C3

John Kerry Identifies ‘Deluge of Money’ as Threat To U.S. Democracy in Farewell Speech

In his farewell address to the Senate today, newly confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry highlighted three causes of what he called a “dangerous but reversible” decline in our country’s democracy: “the decline of comity, the deluge of money, and the disregard for facts.”

A deluge of money in our democracy, indeed – and often outside, secret money at that.  Twenty one state-by-state reports released this month by People For the American Way Foundation and U.S. PIRG analyzing spending totals from Super PACs, dark money groups, and out-of-state spending in 2012 down-ballot federal races found that on average, a majority of outside election money in these states came from Super PACs.  And in every case, a vast majority came from organizations registered outside of the state. 

John Kerry was right to draw attention to the dangerous influence of money on our democracy.  When big money overwhelms our political system, it is hard to hear the individual voices of everyday Americans.

PFAW Foundation

Tony Perkins Links Military Suicide Rate to the Repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has joined American Family Association’s Buster Wilson in linking the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to the military’s suicide rate. Discussing the Pentagon’s new policy on allowing women to serve in combat units yesterday on his radio program, Perkins said that the Obama administration’s work in “driving Christianity out [and] putting homosexuality in” are “adding additional stress” that leads to a higher rate of suicide.

Perkins cited no evidence to back up his claim, but as with his ominous and incorrect predictions regarding the consequences of DADT’s repeal, he apparently doesn’t see a need to substantiate his outrageous allegations.

Perkins: The volume of these decisions coming out of this administration is unbelievable, unbelievable. The stress in our military, when you look how they have used the military for their social experimentation: driving Christianity out, putting homosexuality in, suicide rate going through the ceiling. I think it was last year if I recall the numbers there were 349 suicides in 2012 and I believe that’s more than were killed in combat, that’s the highest number since the Pentagon began tracking suicides back in 2001. And what are they doing? Adding additional stress by this social engineering. Unbelievable.

Perkins: Boy Scouts Will 'Throw the Door Open' to 'Sexual Predators' if Gay Ban Is Lifted

In an interview yesterday with John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins alleged that the Boy Scouts of America will “throw the door open” to “sexual predators” by lifting their national ban on gay members and will face more child molestation lawsuits as a result. Stemberger warned that Boy Scouts will now have members who “promote this behavior and promote their personal sexuality.”

Perkins: The national board released about 15,000 pages of documentation on sexual predators and what had taken place in the Scouts from 1960-1995. One lawsuit alone cost the Scouts a settlement of about $20 million. Through the litigation the leading attorney who has litigated for the families of what they called the ‘preyed upon children’ estimates that each predator molested up to twenty-five children, roughly 1,900 predators’ names were revealed. This is under the current policy which forbids those who would be inclined to this from coming in, what’s going to happen when they just throw the door open?

Stemberger: The amazing thing really is that right now there are people that have a same-sex attraction involved with scouting but the rule is, kind of similar to the military, you just can’t be open about it. That’s the difference, there are lots of people who just want to live their lives privately—fine—but for those people who want to come out and promote this behavior and promote their personal sexuality, it’s inappropriate. There’s no place for this whatsoever in scouting and it’s just stunning that they are even considering a decision like this because of financial and political pressure.

Perkins: I imagine it’s going to cost them a lot more if they have any lawsuits along the lines of this.

Stemberger maintained that the admission of openly gay members is “insanity” and could “destroy” the Boy Scouts. He even said the “greatest threat” is not gay troop leaders but gay kids. “The greatest threat immediately is going to be not just adults but it’s going to be the kids,” Stemberger told Perkins. “There are so many young people today in high school and public school especially who are acting out homosexuality just because it’s the popular and cool thing, so you’re going to have lots of crazy stuff happening with boys.”

Perkins: Well obviously this news had to be very disappointing not only to you but your sons who have been involved in scouting as well.

Stemberger: It’s extraordinarily disappointing and if they go ahead with this decision next week I think it’s going to have an extraordinary impact, it’s not going to be good. I think you’re going to see a mass exodus, obviously Catholics, Mormons and Southern Baptists are all going to be very concerned about this. I just hope that they do not cave. The greatest threat immediately is going to be not just adults but it’s going to be the kids. There are so many young people today in high school and public school especially who are acting out homosexuality just because it’s the popular and cool thing, so you’re going to have lots of crazy stuff happening with boys. We’ve been through a whole round of problems that the Scouts have had with improper conduct with adults over the years and this just seems insanity to me that they would open the door and allow openly gay leaders and boys to flourish. Even if it is at a local level, so much of what goes on in scouting is not just local, you have district camporees, you have national jamborees, the order of the arrow involves people and summer camps; you know so much of it is working together with a district or a council or the Scouts nationally. So I think it’s a very negative thing which is going to have long-term repercussions which could destroy the entire program itself.

Fischer Cites Todd Akin in Making the Case that the GOP is not 'the Stupid Party'

Last week, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal spoke at a Republican National Committee meeting where he declared that the GOP has got to "stop being the stupid party" and that is not sitting well with Bryan Fischer, who got fired-up over it on today's "Focal Point" broadcast on the grounds that  Jindal was buying into Democratic attacks and helping them brand the GOP in this manner.

And the GOP is not the stupid party, Fischer insisted, because "conservative ideas are not stupid; they are wise, they work, they are strategic, every one of them; conservatism works every single solitary time it is tried, we don't have to apologize for a single solitary conservative idea."

Fischer recognized that sometimes conservatives might "misspeak" on occasion, as Todd Akin did with his infamous "legitimate rape" remark ... but that just proves Fischer's point because Akin was "completely accurate about that," thus demonstrating that "our ideas are not stupid and the people who advocate them are not stupid": 

2012 Election Signaled the 'Communist Takeover of the United States of America'

Thanks to an email alert from Gary Cass, we learned about a radio program called TRUNEWS of which we had been unaware.  Hosted by a man named Rick Wiles, the program has featured a variety of Religious Right activists that we regularly monitor here, including Matt Barber, who appeared on the program the week after President Obama's re-election where he and Wiles lamented that fact that the election results demonstrated that communists had taken over the nation and declared that the scandal involving CIA Director David Petraeus was a Stalin-esque set-up ... while Wiles predicted that Obama's IRS would now start raiding churches and shooting people:

Barber: The party that this man [Obama] represents certainly and this man himself, when you look at his principles, it is a Romans 1 party and this is a Romans 1 president that has adopted all forms of sexual deviant behavior and sin as something good.  You know, Scripture says 'woe to those who call evil good and good evil;' we now have a president and a controlling party in the Senate that calls evil good and good evil and we now have a majority of Americans - at least 51 percent, give or take I don't know how many thousands based on the voter fraud that was pretty clear here - the scales have tipped where a nation has re-elected as their king, if you will, a man who is engaging in abject evil.

Wiles: Matt, the Democratic Party convention booed the mention of God three times. The people have elected a Marxist Muslim who I believe is a revolutionary. Voters in states like Maryland and Washington state [and] Maine endorsed homosexual marriage ... I believe Wisconsin elected an avowed lesbian as a senator.  In Massachusetts they elected a Marxist professor.  Matt, this is a communist takeover of the United States of America.

Barber: Those words are not too strong.  You know, there used to be a time when you used words like 'communism' and 'Marxism' - and of course inherent in the communist ideology and philosophy of Marxism is the demand that all reference to God and religion, particularly the Christian religion, be removed.  We see us heading down that path where Christians under this Marxist president and those in the Democratic Party, we see them pushing Christians to the fringes, trying to marginalize Christians, anybody who speaks the truth of Scripture in a public forum, they want that drummed out completely. And now that this president does not face re-election, I shudder to think of what he might do in terms of trying to silence those who oppose him.

You know, they talk about Chicago-style politics; we're talking about Stalin-esque style politics here and this whole thing with General Petraeus, my first thought - it may very well be that he was engaging in infidelity and all of this, but since when has the mainstream media cared about that?  But my first thought was, wow, this is a set-up, this is as close to Stalinist Russia to try and silence this guy, to try and shut him up when he needs to testify as anything we've seen.  It sent a chill down my spine and no longer are words like 'Marxism' and 'communism' hyperbole, we have reached that time.

...

Wiles: I see pastors going to prison.  I see IRS SWAT teams coming down on churches and shooting people and seizing buildings.  That's what I see.

Barber: God, I hope you're wrong.  I don't know.  I don't know what it is going to look like ...

Wiles: He's not going to allow anyone to disobey him.  This man is a tyrant and I've said all year he will take his mask off after the November election and quickly we're seeing, just as we've seen with General Petraeus, anybody that would dare to oppose him will be removed.

Barber: Yeah, they are setting him up for destruction and that is the way of Marxist regimes of old.

Southern Baptist Convention Claims End of Gay Ban 'Will Be a Death Blow to Scouting'

The Southern Baptist Convention is warning that its members may boycott the Boy Scouts if they drop their national prohibition on gay members, even if the new policy would allow local troops to have the autonomy to either end or maintain the ban.

Frank Page, the president of the SBC’s Executive Committee, argued in a conference call with Boy Scout leaders that any shift “will be a death blow to Scouting.” SBC official A.J. Smith warned that “such a move is fraught with danger and is an affront to their core convictions on human sexuality.”

“Many Baptist charter organizations and Baptist parents will decide not to send their youth to such camps for fear of them being exposed to persons advocating a homosexual lifestyle,” Smith said. “This move appears to fly in the face of both the Scout Oath and Law.”

The Baptist Press reported on the call:

The Boy Scouts released a new statement Monday describing the proposal, saying that the national policy would be rescinded in favor of a policy allowing local councils to determine their own policy. That means that in each city, one council might allow gay leaders and another might not. The Boy Scouts board is expected to vote on the proposal next week.

Page told the Scout leaders that although the new policy might allow the sponsoring organization to set local policy, such autonomy would disappear when there is a national or even regional meeting.

"National policy will always trump local autonomy" in such situations, Page said. "I believe this will be a death blow to Scouting. ... I think this is a self-inflicted wound."



Meanwhile, the president of Association of Baptists for Scouting -- A.J. Smith -- says passage of the proposed policy "will likely be viewed as an affront by most Baptist church leaders." He also is urging people to voice their position to the national Boy Scouts office (see below).

"Such a move may result in a loss of units chartered through Baptist churches as well as a loss of Baptist youth currently registered through other charter organizations," Smith said. "It will, no doubt, be argued that under the proposed new guidelines the charter organization will have greater liberty in determining membership standards, and that would be true. Some Baptists will be more agreeable to that, certainly. Still, the move opens the door for hiring practices at council and national camps that would allow homosexuals in those settings. The BSA will have no legal recourse to prevent such applicants from filing discrimination suits if their applications are denied. In light of that, many Baptist charter organizations and Baptist parents will decide not to send their youth to such camps for fear of them being exposed to persons advocating a homosexual lifestyle. In short, from a Baptist perspective, such a move is fraught with danger and is an affront to their core convictions on human sexuality."

Many people, Smith said, will wonder if current Boy Scouts leaders "are truly committed to the principles and values of Scouting as envisioned" by Scouting founder Lord Baden-Powell.

"The goal or aim of Scouting is to instill in youth the ability to make moral and ethical decisions over a lifetime by a careful application of the Scout Oath and Law. However, this move appears to fly in the face of both the Scout Oath and Law."

Sandy Rios Warns Gay Rights Lead to 'Fascism' and a 'Lack of Freedom'

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios today warned listeners that gay rights advocates are promoting a form of “fascism” and that gay equality will result in a “lack of freedom.” 

Rios: We all watched the inauguration recently of the President and we saw on the platform where things lie. We know that if you think that homosexuality is a problem you will not be allowed into public service hardly in any way. If you think that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt, if you have a problem with that, then you are out of the adoption business. I think it is fascism personally; I would go to that extreme and say that, it’s a lack of freedom.

Her guest Robert Knight of the American Civil Rights Union also criticized gay rights supporters and argued that any shift in the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay membership “would destroy the Boy Scouts,” and later called for a “new board of directors” who would not “entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals.”

Knight: What they are saying is they are going to leave it up to parents and local councils and Scout troops on whether to allow homosexual leaders and members in. This would destroy the Boy Scouts, let’s cut to the chase, what parent would put their young boy under the authority of men who are attracted to males and take them camping and swimming, etcetera. It’s not designed to make the scouts fairer it’s designed to destroy the Boy Scouts as we know them.



Rios: There’s really no pressure in the courts and the financial pressures they were facing earlier had subsided so this is like a new assault on them, isn’t it? Now they are coming out because of the corporate angle.

Knight: Yeah and I think what people have to do is say the Boy Scouts need a new board of directors if they are going to entertain such bizarre notions as opening up the ranks to homosexuals. This is about getting corporate money so they can keep their fat headquarters in Texas. Think about it, Scout troops raise money locally they can survive just fine without corporate donations, but not the people at the top, they are the ones who ought to be replaced.

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.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious