C4

Coulter: Treat DREAMers Like Suicide Bombers

Ann Coulter, who recently lamented the end of the racist immigration quota system​, writes today that America soon "won't exist anymore" due to "the current rate of immigration."

According to Coulter, immigration is destroying the GOP and thus America itself, because apparently only "real Americans" vote Republican. She's particularly offended that immigration means she has to "hear about soccer all the time."

"We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving!," she writes.

Coulter also lashes out at proponents of the DREAM Act, claiming that their arguments would also protect rapists, murderers and suicide bombers.

If we have to excuse lawbreaking so as not to “punish the children,” there’s no end to the crimes that have to be forgiven – insider trading, theft, rape, murder and so on.

How do you think kids feel when their father has to “live in the shadows” because he committed a rape? The kids did nothing wrong, but they have to go to bed every night wondering: Is tomorrow the day Dad is going to be caught?

...

With illegal aliens, the parents are more like gypsies teaching their kids to beg and pick pockets. The parents forced the kids into being lawbreakers.

Similarly, Palestinians use their children to commit acts of terrorism against Israel, so that when Israel responds, the parents can wail, “They’re bombing children!”

(I thought only liberals couldn’t do analogies.)

Americans are under no moral obligation to admit huge numbers of people who have no particular right to be here just because the Democrats need 30 million new voters.

Why shouldn’t Republicans oppose mass immigration on the grounds that immigrants will vote Democratic? The only reason the Democrats want mass immigration is because they know immigrants will vote Democratic. (Also for the cheap nannies and gardeners.)

Immigration is the “single issue” that decides every other issue. If this country were the same demographically today as it was in 1980, Romney would have won a bigger victory in 2012 than Reagan did against Carter. And we wouldn’t have to hear about soccer all the time.

We’re living in a different country now, and I can’t recall moving! Had I wanted to live in Japan, I could have moved there. Had I had wanted to live in Mexico, Pakistan or Chechnya – I could have moved to those places, too.

(Although maybe not. They all have stricter immigration policies than we do.)

I’m sure they’re lovely, but I wanted to live in America. Now I can’t. At the current rate of immigration, it won’t exist anymore. The Democrats couldn’t win elections there, so they changed it.

Pluralism & Prejudice: Catholic Bishops, Mormons, Evangelicals Unite To Oppose Equality

On Monday, five religious organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold bans on same-sex couples getting married in Utah and Oklahoma. According to the Associated Press, the brief was written by lawyers for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and was joined by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention and the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.

The thrust of the brief is to argue that there are sound social policy reasons to oppose marriage equality, and to attack the notion that opposition to gay couples getting married is grounded in anti-gay prejudice, or “animus.” Says the brief, “The accusation is false and offensive.”

“Our faith communities bear no ill will toward same-sex couples, but rather have marriage-affirming religious beliefs that merge with both practical experience and sociological fact to convince us that retaining the husband-wife marriage definition is essential.”

No ill will toward same-sex couples?  Let’s review.

We can start with the Southern Baptists, who have officially declared that “homosexual conduct is always a gross moral and spiritual abomination for any person, whether male or female, under any circumstance, without exception” and that they even oppose businesses extending benefits to domestic partners.  OK, to be fair, that was 1997. The SBC voted in 2003 to “call upon all judges and public officials to resist and oppose the legalization of same-sex unions,” and in 2008 called for constitutional amendment to prevent same-sex couples from getting married anywhere in the U.S.

Richard Land, who was for 25 years the voice of the Southern Baptists’ Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission until his retirement last fall, has said the Devil takes pleasure in the destructive homosexual lifestyle.  In 2012, Land said, “God is already judging America and will judge her more harshly as we continue to move down this path toward sexual paganization.” A year earlier he accused gay rights activists of “child abuse” for “recruiting” children in elementary school.

Land’s retirement was expected to shift the ERLC’s tone; but the group still opposes ENDA, a proposed federal law to protect LGBT people from discrimination on the job.

Let’s see, who else opposes ENDA, domestic partnerships, civil unions, and marriage equality? That would be the US Conference of Catholic bishops. The bishops have said they oppose “unjust discrimination” against people with same-sex attractions, but they define the term “unjust” in a way that applies only to people who remain celibate. So if you are a gay couple and you are having sex, workplace discrimination against you is justified, as is a refusal to legally recognize your relationship.

A number of prominent U.S. bishops signed, and urged other Catholics to sign, the Manhattan Declaration, which compared liberals to Nazis. It declares conservatives’ positions on marriage to be "inviolable and non-negotiable," and pledges that conservatives will engage in civil disobedience, and may even need to prepare for martyrdom, in order to avoid recognizing legally married same-sex couples.

Let’s not forget Bishop Thomas Paprocki, from Springfield, Illinois, who told Catholics in 2012 that voting for the equality-supporting Democratic Party would put their eternal souls in jeopardy, and who responded to the passage of marriage equality in Illinois by conducting an exorcism.

The Mormon Church was a driving force in opposition to early marriage equality moves in Hawaii and Alaska and was crucial to the success of California’s Prop 8, providing tens of thousands of volunteers and a flood of cash. After a post-Prop-8 backlash from both inside and outside the church, LDS officials seemed to have abandoned the anti-marriage-equality crusade. The church says it supported Salt Lake City ordinances banning discrimination in housing and employment and has supported same-sex couples’ rights regarding “hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights” – sounds good – “so long as those do not infringe of the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” Hmm.

How about the National Association of Evangelicals?  In 2008, Richard Cizik, the longtime public policy face of the NAE, was forced to resign after he publicly expressed support for civil unions.

Unlike the more progressive Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), the more conservative Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) strongly opposes LGBT equality. In a statement after the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, the church insisted, “Same-sex unions are contrary to God’s will, and gay marriage is, in the eyes of God, no marriage at all… no matter what the courts or legislatures may say.” The conservative Lutherans have backed HJR 6 in Indiana, which is attempting to add a ban on marriage equality to the state constitution.

In January, the LCMS announced it was entering formal discussions with the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Makane Yesus, which cut its longstanding ties with the ELCA last year over sexuality issues. The Ethiopian church was so disturbed by the ELCA’s pro-equality positions that it has declared its members may not share communion with ELCA members.  Ethiopia’s churches and government, with the encouragement of American missionaries, have, in the words of a recent disturbing Newsweek article, “declared war on gay men.”

So, maybe it depends what you mean by “ill will.”

FRC Preposterously Blames 'Left-Wing Extremists' For Most 'Incidents Of Domestic Terrorism In This Country'

Tony Perkins and Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council are attacking the Obama administration over a Ohio National Guard training drill last month that simulated a threat from “two school employees who are disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.”

News of the drill started circulating in conservative media this week, feeding anti-Obama paranoia (even though last year’s drill simulated a threat from a radical environmentalists).

On yesterday’s edition of Washington Watch, Blackwell and Perkins said that the drill must have been the idea of the federal government, and argued that there is no reason at all to fear any danger from right-wing extremists. “When you look back at incidents of domestic terrorism in this country, it’s not done by right-wing, conservative people or organizations, it’s done by left-wing extremists,” Perkins said. Blackwell concurred: “Absolutely, that’s been the factual history of domestic terrorist attacks and efforts.”

That is completely false, of course.

The nonpartisan New America Foundation found that the pool of “‘non-jihadist’ terrorists” is “overwhelmingly made up of right-wing extremists.” The Director of Terrorism Studies at the West Point-based Combatting Terrorism Center found attacks by right-wing extremists up “more than 400%” since 2000.

John Tirman of the MIT Center for International Studies notes that in “the START database on terrorism in America,” from “1990 to 2009, START identified 275 ‘homicide events’ that killed 520 people and were committed by right-wing ideologues. There were many more incidents of destruction of property, nonfatal attacks, and other acts of thuggery by white supremacists, private militias, and the like.”

“Fifty-six percent of domestic terrorist attacks and plots in the U.S. since 1995 have been perpetrated by right-wing extremists, as compared to 30 percent by ecoterrorists and 12 percent by Islamic extremists,” writes Ken Sofer. “Right-wing extremism has been responsible for the greatest number of terrorist incidents in the U.S. in 13 of the 17 years since the Oklahoma City bombing.”

Since Perkins and Blackwell were already just making things up, why not one more? The two FRC leaders proceeded to accuse the Southern Poverty Law Center of being listed on “the domestic terrorism list. ”

“It’s not conservatives,” Perkins said. “If it were conservatives who were doing that kind of stuff we would never hear the end of it.”

Perkins: Same-Sex Marriage 'Will Create A Level Of Inequality That Has Never Been Seen In Our Country'

The anti-gay Family Research Council is unsurprisingly dismayed by a federal court ruling that will require Kentucky to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where such unions are legal.

FRC president Tony Perkins said in a press release today the decision represents a “deep betrayal of the judicial system infected with activist judges who are legislating from the bench” and threatens the freedom of speech.

Perkins even said that marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples “will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith.”

That’s right, Perkins seems to think that legalizing same-sex marriage will produce more “inequality” than slavery, Jim Crow, the subjugation of women and any other injustice in American history.

This ruling is another example of the deep betrayal of a judicial system infected with activist judges who are legislating from the bench. If these judges want to change duly enacted laws passed by the people and their representatives, they should resign their life-time appointments to the bench and run for the state legislature or Congress. Judge Heyburn is elevating his own ideology over that of three-quarters of Kentucky voters who voted to preserve marriage in their constitution as it has always been defined.

This ruling comes at a time when the consequences of marriage redefinition are mounting. Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions that not only step on free speech and religious liberty but also deny children a mom and a dad. Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith.

Liberty Counsel: Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Like Banning Interracial Marriage

As Kyle noted yesterday, Liberty Counsel is out with two new amicus briefs defending same-sex marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma, in which they argue that "while same-sex couples can enter a union of the wills, it is not possible for them to join in body in the way true marriage has always required."

Liberty Counsel filed one of its briefs on behalf of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a group that pushes "ex-gay” therapy for LGBT people.

The other, filed in Liberty Counsel’s own name [pdf], features many of the group’s standard arguments (including plenty of citations of the bunk anti-gay Regnerus study), but one argument in particular caught our eye. Seeking to head off legal comparisons between bans on same-sex marriage and bans on interracial marriage, Liberty Counsel argues that it is in fact the legalization of same-sex marriage that is similar to banning interracial marriage=.

How is that, you ask? Advocates of anti-miscegenation laws and gay rights advocates, Liberty Counsel explains, both want to place an “agenda-driven obstacle” onto the institution of marriage. In fact, the group implies, marriage equality advocates might be even worse because “they are seeking to replace the institution with their own agenda-driven proposal.”

Loving, like the other cases addressing restrictions upon the right to marry, was aimed at preserving the right to enter into the union of one man and one woman by removing agenda-driven obstacles that had been improperly engrafted onto the union. Those seeking to overturn laws such as Utah’s and Colorado’s that memorialize marriage as the union of one man and one woman are now trying to engraft another agenda-driven obstacle onto the institution. Actually, they are seeking more than that. They are seeking to replace the institution with their own agenda-driven proposal.

We really don't know what "agenda-driven obstacle" Liberty Counsel thinks same-sex marriage will put on the institution, but maybe it has something to do with LC chairman Mat Staver's fear of "forced homosexuality."

LaBarbera: Michael Sam Must 'Repent' And 'Walk Away' From 'Deluded' Homosexuality

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is predictably disturbed by all-American defensive end Michael Sam’s decision to come out of the closet.

LaBarbera told Voice of Christian Youth America host Vic Eliason yesterday that Sam needs to “become an ex-gay, an ex-homosexual.”

Worrying that “you could not script a better person for the homosexual side than Michael Sam,” LaBarbera demanded that the “deluded” Sam “repent and walk away from that lifestyle with the help of believers.”

We all need to pray for this man, Michael Sam. I watched the interview, he seems like a neat guy, you could not script a better person for the homosexual side than Michael Sam. He’s just a very well-spoken, he said he just wants to help the team, but he’s deluded because God does not give homosexuality as part of who you are. He used that phrase, ‘who you are,’ in the ESPN interview and I think that’s the saddest thing of all to think that sexual sin is part of who you are. We need to pray that the Lord will touch him, he will be sought out by Christians in the NFL or wherever he is playing and that he will accept Jesus Christ and become an ex-gay, an ex-homosexual.



Michael Sam’s worst enemies are the media and everybody who is praising him. He needs Christians to come in, lovingly tell him that homosexuality is not acceptable before God, he needs to repent and walk away from that lifestyle with the help of believers. That’s what I’m going to be praying for Michael Sam. The NFL and all these pro-homosexual people are not his friends.

Eliason kicked off the show with a message to Right Wing Watch, warning that Americans are “being impressed with the need to compromise our moral and spiritual values on the altar of perversion.” He was especially angry with the “unnatural” gay couples featured in a recent family-themed Chevrolet ad. “I drive a Chevrolet and I’m offended,” he said.

LaBarbera responded that Chevrolet is helping a movement to “bring about the moral and spiritual decline of the nation, and ultimately bring down America.”

The AFTAH leader also repeated his praise for Russia’s recent anti-gay crackdown and denounced the Obama administration officials for criticizing the country’s “homosexual propaganda” ban. Eliason added that the U.S. has become a “gray mushroom cloud that is obscuring the moral vision of people around the world.”

LaBarbera said that gay people cannot have a real family but can only “acquire a child” for their “rip-off of the family,” and later attacked -- once again -- the inclusion of a same-sex couple on Disney’s “Good Luck Charlie.”

Two homosexuals cannot have a child. They can acquire a child, but two men cannot produce a baby. That should say something to people about how natural homosexuality is, it cannot produce children; only normalcy, heterosexuality can do that. Yet we see more and more now the media and the ad industry and corporations promoting the homosexual version, the rip-off of the family.



On the show Good Luck Charlie, which is on the Disney Channel, this is just more of the same propaganda, Hollywood knows how to work it. Of course, it was two pretty women who show up at the door, it was a playdate, the mom doesn’t even tell the father that it was a lesbian couple coming over so you don’t even have to tell dad that the couple’s a lesbian. They come over and of course the father is the dumb one as always on these show; mom’s smart, dad’s dumb. No big deal, the kid comes running over and the message is: no big deal. The husband makes the observation that the child has ‘two mommies’ and the mom makes a snide remark like ‘boy, nothing gets by you Bob.’ In other words, no big deal. Then it went on in the show, very interestingly, very manipulative, the mom doesn’t even like the conversation with one of the lesbians. It’s not like it made them out to be the best people in the world, it just made it to be no big deal, and that’s what everything in the media and the Hollywood are doing: homosexuality, no big deal.

VDARE: American Skier Competing For Paraguay Proof That Latino Immigrants 'Cannot Assimilate'

Trust the white nationalists at VDARE.com to come up with a racist, anti-immigrant angle to the winter Olympics.

While others might have been touched by the story of Paraguayan-born American slopestyle skier Julia Marino becoming Paraguay’s very first winter Olympian (she holds dual citizenship), VDARE writer Matthew Richer sees it as proof that Latino immigrants are unable to assimilate into American culture. “If an Hispanic immigrant with this kind of privileged American upbringing cannot assimilate, what hope is there for the rest of them?” he writes.

Of course, Richer doesn’t bother to question whether Staten Island investment banker Gary di Silvestri’s decision to compete in the Olympics for the nation of Dominica (also becoming that country’s first winter Olympian) means that Italian-Americans are unable to assimilate into American culture, but we’re sure that was his next point.

Marino was adopted as a baby and enjoyed a privileged American upbringing.  She even attended a waspy New England boarding school where she competed on the ski team.

But even though Marino only recently visited Paraguay for the first time since her adoption, she is now in Sochi to represent her country.  “The Olympics [is] about representing where you’re from,” she told The Boston Globe.  Indeed.

If an Hispanic immigrant with this kind of privileged American upbringing cannot assimilate, what hope is there for the rest of them?

Rep. Huelskamp Mocks Boehner: 'Why Don't We Just Re-Elect Nancy Pelosi As Speaker?'

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is continuing his crusade against Speaker John Boehner, this time focusing on yesterday’s debt ceiling vote. Speaking with WorldNetDaily yesterday, Huelskamp and fellow Tea Party-aligned congressmen Steve Stockman (R-TX) and Steve King (R-IA) criticized Boehner for approving a clean debt ceiling extension.

The Kansas Republican complained, “Why don’t we just re-elect Nancy Pelosi as speaker?”

Boehner said his strategy is to let Democrats take the blame for removing the debt ceiling until 2015.

Responded Huelskamp, “We’re giving the Democrats exactly what they want, and somehow that’s a good thing?”

“Why don’t we just re-elect Nancy Pelosi as speaker?” he wondered, adding, “She’s getting what she wants.”

Echoing that was Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who said, “We are handing the President and Democrats exactly what they want – essentially a borrowed, blank check for the rest of the year – ‘no strings attached.’”

“Our current level of debt is suicidal. Our Republican leaders need to hear from Republican voters,” Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas told WND.

Huelskamp also told conservative talk show host Steve Malzberg that “Nancy Pelosi today is running the floor of the House,” calling the debt ceiling extension “totally unacceptable.” Huelskamp insisted that only bills backed by a majority of Republicans, rather than a majority of all House members, should reach the floor for votes. 

Erickson: Journalists Want To Sleep With Obama

Fox News contributor and RedState editor Erick Erickson had a sexist and homophobic meltdown today, lashing out at journalists for getting “erections for everything Barack Obama does.”

“[Y]ou’d rather have cocktails (pun absolutely intended for a good portion of you ‘journalists’) with the President, jealously size up the competition in the First Lady, and wish you too could be a mistress when you see France’s President and whoever the gal of the week is for him,” Erickson writes in RedState, chiding the “shameless whores” in the media who just want to “have [Obama’s] baby.”

You guys in the press who are reading this right now can be such shameless whores. I generally try to hold to the standard these days that if I wouldn’t be outraged by George Chimpy McBushitler Halliburton and Darth Cheney doing something, I shouldn’t be outraged by President Obama. And if I’d be outraged by Bush, I should be outraged by Obama.

But you journalists have such erections for everything Barack Obama does, you can’t even summon outrage to report fairly on the latest b.s. from the administration over Obamacare. Is it any wonder so many people have stopped trusting you?



But now, you’d rather have cocktails (pun absolutely intended for a good portion of you “journalists”) with the President, jealously size up the competition in the First Lady, and wish you too could be a mistress when you see France’s President and whoever the gal of the week is for him.

If this was George Bush telling businesses they cannot take advantage of an arguable unconstitutional restricting of law done without Congress’s consent unless the businesses swore oaths that they’d lie if they need to downsize due to Obamacare costs, the media would start talking about impeaching the President in non-ironic ways.

But with President Obama, half of MSNBC still wants to have his baby and the women over there just want to be his mistress. Hell, France’s President has one.

No, we don’t need to impeach the President, but God help me I’d at least think the media might want to pretend to hold him accountable. It really is disgraceful.

Iowa Republicans Pick Anti-Gay Crusader And Roy Moore Backer To Co-Chair Party

Last month, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus called for Michigan GOP committeeman Dave Agema to resign over anti-gay, anti-Muslim comments. Apparently, the Iowa Republican Party didn’t get the message. Barely a week after the Agema controversy broke, the Iowa GOP picked an anti-gay crusader to be the state party co-chair.

Danny Carroll, a former state representative who took over as the Iowa GOP’s co-chair on February 3, is a lobbyist for The Family Leader, the right-wing social issues group run by Bob Vander Plaats, who is considering running for Senate. While Vander Plaats’ over-the-top rhetoric is better known, Carroll is equally adamant in his opposition to gay rights and his Christian-nation view of government.

Back in 2010, Danny Carroll, then the head of Iowa Family Policy Center, refused to endorse the candidacy of Republican Terry Brandstad even after he won the gubernatorial primary because of what he saw as Brandstad’s insufficient opposition to gay rights. Brandstad merely wanted to pass a state constitutional amendment overturning the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2009 marriage equality ruling; Carroll’s preferred candidate, Vander Plaats, led a campaign to target and oust the judges behind the ruling. Carroll assured Vander Plaats’ supporters that they were “answering to God Almighty.” After the election, Vander Plaats was hired to head The Family Leader, a new umbrella group that encompassed the Iowa Family Policy Center.

At a Family Leader conference last year, Carroll insisted that more important than the breakdown of families was the “crisis is in the definition of family” – that is, the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage. He said the group was pushing for a state constitutional amendment on marriage equality because “just about every problem facing society today could be fixed, eliminated or significantly reduced if we held up marriage between one man and one woman for life.”

Over the past several years, Carroll has used his influence in Iowa to back candidates who share his far-right views. In 2008, he co-chaired Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign in Iowa. In 2012, he went for Michele Bachmann, who he declared was “biblically qualified” for the presidency.

But Carroll’s first choice in 2012 was maybe even further to the right than Bachmann: He backed the short-lived presidential campaign of Alabama Judge Roy Moore, who became famous for defying a court order to remove a monument of the Ten Commandments from a government building, and who now wants to hold a Constitutional Convention to pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage. When Moore dropped out of the race, Carroll lamented, “He’s a great guy. I love him and respect him. He’s a hero, that’s for sure. And he’s an honorable person. I can’t say anything negative against Judge Moore. Just the reality of politics, I guess.”

Carroll seems to share Moore’s leanings. In a speech in 2010, Carroll blamed the Supreme Court ruling banning school-organized prayer for recent teen suicides in Iowa and railed against legal abortion and gambling. He said these trends could only be reversed by electing people “who will stand up and unashamedly and without apology assure us that they will be guided by absolute and timeless Christian morals that comes from a regular reading of God’s Word.”

“I am through apologizing for what this country was founded on: a firm conviction that a free people cannot be self-governed unless they have a strong conviction to religion and morality,” he added.

In an interview with radio host Jan Mickelson earlier this month, Carroll agreed with Mickelson’s assessment that his appointment to serve alongside the Ron Paul-supporting state party chair A.J. Spiker represented “a marriage between the Paulistas and the evangelicals, or the Teavangelicals” in Iowa. In a possible signal that the party was patching things up, Carroll last week endorsed Brandstad’s reelection bid.

Carroll is hardly alone as a hard-right social conservative in the state-level leadership of a party that just last year proposed softening its image to expand its base. As Brian noted last month, it was odd that Priebus singled out Agema, since anti-gay sentiment is a common feature among RNC committee members. In fact, in Iowa, Carroll will be serving alongside RNC committeewoman Tamara Scott, who once warned that gay marriage will lead to man-Eiffel Tower marriage and who blamed the recession in part on legalized same-sex marriage.

WND: Common Core Turning US Into Nazi Germany

WorldNetDaily commentator Patrice Lewis is fearful that Common Core, with its “brainwashing” and “indoctrination techniques,” is bringing Nazism to America.

According to Lewis, a biology teacher she heard about from a friend is telling her students to “sing a song praising Common Core,” which makes the teacher just like Hitler.

Lewis adds that a public school is like a totalitarian “jail” that turns students into “zombies.”

Some friends came to us this week, troubled, to ask our advice. It seems their youngest son came home from school on Monday and asked – begged – to be homeschooled.

His request has been a recurrent theme during the past few months, but it took on a particular urgency on Monday when his biology teacher required all the students to sing a song praising Common Core.

I should add that this boy isn’t 6 years old. He’s 16. He and his classmates are long past the age of being amused by peppy propaganda songs. And our friend’s son, thanks to the vigilance of his parents, knew that what he was experiencing was nothing short of brainwashing. So his request to homeschool took on a much more serious tone. His parents came over to discuss the subject.

While the federalizing of public schools has been going on for decades, the rapid push to capture our children has taken on a sense of urgency in the last few years. The government doesn’t just want our children’s bodies; it particularly wants their minds. If Nazi German taught us nothing else, it taught us this: Children are the currency of tyrants.

It’s worth remembering that when people objected to joining the Nazi Party, Hitler gave a verbal shrug and assured them that their membership wasn’t necessary since he already had their children. “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future,” he famously said.

And let’s not forget that eerie sentiment from “Mein Kampf”: “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

No one can dispute the effectiveness of these youthful indoctrination techniques. Forget trying to change the mind of older people – they’re too set in their ways. But the children – aah, they’re the hope of the future. It is critical that the minds of children be captured.



Remember, follow the money. If schools are government-funded, then logically only government-approved attitudes and behaviors will be permitted. Students (and by extension, their families) must be tracked to make sure everyone falls within acceptable boundaries of thought and behavior. Dissenting opinions will be made known to officials, and corrective measures can be taken. I’m beginning to think the Planet Camazotz (with the megalomaniac “IT”) from “A Wrinkle in Time” was astoundingly prescient.

Are you freaked out yet? I know our friends are. That’s why they will soon be homeschooling their youngest son.

I can’t emphasize strongly enough the need to reject government education, if at all possible. It is your duty as a parent to raise children, not zombies. You’re raising the hope of the future, not its doom. It’s time to look outside the jail cell and see what educational alternatives you can find for your kids. Almost anything is better than putting them in prison for eight hours a day.

Don’t forget: Children are the currency of tyrants. You can see the evidence right in front of you. The government already takes too much of your income. Tell it to get its hands off your legacy.

Liberty Counsel: Impeach Obama For Turning America 'Into A Godless, Socialist Nation'

Liberty Counsel chairman Mat Staver has unveiled a new campaign calling on the House of Representatives to initiate the impeachment process against President Obama.

The Religious Right group, which is the legal and advocacy arm of Liberty University, claims that Obama is more tyrannical and oppressive than King George III and must be stopped.

We, the People of the United States of America, demand that the United States House of Representatives draft Articles of Impeachment against President Barack H. Obama for failure to adhere to the authority and rule of law, and for open oppression of our liberties, as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights.



In my nearly three decades of work in the legal field specializing in constitutional law, I have NEVER witnessed a more blatant and consistent disregard for the Constitution as we have seen from this President and his administration!

As I have often said, today’s patriotic Americans are facing more oppression from civil government than did the colonial generation!



Together, we can stop this tyranny before President Obama and his “progressive” supporters succeed in remaking the United States of America into a godless, socialist nation!

The impeachment petition lists the health care reform law and the Benghazi attack as among Obama’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Staver has repeatedly called for a revolution against Obama over gay rights, warning that his administration supports the supposed Antichrist mission to usher in “forced homosexuality” and “LGBT affirmative action.”

Anti-Gay Backlash To Michael Sam Begins With Fears Of 'Raging Hormones,' End Of The 'Bromance'

The backlash to the announcement by University of Missouri defensive end and likely NFL draft pick Michael Sam that he is gay is troubling the usual suspects. Anti-gay author Michael Brown is out with a column criticizing Sam’s “selfish act” and suggesting that he should’ve stayed in the closet.

According to Brown, Sam’s “hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women,” which will make “the ‘bromance’ type of close relationships that many players enjoy” impossible since they won’t be “as physical and free with a homosexual teammate.”

But once they have made their announcement, how can everyone be expected to feel completely comfortable? And with the “bromance” type of close relationships that many players enjoy, would they be as physical and free with a homosexual teammate?

And since NFL players are hardly known for their sexual purity—with many notable exceptions—is it homophobic to think that Sam’s hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women?



Looked at from another angle, it was more of a selfish act, and not only in the sense that Sam is suddenly a national celebrity. (As of Feb. 10, a Google search for his name yielded more than 3 million hits. Just one week ago, his numbers would have been a fraction of this.) What I mean is that professional football is all about the team, and the focus must be on making a joint sacrifice in order to win rather than drawing attention to oneself.



Why can’t he just play the game, keep his private life private (as many public figures do), and when his career is over, if he wants to tell the whole world he’s gay, he can do so then?

Right on cue, Rush Limbaugh declared that Sam’s announcement is proof that heterosexuals are “under assault,” a claim he made during a rant against the gay “political agenda” that couples as a great example of heterosexual privilege.

The Media Research Center is upset that major broadcast networks “celebrated the announcement” and chided sports commentators for their alleged mistreatment of Tim Tebow in an article that seems to imply that Tebow is the first and only evangelical Christian ever to play for the NFL.

ESPN on Monday was a long parade of congratulatory guests, like columnist Kay Fagan, who used words like “authenticity” and “inclusion.” Fagan ended a rapturous column by saying of Sam, “His truth is now.” (Does homosexuality come with a separate truth? Or do you pay extra, like undercarriage coating?)

Ok, lets simmer down and wait for the backlash. It’ll come. It has to when personal life and philosophy and social issues intersect with the NFL. Here it comes … Er, no? But when Tim Tebow entered the draft he encountered a rain of hate from people worried for the sport, people who resented having to hear about the personal beliefs of “Saint Timmy,” as CBS’s Pete Prisco called him in April, 2010.

Pastor Ron Cantor took to Charisma to warn that Sam’s presence in the locker room “is going to make for an uncomfortable situation.”

Cantor asserts that the truly courageous people are those who are worried about having a gay teammate: “How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.”

Let me just be honest. If I had a job whereby I had to undress and shower several times a week with a roomful of very fit, attractive females—well, let’s just say I would struggle. And that clearly is the concern of heterosexual football players. It is a legitimate issue. I am not an expert, but if someone says to me that they are attracted to men and then are going to see them undressed on an almost daily basis, it is going to make for an uncomfortable situation. Right?

But don’t say it out loud—not unless you are willing to be skewered by the media elites. Oh, wait, too late. Jonathan Vilma of the New Orleans Saints already stated the obvious.

“I think that he would not be accepted as much as we think he would be accepted," Vilma said. "I don’t want people to just naturally assume, like, ‘Oh, we’re all homophobic.’ That’s really not the case. Imagine if he’s the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, [bare], taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me. How am I supposed to respond?”

Vilma made those completely honest and valid comments a few days ago—before Sam came out. For sure, he will be vilified and called immature. But come on, let’s be honest: No one expects adult men and women to take mass showers together on the job—for the obvious reasons. But Vilma is juvenile and uneducated for not wanting to shower next to an openly gay man?

I wonder if more NFL players will have the courage to speak up. How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.

AFA Michigan Warns LGBT Nondiscrimination Ordinance 'Threatens' Women

Residents of Bay County, Michigan, are receiving robocalls from the state chapter of the American Family Association urging them to reject a proposed nondiscrimination ordinance that the group claims “threatens religious freedom and women’s privacy rights by giving special protections to individuals involved in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.”

The Bay City Times has posted a recording of the robocall, in which AFA Michigan president Gary Glenn calls the LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance a “discriminatory law.”

The ordinance would prohibit [pdf] the county government from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental limitation, familial status, sexual orientation, or gender identity/expression.” It would not apply to private businesses, although Glenn has nevertheless fretted that it would require a Christian bookstore to “hire a man who comes to work wearing a dress.”

A public hearing on the ordinance is being held this afternoon. If it passes, Bay County will become the first in Michigan to adopt such an ordinance.

PFAW Members Join Largest Civil Rights March in the South Since Selma

People from all walks of life marched together - from students and activists to lawyers, healthcare professionals, and teachers.
PFAW

Center For Immigration Studies: Democrats 'Party of Minorities'

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), which tries to style itself as the moderate think tank of the anti-immigrant movement, has undermined this image by embracing the theory, first put forward by a white nationalist thinker , that the Republican Party shouldn’t bother trying to win back Latino voters and should instead focus exclusively on turning out white voters. Not only is this strategy doomed to failure, its implicit assumption is that Republicans should turn out white voters by stirring up racial resentment against Latinos.

This has emerged as a popular message among anti-immigrant activists and politicians. Phyllis Schlafly and Michele Bachmann have both argued that Republicans should drop Latino outreach efforts because, in their minds, Latino immigrants are inherently unable to understand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. CIS figures have likewise claimed that Latino immigrants have an inherent antipathy to the Republican Party because they lack “strong family values” and have large numbers of  “illegitimate” children .

CIS research director Steven Camarota repeated this theme in an interview yesterday on the Chuck Morse Speaks radio program, where he said that Democrats are “the party of minorities” and are backing immigration reform because they “would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens.”

On the Democratic side, it’s coalition politics. The Democratic Party is the party that tends to draw a lot of support from Hispanics and Asians now as well, so they’re the party of minorities. And so, since a very large fraction – you know, about 80 percent of illegal immigrants, in particular – would be Hispanic, based on government statistics, and probably another ten, 12 percent are Asian, so the party would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens. But just in the existing citizen population of people of recent immigrant origin, they’re hoping to draw a lot of support. So there’s a political reason there. So, if you had to sum it up in a bumper sticker, the Democrats are looking for votes and the Republicans are looking for cheap labor.

Virginia Congressional Candidate Bob Marshall's 5 Craziest Moments

Virginia Republican state delegate Bob Marshall is preparing a bid for the House seat currently held by retiring Rep. Frank Wolf, according to a Virginia-based conservative blog. This would set up a challenge to fellow right-wing state delegate and former Clinton-hunter Barbara Comstock.

Just in case you aren’t familiar with Marshall, here is a quick refresher on some of his most extreme positions:

1. Disabled Children Are God’s Punishment For Abortion

At a 2010 press conference attacking Planned Parenthood, Marshall said that “the number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically” because “when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.” He called disabled children a “special punishment” from God on women who have had abortions.

It is no wonder that Marshall sponsored a personhood bill that would ban abortion in call cases along with some forms of birth control, one of several bills he proposed that would curtail abortion rights and contraception coverage.

2. Ban Gay Service Members From The National Guard

Marshall reacted to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell by proposing legislation to prohibit “active homosexuals” from serving in the Virginia National Guard, warning that the end of the anti-gay ban would “jeopardize our alliances,” ruin the military and possibly lead to a military draft. Marshall said that if he were in the military he wouldn’t trust gay service members because they might give him a sexually transmitted infection or harass him: “It’s a distraction when I’m on the battlefield and I have to concentrate on the guy 600 yards away, am I worrying about this guy whose got eyes on me?”

3. Anti-Gay Crusade

Marshall has staunchly defended of Virginia’s unconstitutional sodomy law, successfully pushed to block the appointment of an openly gay judge and attempted to stop the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank from flying a rainbow flag, warning that LGBT equality “undermines the American economy.”

He also complained that anti-gay activists are being treated in the same way as Dred Scott.

4. Health Care Reform Is Like Rape

In an attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, Marshall demanded that Virginia exempt itself from the individual health insurance mandate, warning that health care reform represented “criminal activity” akin to the work of “mobsters.”

“This is a fight over whether you are a citizen or you are a serf,” he said. “It’s not your wallet that they want, it’s your soul, it’s your family.” But Marshall didn’t stop there: “Indeed, the individual mandate is not voluntary commercial intercourse; it is forcible economic rape.”

Marshall has also said that health care reform would “euthanize seniors” and “kill capitalism.”

5. Creating A New Currency

Marshall, fearing an economic collapse, called on Virginia to consider creating its own currency due to the likelihood of “a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System. He said that economic doom may be one result of the 2009 stimulus package, which he said is “as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state...it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape.”

Rep. Southerland 'Shocked' And 'Insulted' By Obama Speech Supporting Religious Freedom

President Obama can do nothing right in the eyes of the GOP, it seems: Even the president’s National Prayer Breakfast speech defending religious freedom has stoked the ire of one Republican congressman.

Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch last week that he was “stunned” and “shocked” by the president’s speech and was angry that Obama would “insult those who really believe” in the freedom of religion — like him.

Southerland argued that Obama is trying to “trivialize our deeply held beliefs by making statements that are so contrary to his actions and those of his administration.” “It’s the ultimate disrespect,” he said.

Conservative Columnist Offers 'Random Thoughts' On Unattractive Women, Tolerance Of Immigrants

Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution who also has a regular gig at the Washington Times, takes to WorldNetDaily today to offer his “random thoughts” on various things that bother him, from tolerance of immigrants to attractive women who don’t dress well.

Sowell writes that he’s reminded of the ancient Greeks when he sees “Western nations take tolerance to the extreme,” particularly when it comes to immigrants. He also “bothers” him when he sees a “good-looking” Berkeley-educated woman “who could be truly beautiful if she only took the trouble” end up losing her husband to “another woman, who had not gone to Berkeley.”

Sowell also has “random thoughts” on the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (“government all but owns us now”) and the current Republican Party, which he claims is not enough like Reagan (we assume he’s not referring to Reagan’s support of immigration reform).

Random thoughts on the passing scene:

It is amazing how many people still fall for the argument that, if life is unfair, the answer is to turn more money and power over to politicians. Since life has always been unfair, for thousands of years and in countries around the world, where does that lead us?

I am so old that I can remember when sex was private. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” applied to everybody.

The ancient Greeks understood that carrying any principle to extremes was dangerous. Yet, thousands of years later, some Western nations take tolerance to the extreme of tolerating intolerance among immigrants to their own societies. Some even make it illegal – a “hate crime” – to warn against intolerant foreigners who would like nothing better than to slit the throats of their hosts, but who will settle for planting a few bombs here and there.

How do the clever Beltway Republicans and their consultants explain how Ronald Reagan won two consecutive landslide election victories, doing the opposite of what they say is the only way for Republicans to win elections?

I don’t know why it bothers me when I see a good-looking woman who could be truly beautiful if she only took the trouble. But I can recall a woman like that who was educated at Berkeley, and who apparently thought attention to her appearance was not hip. Unfortunately, her husband met another woman, who had not gone to Berkeley, and who did not have this inhibition – or many other inhibitions.

With his decision declaring Obamacare constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts turned what F.A. Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom” into a super highway. The government all but owns us now, and can order us to do pretty much whatever it wants us to do.
 

Perkins: Gay Marriage Turns Kids Gay, Hurts US In Global Economic Competition

On Friday’s edition of Washington Watch, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins got into a debate with a caller over marriage equality, during which Perkins said that gay marriage will turn children into gay, super-sexualized beings who won’t be able to compete in the global economy. Instead of offering credible answers to the caller’s questions, Perkins brushed them aside and repeatedly moved on to his next dubious argument against same-sex marriage.

The debate started when the caller contested Perkins’ use of the term “natural marriage,” since the definition of marriage has changed throughout history and has included relationships such as polygamy.

Perkins responded that it doesn’t matter that polygamy has been considered “natural” throughout different cultures and history “because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best,” and then switched gears to claim that same-sex marriage will jeopardize the country’s prospects “on giving birth to the next generation.”

When the caller replied that people don’t choose to be gay and therefore marriage equality won’t impact America’s fertility rate, Perkins argued that the debate isn’t really about marriage but rather public school classes that teach “kids how to engage in homosexual behavior”…which he said will turn kids gay and harm America’s economic competitiveness with other nations.

Perkins’ jarring arguments aren’t anything new. He has claimed that same-sex relationships are part of a government “population control” plot, and leads an organization that wants to “export” gay people from the US “because we believe homosexuality is destructive to society.”

Perkins: There’s actually more of a historical basis for polygamy than there’s ever been for same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best.

Caller: Well it is a new thing I’ll grant you that, I understand that the phrasing ‘natural marriage’ is great, it fits really great on a bumper sticker, but I just don’t think it means anything and I’m trying to understand what that’s supposed to mean.

Perkins: How do you plan on giving birth to the next generation?

Caller: That’s the thing, how many same-sex marriages are there out there? What is it, 2 percent, 3 percent of the total number of marriages? I don’t think that we’re going to have to worry about the next generation.

Perkins: But if it’s normative and it’s normal then we would say we would want more of it if it’s beneficial.

Caller: Well no, I don’t think that’s it at all. People don’t suddenly one day decide to become gay, you’re either gay or you’re not. I’ve never met anyone who just scratched their head and went, ‘you know what I think I’m into guys now’ or ‘I think I’m into girls now,’ it just doesn’t happen.

Perkins: …Okay. What does that have to do with marriage? What does that have to do with redefining marriage, redefining the curriculum in our schools?

Caller: Well you’re saying that we have to worry about the next generation, I’m saying that there is a very small portion of the population, probably less than 10 percent, that are gay. I think that the next generation is going to come along whether we want it to or not, it’s not about—

Perkins: No, because what happens when you change and you say heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage, then you change the curriculum in your schools and you have kids, as a natural part of growing up and developing, they’re curious and they don’t know, and we’re exposing them to even more sexuality and overt sexual messages and we’re telling them, ‘hey experiment.’ And that is what leads, in many cases, to children going down a particular path, is early childhood sexual exposure, sometimes it’s traumatic. And by normalizing that and mainstreaming that, what you will do is you will have more children going down that path and that’s why they want to get this message into our schools.

Caller: I understand your argument but is there any data to support that?

Perkins: What do you mean any data to support it?

Caller: You are saying if you expose children to homosexuality you will have more homosexuals.

Perkins: Well if you sexualize a culture — I can tell you the data is very clear on what’s happened in the last 30 to 40 years where we have inundated young people, children, with sexual messages and they become sexually active. So when you take and mix into that homosexuality and other forms of sexuality into that, yes they are going to move down that path, they are going to engage in what you tell them about. That is why it’s problematic, that is why parents are upset about what is happening in Hawaii and other states that are teaching their kids how to engage in homosexual behavior, or heterosexual for that matter. I don’t want my kids that are 11, 12 and 13 years-old taught how to put on a condom or taught about how to engage in sexual behavior with someone who has HIV in a safe fashion. That is not what the schools should be about. They should be about teaching our kids to read, to write, to engage in science. How do we ever expect to compete globally when we’re fixated on teaching our kids about sex?
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious