really about silencing and criminalizing dissent.

Arizona Republicans Propose Anti-Evolution Education Bill

A group of Arizona Republicans are out with a new bill to undermine the teaching of evolution and subjects such as climate change and cloning in the classroom. The National Center for Science Education called the legislation another “instance of the ‘academic freedom’ strategy for undermining the teaching of evolution and climate change.”

The proposed “teach the controversy” bill is a stealthy attack on evolution as it tries to make science classes give equal weight to nonscientific beliefs and theologies. It’s the equivalent of including claims made by the Flat Earth Society in a geology class, all for the sake of “balance.”

A. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS, SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARDS, SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS, SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS SHALL ENDEAVOR TO:

1. CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT IN SCHOOLS THAT ENCOURAGES PUPILS TO EXPLORE SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS, LEARN ABOUT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, DEVELOP CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS AND RESPOND APPROPRIATELY AND RESPECTFULLY TO DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES.

2. ASSIST TEACHERS TO FIND EFFECTIVE WAYS TO PRESENT THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM AS IT ADDRESSES SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES. TEACHERS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO HELP PUPILS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE AND REVIEW IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND SCIENTIFIC WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COVERED IN THE COURSE BEING TAUGHT.

B. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, COUNTY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS, SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARDS, SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS, SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS SHALL NOT PROHIBIT ANY TEACHER IN THIS STATE FROM HELPING PUPILS UNDERSTAND, ANALYZE, CRITIQUE AND REVIEW IN AN OBJECTIVE MANNER THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING SCIENTIFIC THEORIES COVERED IN THE COURSE BEING TAUGHT.

C. THIS SECTION PROTECTS ONLY THE TEACHING OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AND DOES NOT PROMOTE ANY RELIGIOUS OR NONRELIGIOUS DOCTRINE, PROMOTE DISCRIMINATION FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR SET OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR NONBELIEFS OR PROMOTE DISCRIMINATION FOR OR AGAINST RELIGION OR NONRELIGION.

Sec. 2. Intent

The legislature finds and declares that:

1. An important purpose of science education is to inform students about scientific evidence and to help students develop critical thinking skills necessary to becoming intelligent, productive and scientifically informed citizens.

2. The teaching of some scientific subjects, including biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning, can cause controversy.

3. Some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information on such subjects.

The Dangers of Getting a PhD in History From David Barton University

Recently, Georgia state Senator Barry Loudermilk appeared on TBN's "Praise the Lord" where he made the rather familiar argument that the Founding Fathers took the concepts of the separation of powers and the three branches of government directly out of the Bible.

Claiming that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington all directly cited the Bible as justification for these concepts, Loudermilk asserted that Jeremiah 17:9's claim that "the heart is devious above all else" made the Founder realize the need to divide power among various branches of government, which they took directly from Isaiah 33:22's declaration that "the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our ruler, the Lord is our king":

If that argument seems familiar, it is because it came directly from David Barton, who has made the baseless assertion time and time and time again:

It is untrue every time Barton says it and is equally untrue when Loudermilk mindlessly repeats it.

Joyner: Gun Control is Pushing Nation Toward a 'Second American Revolution'

On the most recent episode of "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events," Rick Joyner was discussing the shooting at Sandy Hook, which he claimed was the result of demonic possession, when he warned that the shooting was going to lead to an attempt by the government to confiscate weapons, which would in turn lead to a "second American revolution."

Joyner claimed that the modern-day prophets have received several "trustworthy revelations that were warnings from above" that "we are facing, right now, the break-up of our country and it is much closer than almost anybody is talking about": 

Erik Rush: Obama Emulating Stalin to Pursue his 'Totalitarian End Game'

Conservative writer Erik Rush writes today that President Obama’s press conference on gun violence was actually a way to distract the public so he could confiscate guns, provoke “civil unrest,” and train the military to kill U.S. citizens in order to justify “his move of declaring martial law” and to pursue his “totalitarian end game.” He claims Obama wants to copy “Mao, Lenin , Stalin and Castro – men who murdered hundreds of millions in their ascent to total dominion over their respective nations,” and establish a dictatorship.

In an earlier life – the one the press refuses to report – Obama summarily declared that he believed Americans should not own guns. That declaration seems to have been forgotten by some who are attributing to Mr. Obama scruples, morals, and decency that he does not possess – not to mention his demonstrated disregard for the Constitution of the United States in general. Reasonableness is what the American public generally displays and expects in return.

I’m sorry to burst the bubble here, but that is not what is happening on the Obama side of that ledger. Lies, obfuscation, the sweet smile, the demonization or marginalization of those who uphold the Second Amendment, assurances of faithfulness to the Constitution and a love for the children are merely diversionary precursors to his totalitarian end game. All are bogus, all staging and melodrama for the cameras.

Tyranny is coming in America, despite the fact that more than half of her citizens are too deluded, arrogant, or stupid to see it. If Obama’s policy processes continue unchecked, America will experience cataclysmic civil unrest; again, unfathomable to most Americans, this is precisely what Obama intends.



Has he ever followed through on conducting an open and honest discussion with the American people about anything? So we have our answer.

A second question might be this: Do you believe that the President will alter his long-standing belief that no American should own a gun after this discussion is over? The third and final question, assuming the answers to the first two questions are “no,” is Might the training of American military and police in guerilla warfare techniques coupled with manuals in the “How to” of gun confiscation be an indicator of where this “discussion” is really going?

If the answer to that one is “yes,” then have Americans just been convinced into thinking that the President is “open” to changing his thinking, and is “transparent” enough not to have a hidden agenda?

Obama, with the eager cooperation of the American press and the anti-gun lobby, are creating the perception of Second Amendment proponents as manifestly evil. Not misguided, not wrong – but evil. As such, he will set the stage for all “reasonable” Americans to support the wholesale dismantling of the Second Amendment, and if this means wholesale firearms confiscation and the bloodshed to which this will no doubt give rise, so much the better. This will give him legitimacy in his move of declaring martial law – in fact, he will have “no choice,” so it will appear.

This will be, as we’ve seen in so many other nations, the move across the threshold into totalitarian rule. We must never forget that this is a person who grew up studying and admiring Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro – men who murdered hundreds of millions in their ascent to total dominion over their respective nations. Just this week, it was reported that a former senior military staffer revealed Obama’s new litmus test for top military brass: Can they give the order to fire on American citizens?

Five Questions Fox News Sunday Should Ask Jerry Boykin

Fox News Sunday announced today that it will host Family Research Council vice president and anti-Muslim activist Jerry Boykin on this weekend’s program.

The last time Boykin appeared on Fox News, Megyn Kelly confronted him about his extremism, asking him about his statement that the U.S. should ban mosques. Boykin, now the vice president of the Family Research Council, tried to backtrack on the statement he made on Bryan Fischer’s radio show that there should be “no mosques in America” by arguing that he only was referring to the “Ground Zero mosque,” even though his interview with Fischer had nothing to do with it.

This weekend, we hope Chris Wallace will also take the opportunity to ask Boykin about his extremist views:

  1. Do you still believe that Islam “should not be protected under the First Amendment”?
  2. How soon will women in the U.S. “be wearing burkas” under the force of law?
  3. What evidence do you have that President Obama is a Communist who is creating a Hitler-style Brownshirt army to “control the population in America”?
  4. Do you still believe that America is under the control of a George Soros-linked “cabal” intent on creating a “global” and “Marxist government”?
  5. Can you explain your view that American Jews don’t properly understand Adolf Hitler?

If Boykin wants to be treated as a credible voice on a Sunday show, maybe he should start by explaining just a few of his radical allegations.

Fischer Warns of a 'Complete Sexual Meltdown' and the 'Reinstatement of the Draft' over Women in Combat Policy

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is now recycling the exact same talking points against allowing women the opportunity to serve in combat that he used opposing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT).

While none of the dire predictions Fischer warned about regarding the end of DADT ever materialized, Fischer made similar warnings while speaking yesterday with Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Like with the DADT’s repeal, Fischer predicted that the policy will undermine readiness, cohesion, security and performance, possibly leading “to a reinstatement of the draft.”

While Donnelly avoided Fischer’s question about reinstating the draft, she claimed that women will now have to register in the selective service system and said the policy will “harm women, men, infantry battalions and the national security of the United States.”

Donnelly said that sexual assaults may increase because male soldiers will resent the easier “double standards” for women, warning that now the whole military will “fall apart.”

Fischer: There’s also the issue of sexual tension and sexual misconduct, the potential for that is going to be introduced.

Donnelly: If you want to make that even worse than what we’re seeing now, and the rates keep going up and up it’s getting worse and worse, put women into direct combat units, adjust the standards to make it work and then just sit back and watch everything fall apart because double standards are so corrosive to morale. It increases resentment, resentment leads to sexual harassment, assaults or worse, this is a poisonous kind of atmosphere.

Later, Fischer warned of a “complete sexual meltdown” occurring due to “predatory women” trying to sleep with officers, citing CIA head David Petraeus’s affair with a reporter.

But a caller insisted that maybe the Obama administration decided to end prohibitions on women and openly gay service members so they can share foxholes together, an idea Fischer loved: “Just put your predatory females in the same foxhole with a flaming homosexual and nothing is going to happen.”

Fischer: I just think having women in uniform is just a bad idea and here we are seeing one of the reasons. You have got subordinates serving powerful supervisors, you’ve got predatory women, it’s just a recipe for complete sexual meltdown and that’s why we are seeing General Petreaus being a key example of that.

Let’s go to Lee, Bluefield, Virginia.

Caller: I’m gonna have to do something I thought I would never do. I am going to have to give President Obama credit for having a long-range strategy because I just realized why he wanted soldiers to be able to serve in the military and be openly gay, because when it comes time to share a foxhole he will put the openly gay soldiers in the foxhole with the women and that way they’ll both be safe.

Fischer: So Lee’s saying this is a brilliant strategy on the part of President Obama to eliminate sexual tension in the military. Just put your predatory females in the same foxhole with a flaming homosexual and nothing is going to happen. There won’t be any sexual misconduct. That’s President Obama thinking outside the box.

Conservative Radio Hosts Parse Feminists: Some are 'Cute,' Some are 'Ugly,' All are 'Family-Destroying Whores'

Christian conservative radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner are not exactly big fans of feminism in any of its forms. So far this month, they have opined that a woman fired for being too attractive shouldn’t have been working for a man who wasn’t her husband in the first place; that “socialist” single women are taking over America; and that Sandra Fluke isn’t “ladylike” enough to be considered for Woman of the Year.

On Tuesday’s edition of Generations Radio, Swanson and Buehner sat down in Swanson’s basement studio to discuss a report they came across that claims “rising college costs are driving a new trend called ‘Sugar Daddies.’” This led to a wide-ranging discussion of the scourge of women’s independence and a new unified theory of feminism.

There are “two forms of feminism,” Buehner argued. There are “cute” feminists like Sarah Palin who will find jobs in the “marketplace” and “get themselves a husband” but  will “never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.” Then, there are the “ugly” feminists whose “lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace.” These “attractively challenged” feminists will only find careers in academia and in government agencies, for instance, “you can run the EPA.”

What all these feminists have in common, Swanson argues, is that “all of them want to be free from the family” and together with “the homosexuals” are “destroying society.” Buehner speculates that in the future, feminism will be remembered as “a time in which women lost the love of their children” and “decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.”


Swanson: Now remember, the goal is that these women have to be independent. The goal is lots and lots of birth control. The goal is lots and lots and lots of fornication. The goal is abortion. The day-after pill will help. And it will help a lot. Remember, the goal is to get that girl a job because she needs no stinkin’ husband, she’s got the fascist corporation and government-mandated insurance programs and socialist welfare that will take care of her womb to tomb. Who needs a cotton-pickin’ husband? Who needs a family? That’s pretty much the worldview that’s dominating, my friends. That’s what the college is all about.

Buehner: Because her feminist professors have told her her husband will abuse her, she will be like a slave to him. Instead she will just go to the slave market and sell herself, at least sell her body, to the highest bidder. See, that’s much, much better!

Swanson: And Dave, you talk about the two kinds of feminists now, this is your new division, you say there’s two kinds of feminists.

Buehner: There are.

Swanson: All of them want to be free from the family. They want to be free from the husband. Who needs a stinkin’ husband? Who wants to be submitting to a husband and find security in the family when she can find security in the state or a sugar daddy for the four years that she needs to get through college?

Buehner: Right. Actually, you’re talking about perhaps even a third stream of feminism. There’s the Sarah Palin kind of feminism that wants to have a husband, just not one to submit to. And she still wants to..

Swanson: But talk about the two forms of feminism you see that are rising today.

Buehner: Right, there are two forms of feminism, and it actually has to do with a division of how attractive a woman is. So, you have the group that is very attractive, they’re in the sororities, they’re gonna be in the beauty contests. They’re actually going to get the good jobs. They’re going to leverage their attractiveness in the marketplace because it has a market value. Marketing. It helps market who you are. They’re going to proceed, now they will probably some of them become the Sarah Palin-style feminists, they’ll get themselves a husband, but they’ll never be dependent on the husband, they’ll never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.

Swanson: Okay, so you have the cute feminists.

Buehner: Right, you have the good-looking ones.

Swanson: Well, who are the others?

Buehner: Well, the other ones are those who we should say are, um, attractive-deficient. And they have not been…

Swanson: That’s nicely put. Attractively challenged.

Buehner: Attractively challenged. Optically challenged. These are the kinds that will look for careers mostly likely in academia.

Swanson: Now, just to say, they’re ugly. They’re the feminazis that Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to.

Buehner: Right, right, and they’re generally very angry about it because their attractive…or their lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace. So they can get jobs…

Swanson: And they’re certainly not going to get a lot of power sexually.

Buehner: No, but they can get jobs in the government bureaucracy, they can work as an FDA administrator, or you can actually run the EPA if you want, or academia. Academia’s actually the best place because you can be angry, ugly and you can also get tenure. It’s great, it’s the big trifecta.

Swanson: You’re gonna make some people mad about what you’ve just said. There will be some very angry feminists.

Buehner: You mean there will be angrier angry feminists.

Swanson: Angrier angry feminists are gonna come at you for what you just said, and probably from our listening audience, because if we tick anybody off we’re ticking two different folks off, the feminists and the homosexuals, they can’t stand this kind of stuff.

Buehner: Neither one of them have a high regard for the family or for the Word of God.

Swanson: That’s true, yeah, you’re right, you’re right, you’re right. And they’re the ones who are destroying society.

Buehner: The systems we are living in are coming down before our very eyes, the fiat currency won’t last, the corporate economies, they’re going to collapse. What’s going to last will be those who go back to a biblical worldview. I believe history will go back to this period of time and will look at feminism and say there was a time in which women lost the love of their children. They no longer cared about having children, they no longer loved their children, they no longer loved their husbands, where for all of history women very much cared about protecting the family. Now they only cared about themselves. They were riled up into a froth about how they were victims of society, patriarchal society, and they decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.

Spero: Language Has a Liberal Bias

Rabbi Aryeh Spero is out with a column in WorldNetDaily lamenting that “we have allowed the political left to hijack and corrupt the moral language” by distorting the “religious and classic meaning” of words like equality and justice. Naturally, Spero twists President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark to build his case that liberals have warped language as part of their supposedly anti-American and socialist agenda.

Mr. Obama’s “moral” narrative during this last election was encapsulated in “You didn’t build that,” a communitarian notion that minimizes the efforts and risk inherent in entrepreneurship. Instead of making the moral case for personal responsibility and capitalism, Mr. Romney focused on the details of his tax and deductions plan and separated himself from Mr. Obama regarding X billions for Medicare Part B. Such may be appropriate when delivering the annual balance sheet to a board of directors or to members of think tanks titillated by arcana, but it falls far short of the moral and personal language that touches the hearts of individuals and makes them feel part of a grand and uplifting cause.

It has been quite a while since Republicans chose a candidate unabashedly confident in announcing the morality inherent in Americanism, to wit: the right of the individual over the group, meritocracy, personal responsibility and accountability, free markets, the need to fight evil and a moral clarity that eschews moral relativism. These attributes reflect our historic Judeo-Christian ethos – our American civic heritage. These virtues constitute what many call American exceptionalism, a value system minimized and often rejected by Mr. Obama and those on the left.



Though all men are created equal, the equality to which they are entitled is not the provision of equal material goods but, as the Bible states, equal justice under the law. The Bible, Aristotle and our Founding Fathers had a completely different moral vision than that of the French social-engineering theorists and its concomitant, socialism and the welfare state. Though touted as moral, socialism is but a political paradigm, giving control to the state and those who operate it. It curtails liberty and induces and encourages dependency under the notion of entitlement.

Worse, it spawns an ever-growing segment of the population chasing the brass ring of victimology. It weakens and infantilizes the individual and subverts the biblical aspiration that humans become strong, independent and productive. The left peddles victimhood and entitlement under “social justice.” It is, rather, the actualization of socialism and a ruling class sitting atop a dependency class looking to it for eternal support. The Almighty’s goal for us is, in contrast, not dependency but robust autonomy.



A nation drained by socialist entitlements is a nation incapable of funding its own defense and protection of citizens. Self-defense and preparedness is a biblical and moral imperative. It preserves innocent life, the foremost responsibility of government.



We have allowed the political left to hijack and corrupt the moral language, terms such as compassion, fairness, tolerance, love, social justice, greed, peace. Let 2013 be the start of an era in which we take the language back and infuse it with its original religious and classic meaning. That is my goal in “Push Back: Reclaiming our American Judeo-Christian Spirit.” We need once again to own our historic moral vocabulary. The rekindling of our conservative moral language will not only ameliorate individual character but is also good politics.

Wisconsin Lawmaker Suggests Planned Parenthood Is Targeting Asian Americans for Abortion

In an interview yesterday, Wisconsin Republican state senator Glenn Grothman suggested that Planned Parenthood is promoting sex-selective abortions to Asian Americans. While speaking to Jim Schneider of Voice of Christian Youth America, Grothman called Planned Parenthood “the most racist organization” in the country and speculated that Planned Parenthood is “aggressively promoting this stuff [sex-selective abortion] among people with an Asian background.”

Watch:

Grothman: Given the racist background of Planned Parenthood and not liking people who are not white, I wonder if one of the reasons why Planned Parenthood likes to do these sex-selective abortions is disproportionately they are done on people of an Asian background. Let’s face it; we all know Planned Parenthood’s background, very racist, probably the most racist organization—

Schneider: They specialize in putting their centers in minority neighborhoods.

Grothman: We know the historic comments of Margaret Sanger. It’s something that concerns me a little because I wonder given their racism the degree to which Planned Parenthood is aggressively promoting this stuff among people with an Asian background and I sure hope the state legislature takes a role and puts an end to it, at least in the state of Wisconsin.

Grothman has previously claimed that single moms deliberately lie about their pregnancies and voted against a bill providing survivors of sexual assault emergency contraception. Planned Parenthood has already condemned sex-selective abortions but many anti-choice activists have argued, without much evidence, that such abortions are a “growing problem” in the U.S.

If You Could Refrigerate Homosexuality, It Wouldn't Be A Sin

Last week, Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality hosted Oklahoma pastor James Taylor (no, not the musician) to discuss a summit they attended about health care and the LGBT community. They were upset about a pamphlet handed out at the conference which compared the Old Testament’s prohibition of homosexuality to its rules against eating certain foods, both of which are categorized as “abominations” in Leviticus.

Taylor said that thanks to “refrigeration” it is no longer a sin to eat foods like pork or shellfish, while since there is no equivalent to refrigeration for homosexuality, it remains a sin. He claimed the people who are really trying to “pick and choose” biblical principles are gay-affirming Christians.

LaBarbera: The first thing on the pink sheet says, it takes Leviticus 18:22, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination,’ Leviticus 20:13, ‘If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they should be put to death.’ The analysis put forth by this Kathy McCallie of the Church of the Open Arms said that ‘these verses are part of a law code listing this that are forbidden, however, according to Leviticus it is also sinful to eat pork, shrimp, clams or oysters, these texts cannot be used to condemn homosexual behavior unless one is prepared to condemn all these behaviors.’ So they are trying to mix that in, comment on that James.

Taylor: There’s a couple problems with that. Some things are cultural and there are also some things that have happened now in terms of refrigeration and health concerns and those are some of those things that are there. But the reality is it doesn’t change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across. So that’s the problem, they want to pick and choose what they want to have and then to dismiss it as this isn’t what the Bible says, it’s foolishness.

LaBarbera also criticized the conference for engaging in smoking and drug abuse prevention work while also “promoting homosexuality and even gender confusion.”

LaBarbera: How ironic that a conference that’s supposed to be about substance abuse actually promoted a behavior which leads to disease.

Taylor: It promoted criminal behavior and they were given false information about the reliability of condoms.

LaBarbera: I was walking around at that conference and I remember a table, I took a picture of it, with a bunch of pamphlets about smoking. It’s just bizarre to see them all concerned about preventing smoking because that’s dangerous and yet they are promoting homosexuality and even gender confusion, promoting these awful sex changes where the body is mutilated to become something you cannot be, the other sex.

Taylor said that gays and lesbians should expect to face “resistance” over their “choice” to “live that lifestyle,” while LaBarbera commended “ex-gays” like DL Foster for showing that homosexuality is “changeable.”

Taylor: If you want to be that type of—live that lifestyle, that’s your choice. If you are going to swim upstream, you better expect there to be some resistance. If you are going against what is the norm per se, there’s going to be some type of resistance.

LaBarbera: I just find it fascinating and I know it makes homosexual activists nervous because, and a lot of them will say ‘no it’s not really analogous,’ but the underlying assumption is that we have something to be ashamed of and we don’t. Homosexual behavior is wrong, it’s changeable, we know that, there are many people, people like DL Foster, now here’s a black man who can never change his skin color but the changed his homosexual behavior.

Erik Rush Warns We Will All Soon 'Bow to Communist Overlords'

It can’t be easy, but conservative commentator Erik Rush is still finding ways to out-crazy himself. Rush has previously contended that President Obama is staging massacres like Sandy Hook, stoking gun violence and inciting civil unrest in order to secretly murder gun owners, put Americans in concentration camps, implement martial law, cancel the next elections and hand over power to China.

In his latest column for WorldNetDaily, Rush details a new theory that Obama is purging the military leadership in order to make it easier for him to murder U.S. citizens as part of a communist autocoup. Rush then ends his screed by lamenting that no one is taking him seriously.

Americans have lived in relative safety and comfort for a very long time. It has been nearly 70 years since the nation operated in a modality that was geared toward its very survival, such as in the two World Wars. None of the military escapades in which we’ve since engaged possessed the gravity of those, and economically we have not suffered a calamity since the Great Depression matching that period.

Other nations cannot say the same. There are developed nations on the globe that can account for 100 million people having been murdered by their governments or in civil wars within the same 70 years. In undeveloped nations, the history is even bloodier and more bizarre, particularly if you include starvation deaths.

There are those in America who believe that the United States is long overdue for such upheaval, even deserving of same. In the 1960s and 1970s, radicals like President Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades plotted America’s downfall, toying with estimations of how many millions of Americans they would have to kill to adequately pacify those remaining. This is not hearsay; it is a matter of public record. This methodology is boilerplate Marxism, in which Obama and key members of his Cabinet are well-versed, despite the benevolent representation of them maintained by the press.



The questions remain: How, then, is America’s karmic comeuppance to come about, and by what manner do Marxist operatives in our government intend to pacify those patriots who won’t bow to communist overlords?

As indicated, China will have a role to play, under the pretext of trade and debt satisfaction. Disarming the populace is also an integral part of the plan, which is why efforts to neutralize the Second Amendment are in play. Naturally, it will be far easier for a well-armed contingent of trained Chinese military scattered about the country to suppress an unarmed citizenry. China definitely has the personnel to spare, and some of the aforementioned Chinese companies reportedly have airfields on their campuses. I kid you not.

But infiltrators from Communist China certainly won’t be the only problem. As one may have noticed, Obama has also taken great pains to cull certain high-ranking American military leaders. While this may appear to be business as usual, I have good reason to believe that some have been released due to their disagreement with the administration over new policies of domestic engagement.

A number of orchestrated catastrophic catalysts intended to move the program into its next and most accursed phase remain on the table. Any of these would ignite full-blown domestic unrest.

What I’ve described would, of course, make Obama a veritable devil behind the most elaborate mask ever devised. It is altogether possible that history will regard him in precisely that way, barring his wholesale success in manifesting these designs, in which case he will be revered as America’s founders were once upon a time, or perhaps at the level of a religious figure.

Personally, I have counted Obama as a devil for a long time. I was fortunate enough to have commenced my study of him before most, and I can find few things more contemptible than his being able to look America in the eye (as it were) and quote the founders as well as Scripture, having done what he has done – not to mention what he has in store.

While the scenario I relate remains incomprehensible even to a goodly number of Obama detractors, the direct and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Logically, it just isn’t that difficult to surmise that someone who grew up infused with a hatred for America and admiring history’s greatest serial murderers, and who is a malignant narcissist himself, might perceive it as his destiny to outdo them all.

PFAW Foundation Submits Amicus Brief in Critical Voting Rights Case

Yesterday, People For the American Way Foundation , on behalf of its Young People For program, joined with Demos and several other civil rights groups to submit an amicus brief to the Supreme Court urging it to reject a new requirement in Arizona that requires people to show certain documents proving citizenship when they register to vote. As Demos explains in its press release about the brief, this requirement could severely hamper grassroots voter registration efforts:

The brief filed today details the real-world negative impact that Arizona’s extreme documentation requirements have on the ability of community-based voter registration organizations to register eligible citizens to vote, particularly through registration drives.  Proposition 200 requires that a potential registrant produce a post-1996 Arizona driver’s license, a current U.S. passport, a birth certificate, naturalization documents, or selected Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal identification documents.  Many eligible citizens do not possess these narrow forms of documentation required by the law and, of those who do, many  do not carry them while conducting their daily affairs.  Community-based registration efforts overwhelmingly rely on approaching individuals who did not plan in advance to register at that time or location and who are thus unlikely to be carrying a birth certificate, passport, or other documentation.  Even when a potential registrant does happen to be carrying one of the required documents, logistical hurdles—ranging from an inability to copy documents on the spot to an unwillingness to hand over sensitive identification documents to registration drive volunteers—greatly hinder the ability of community-based organizations to register people in Arizona.  In short, community-based voter registration efforts are made more difficult, less effective, and more expensive as a result of Proposition 200’s citizenship documentation requirements.

The case in question, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, is one of two critical voting rights cases that the Supreme Court will hear this year. The Court will also be considering a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states and counties with a history of voting discrimination to get any changes to voting laws pre-cleared by the Justice Department or a federal court before they can go into effect. That law has helped to deflect numerous challenges to voting rights, including in the lead-up to the 2012 election. In fact, the Arizona law at issue in this case is a perfect example of why our federal voting rights protections should be expanded rather than eliminated.

Young People For fellows across the country worked last year to register and get young voters to the polls.

PFAW Foundation

Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Theory

Something truly confounding is happening over at Glenn Beck's studios as he has recently become a crusader warning about the dangers of conspiracy theories despite the fact that his shows are a repository of insane conspiracy theories on an almost daily basis.

In fact, seeing conspiracies everywhere is so ingrained in Beck's worldview that even while attacking conspiracy theories like those involving the Sandy Hook shooting, Beck cannot help but see these conspiracy theories themselves as part of a larger conspiracy designed to distract people from the "real" conspiracies that exist all around them, claiming that it why the White House was constantly pushing the "Birther" conspiracy theory:

Anti-Choice Activist Wants State to Prosecute Women Who Have Abortions

Steve Deace yesterday invited Michael Peroutka, the right-wing activist and 2004 third party candidate for president, onto his radio show for a weekly special with him about the Constitution. Marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Peroutka said that the anti-choice movement should begin to use different and more extreme tactics.

After arguing that Roe doesn’t have any impact on the law because it violates the Bible and merely affected “Jane Roe” alone, he said that local officials should begin prosecuting women for murder if they have an abortion.

For forty years now we’ve been wrapped around the axil spinning our wheels and good people, I mean them no disrespect, trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, trying to get a court or get other justices appointed or blah blah blah, that’s not the answer to Roe v. Wade. The answer to Roe v. Wade is for us as a culture and all the state prosecutors and all the local district and state attorneys to recognize that that’s murder and it was not changed in its category from murder by what the Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade in January 22, 1973, it wasn’t changed a bit. It was murder then, it was murder before then, it is murder now, it always will be murder and it should be prosecuted.

That’s what people like Cal Zastrow and his family, my friend Cal Zatrow, my friend Les Riley and their families in Mississippi are working right now to try to close the last abortion clinic in Mississippi. That’s the approach that I think needs to be taken but in order for that to be taken we as Americans have to know what law is and what law isn’t.

Cal Zastrow is the co-founder of Personhood USA, which seeks to pass blanket bans on abortion and certain forms of birth control in state constitutions, and Les Riley is the head of Personhood Mississippi and the state’s Constitution party. Like Peroutka, Riley has ties to white supremacist and separatist groups. In 2011, Mississippi voters handily defeated the proposed personhood amendment but now the government is trying to close the state’s sole abortion clinic through regulations.

Thanks to RWW reader Matt for the tip.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious