C4

Tea Party Convention Speaker: Gun Laws Could Lead To American Genocide

In a speech at a South Carolina Tea Party convention earlier this month, gun activist Jan Morgan warned that tightening American gun laws could lead to genocide.

“Gun control has never been about guns. It’s about control,” said Morgan, who runs the group Armed American Woman. “In the twentieth century, folks, 170 million people have been annihilated by their own governments after being disarmed. So, don’t let anybody tell you that disarming America is going to make us a safer place.” The myth that gun control led to the genocides in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union has been thoroughly debunked.

Video: Brian Brown Says Anti-Gay Movement Represents 'True Civil Rights'

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown spoke Tuesday night at an anti-marriage equality rally at the Utah state capitol, where he claimed that the anti-gay movement represents “true civil rights.” There have been several news reports about the event, but YouTube user Drew Stelter posted video of Brown’s speech.

In the speech, Brown pushed the narrative that conservative Christians are being persecuted by the increased acceptance of gay rights. While he acknowledged that there might be people of many faiths in the crowd, he made it clear exactly who his audience was: “I would say that it’s pretty likely that those of us here share some respect for our savior, Jesus Christ.”

Brown went on to compare the movement against marriage equality to Christians who fought against the Roman empire, slavery, and those at the head of the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. “Throughout history, people of faith have stood up against gross injustices, stood up for true civil rights,” he said, adding later: “We stand up for the civil rights for all when we stand up for the truth about marriage.”

You Don't Say: Republicans Admit Anti-Immigrant Movement Driven By Racism

Buzzfeed’s John Stanton today managed to get Republican lawmakers on record admitting that the movement to stop immigration report is at least party driven by racial animosity. One Southern Republican member of Congress, who requested anonymity, told Stanton outright that “part of it…it’s racial.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham put it a little more delicately, referring to “ugliness around the issue of immigration.”

While it’s unusual to have Republican members of Congress saying it aloud, it’s hardly a secret that today’s anti-immigrant movement was built by xenophobia and remains in a large part driven by it.

Overtly racist remarks by members of Congress like Steve King and Don Young or by fringe nativists like William Gheen or Judson Phillips could be written off as distractions if they were not part and parcel of this larger movement.

Just look at the three central advocacy groups working to stop immigration reform. The misleadingly named Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the movement “think tank” Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and Numbers USA were all founded by John Tanton, an activist who hardly hid his racist views, support for eugenics, and white nationalist ideology. (Sample Tanton argument: “I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.")

But it’s not just these groups’ history that’s problematic. While most have tried to distance themselves Tanton’s extreme nativist rhetoric, they have turned instead to racial code language to imply that immigration undermines American politics and culture.

Dan Stein, the president of FAIR, has warned that immigrants take part in “competitive breeding” to supplant native-born whites and that "[m]any of them hate America, hate everything the United States stands for. CIS president Mark Krikorian has pointed to “illegitimate” children and “high rates of welfare use” as reasons why Latino immigrants will never vote Republican and therefore shouldn’t be “imported” into the United States.

These arguments linked to two threads common in the anti-immigrant movement: that immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, will never be prosperous, productive members of society, and that they will never vote Republican, so Republicans shouldn’t bother to try to appeal to them.

The first of these arguments was famously illustrated by a Heritage Foundation study last year that purported to show that immigration reform would cost the country trillions of dollars, an inflated number based on the premise that future generations of immigrants would never help to grow the economy or give back financially to the country. The fact that the report was co-written by a researcher who believes that Latinos have intrinsically lower IQ only served to underline the point that the study was making.

The second line of argument was most clearly put by Eagle Forum founder and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, when she said that Republicans should drop their attempts at reaching Latino voters and focus instead on turning out white voters because “there’s not any evidence at all that these Hispanics coming in from Mexico will vote Republican.” The next week, CIS sent out a press release echoing Schlafly’s argument . Pat Buchanan made a similar plea to revive the “Southern Strategy” by ginning up animosity among white voters toward Latino immigrants. It’s no coincidence that this theory that Republicans can maintain a whites-only coalition in an increasingly diverse nation was first laid out by white nationalist writer Steve Sailer.

These two themes were what was behind a FAIR spokesman’s comment last week that allowing undocumented immigrants to work toward legal status would collapse the two-party system and lead to “tyranny.” Similarly, CIS analyst Steven Steinlight recently claimed that immigration reform would be the “unmaking of America” because it “would subvert our political life by destroying the Republican Party” and turn the United States into a one-party state. As evidence, he cited the fact that “Hispanics don’t exemplify ‘strong family values.’”

You don’t have to talk about “cantaloupe calves” to build a movement that relies on and exploits racial animosity. The anti-immigrant movement has mastered this art.

Rios: Obama Has 'Otherworldly,' 'Supernatural Power'

On her radio show yesterday, American Family Association governmental affairs director Sandy Rios reacted to President Obama’s State of the Union speech by warning that the president has a sinister “supernatural power” that is captivating the American people.

Responding to a caller who warned that “there’s a black cloud over our national capital” that is bringing down America, Rios said that there is a “spiritual” element to the political battle: “I do think what we’re facing here is otherworldly, there is a supernatural power to this president that I can’t—that I think most of us have picked up, those of us who believe in God and believe that there are other forces at work here, but we don’t know what God’s mind is on this.”

Previously, Rios claimed that Obama is no different than Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong.

Birther Leader Joseph Farah: I Am Not A Birther!

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, one of the most outspoken champions of the birther conspiracy theory, is desperately trying to cover up his birther history as he encourages the Canadian-born Ted Cruz to run for president. In a WND column today, Farah insists that he never even came close to suggesting that President Obama was born outside of the U.S.:

Now I have seen dozens of blog postings and “news stories” about my commentary, and they all pretty much say the same thing – suggesting or outright stating that I peddled a theory that Obama was born abroad. This is patently untrue.

In the hundreds of thousands of words I have written and spoken on this subject, I have never theorized Obama was born abroad.

Actually, Farah in several WND editorials suggested that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, based on a discredited claim that the president’s grandmother said he was born in Kenya. WND has also published many “news” articles and columns indicating that Obama was born outside of the US.

The WND editor adds that the Canadian-born Cruz is eligible to be president simply because he loves America and is much more patriotic than President Obama or even Hillary Clinton. He goes on to accuse everyone but himself of hypocrisy on the issue of presidential eligibility:

I’m actually being called a “hypocrite” today for saying I don’t have any concerns about Ted Cruz’s eligibility. Here’s why I don’t: The man has been forthcoming and released his birth certificate – even before his candidacy. It’s a Canadian birth certificate, as we all expected. It lists his parents – one a Cuban citizen who later became a U.S. citizen and the other an American citizen who conferred U.S. citizenship on her son. Cruz is in the process of renouncing his Canadian citizenship. He loves and reveres the U.S. Constitution as much as his Cuban-born father does. This is different than, say, Sen. Marco Rubio. Neither of his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born – neither of them able to confer on their son what the founders deemed “natural born citizen” status. The fact that he was born in the U.S. is of lesser, if any, significance.

Cruz has released all his papers without being asked – even before seeking the presidency. If someone else wants to make the case that he is not eligible, I’ll listen skeptically and respectfully.

Some of the attacks on my column have even suggested I “endorsed” Cruz for president. Listen, I like the guy, but he’s not even running yet. I like many potential candidates. It will be some time before I endorse anyone. To my mind, I’m satisfied. I do not see any potential for divided loyalties for Ted Cruz, which was the founders’ principle reason for including the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution. If he ran against Hillary Clinton, I’d enthusiastically support him. He’s much more of an American than Hillary could ever be.

But I’m not here to defend Ted Cruz’s eligibility. I’m here to say that America needs one standard of eligibility – not one for Republicans and another for Democrats, not one for conservatives and another for liberals, not one for people we like and another for people we don’t like.

FRC Agrees Anti-Gay Activists Are Just Like Dred Scott

Whenever you hear about a member of the Virginia House of Delegates saying something ridiculously offensive or introducing a radical anti-gay or anti-choice law, there’s a pretty good bet that that delegate is Bob Marshall. 

So it was this week when Marshall attacked state Attorney General Mark Herring for refusing to defend Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban in court by comparing himself and fellow anti-gay activists to Dred Scott. While we weren’t surprised to hear Marshall making an over-the-top statement comparing himself to an enslaved person denied citizenship because of his race, we weren’t necessarily expecting the Family Research Council to trumpet their “good friend” Marshall’s remarks. But then we got this email from the FRC touting “The Marshall Plan…on Marriage”:

Days after announcing his refusal to carry out his most basic duty -- upholding the state constitution's marriage amendment -- Herring is facing more than criticism. Thanks to Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R), he may also be staring down some weighty repercussions. This week, Del. Marshall, a good friend to FRC, filed a complaint with the Virginia State Bar over Herring's refusal to enforce the will of 57% of the people. "Herring has put all of us in the position of Dred Scott, who had no right to counsel in federal court. An attorney general has a duty to support those laws that are constitutional, and an attorney general has just as strong an obligation and duty to defend laws that he has concluded are unconstitutional..."

Marshall is the “good friend” of FRC who once said that children with disabilities are God’s punishment for abortion, reacted to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, by lamenting that “it's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy whose got eyes on me,” and led the effort to defeat the nomination of an openly gay judge, questioning how he would rule in a "bar room fight between a homosexual and heterosexual."

The Wrong Way to Address the Backlog of Pending Nominations

Blocking committee votes is hardly the most cooperative way to prevent a buildup of nominees waiting for a floor vote.
PFAW

Erik Rush: Norman Lear Opened Door To Satanism At The Grammys

Right-wing pundits continue to express shock and disgust — and hurl accusations of Satanism — at the 2014 Grammy Awards. On his radio show yesterday, right-wing talker Erik Rush cited InfoWars, the Alex Jones-led conspiracy theory outlet, to claim that the Grammy ceremony was filled with Satanic and occult themes.

He blamed this on television producer and writer Norman Lear, the founder of People For the American Way, whom he claims is “one of the biggest social propagandists ever” and responsible for putting “freaks” into the spotlight. (If Rush means that Lear put some of the first gay characters on TV, he’s correct!)

In an earlier broadcast, Rush said the awards show made him want to vomit — even though he admitted he didn’t watch it:

Some Voter Fraud Myths Never Die

When Allen West lost his seat in Congress in 2012, his supporters immediately cried voter fraud based on a claim that one county in his Florida district had reported 141 percent of its registered voters turning out to the polls. The claim was bogus, because the 141 percent figure was misleading.

The actual turnout in the county was 69.56 percent, while the 141 percent figure represented the number of “cards cast.”

Since the ballot was two pages long, every voter cast two cards, hence the initial report that the number of “cards cast” amounted to 141 percent of registered voters.

Even the voter-fraud obsessed group True the Vote notes that in “St. Lucie County, ballots were at least two pages or ‘cards.’ Policy dictates that each card be counted separately, leading to a total of 247,383 ‘votes’, aka cards, cast. Divide the number by half, then exhale.”

So even though this claim of voter fraud has been debunked, a right-wing group is still citing the bogus charge in its opposition to restoring the Voting Rights Act. Speaking with the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow today, Bob Parks of Project 21 used the imaginary 141 percent figure to allege that massive voter fraud is undeniable:

An organization of black conservatives says a new bill provides election fraudsters with opportunity to potentially steal elections by nullifying the votes of law-abiding citizens.



Now the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 – sponsored by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers – would create a new formula; and with it new criteria that could force even more jurisdictions to have to report to federal overseers on all matters related to the electoral process.

Bob Parks, who operates the website Black & Right, is a member of the national advisory council for Project 21.

"Having [a] federal government – especially [one] like this one that has an attorney general who picks and chooses which crimes and which offenses that he wishes to investigate, [and] which laws that they will simply ignore – it's ripe for corruption," he argues.

According to Parks, upwards of 19 states have counties with more than 100-percent voter registration. "You have situations ... I believe it was in the Allen West race in Florida where the voting was 141-percent," he recalls. "You can't tell me there's not a voter fraud problem."

Gohmert: Obama Is Santa Claus

Rep. Louie Gohmert, who recently unveiled his bold plan to tax the poorest Americans by taxing some of their government benefits, criticized President Obama yesterday for acting like “Santa Claus.”

Chatting with Fox News pundit Sean Hannity, whom Gohmert had invited as his guest to the State of the Union address, the Texas Republican said he wore a Santa Claus tie to the speech because “we’re going to be listening to Santa Claus tonight promising whatever anybody wants they can have.”

WorldNetDaily Wonders If Matt Drudge Is A Prophet

WorldNetDaily today dedicated an entire story to decoding a tweet sent by conservative pundit Matt Drudge that read simply, “Have an exit plan.” The right-wing outlet spoke to survivalist Marc Slavo to analyze Drudge’s tweet.

Could Drudge be predicting an economic crash? Currency collapse? Terrorist attack? Something bad?!

WND investigates:

WND has contacted Drudge to see if he has any further explanation to what he specifically meant with his tweet.

Online blogger Mac Slavo is among those taking note of Drudge’s tweet, saying the warning, while cryptic, may be the result of direct insider information.

“Considering he once nearly brought down the Clinton administration by revealing the president’s indiscretions with a White House intern, one could make the case that if anyone has legitimate sources pouring in from across the world it’s Matt Drudge,” Slavo writes.

“Could his warning be for stock market investors regarding foreknowledge of an imminent collapse of financial markets in the United States, China and Europe?

“Or has Drudge’s access to insiders in key positions given him the ability to connect the dots for an event that may occur in the near future? Few may recall, but just three weeks ahead of the September 11th attacks, Drudge headlined warnings of possible strikes on U.S.-based targets, so there may well be a credible insider source for his most recent warning as well.”

Slavo goes on to note that while Drudge’s latest comments could be referring to anything, “given the types of stories he’s covered in recent years we could make the case that he is referring to worst-case scenarios.

“His exit plan warning may encompass any number of potential scenarios such as a coming shock to financial markets, evacuating major cities in an emergency, preparing for the destruction of our currency, or having a way to get out of the United States in the event of a Soviet-style purge.

“Whatever the case, Matt Drudge understands that his views and comments are followed by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, thus we are confident that he would not publicly issue such a warning unless he has access to credible information that supports his claims. That being said, we urge readers to remain vigilant.”

Garrow: Obama Should Be 'Put Down' Like A 'Rabid Dog'

Jim Garrow reacted to President Obama’s State of the Union by once again calling for the president’s death, this time comparing him to a rabid dog who should be “put down.”

In a Facebook post today, Garrow suggested that Satan was behind Obama’s rise to power and called the president a “quisling agent” who should face a revolution.

The Speech:

"The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is at it again. Perhaps a real wolf will eat him so we don't have to listen to the lies. Rabid dogs are put down for the protection of the innocent and to prevent the spread of disease.

Our "loyal opposition" can't even yell "You lie" without offering an apology later and backing down from speaking the truth. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul made their usual attempt at truth telling but like the Scripture tells us "A prophet is without honor in his own land", and they will be ignored unless it is to hold them up to ridicule on the morning talk shows.

In the meantime the meteor of doom continues on its course with the mad man Obama laughing derisively at the "colonialist empire" he is wreaking havoc on and bringing down. The great Satan allowed its guard to slip and a quisling agent to penetrate. His work of devastation is not done and he has spread his manure of deceit across the land again.

The lonely voices of those not addled into submission to the lies find themselves Alinskied at every turn, browbeaten into conformity, or forced to disappear into obscurity for their audacity in declaring the Emperor to be unclothed, and bare faced in his lies.

Obama is revolting in his prevarication, and our response should be to revolt - period.

- Dr. Jim Garrow -

FRC Distorts Harvard Study To Claim Gay Marriage Harms Children

Surprising no one, the Family Research Council is attempting to spin a new Harvard study which found that “children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are significantly less likely to experience absolute and relative mobility” as a reason to oppose marriage equality. FRC president Tony Perkins and senior fellow Peter Sprigg addressed the Harvard findings on Monday’s edition of Washington Watch during a discussion of a proposed anti-gay amendment in Indiana.

After Sprigg noted that “if a child grows up in a community with married households, that child will do better than a child raised in a community where there are many single parent households,” he said that the study affirmed his opposition to marriage equality: “This is exactly what I’ve been saying about the marriage issue, if you redefine marriage it’s not going to affect just those couples, it’s going to affect the whole community by setting an example.”

“That study then answers that question: how does my same-sex marriage affect yours?” Perkins added. “Well, it may not affect my marriage but it affects my children because it has an impact upon marriage across the board.”

Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.

Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:

The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship.

Potential Iowa Senate Candidate Vander Plaats Explains Christian Nationalist View Of Government

Bob Vander Plaats, the head of the social conservative group The Family Leader, will reportedly be deciding in the next few weeks whether to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Tom Harkin this year. While he hasn’t made a final decision yet, Vander Plaats is widely considered to be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination if he enters the race, and already seems to be selling himself as a candidate.

Progress Iowa shares a video of Vander Plaats speaking at The Family Leader’s annual “Life, Marriage & Family” rally yesterday, in which Vander Plaats lays out his Christian nationalist view of government. Speaking about recent court decisions in favor of marriage equality, Vander Plaats – who led the effort to oust three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled for marriage equality in 2009 – claimed that “rogue justices” and President Obama (“who is in over his head”) have “forgotten” that the American government is actually an instrument of God.

“God institution (sic) government,” he said. “He has three institutions: He has the Church, he has the family, and he has government.” He went on to explain that “the purpose of government: to promote righteousness,” which he counts as following “God’s principles and precepts” on everything from economics to family policy to foreign affairs.

Vander Plaats frequently portrays the Constitution as an extension of the Bible, claiming that marriage equality is unconstitutional because it “goes against the law of nature’s God” and that the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision provoked a “constitutional crisis” by “going against the document that predates the Constitution.”

The remarks start about three minutes into the video.

I happen to believe the reason you will see a leader who is in over his head, why you will see a Congress with a nine percent approval rating, and why you see rogue justices taking authority that isn’t theirs to take, is that they have forgotten, many of them have forgotten who is the Lawgiver. That God institution (sic) government. He has three institutions: He has the Church, he has the family, and he has government. Where those three intersect, that is the focus of The Family Leader. That is where we focus our attention, we focus our crosshairs.

God instituted government. That’s why we have the founders who referenced in the Declaration of Independence, ‘the law of nature and the law of nature’s God.’ Because they knew when you start walking away from the law of nature and the law of nature’s God and you start implementing your own laws about what’s best for Bob, what’s best for Greg, what’s best for Tamara, what’s best for Nancy, you will have a train wreck. there has to be a higher standard. And that’s the standard that we try to achieve here at the Family Leader, we try to promote at the Family Leader. The purpose of government: to promote righteousness.

All you have to do is look at God’s principles and precepts. They are for our good and our benefit, not our harm and our destruction. You apply his principles and precepts to economics, then your economic house is in order. You apply his principles and precepts to marriage and the family, well marriage and family is in order. You apply his principles and precepts to foreign policy, and foreign policy is in order. So, when you’re looking for the solutions, where should we look? We should look up, and not to the sides, and definitely not to the poll of the day.

Ted Cruz vs. The Religious Right: Is Putin Tyrant Or Savior?

Is it possible to talk about human rights abuses in Russia in the context of the Olympics and not once mention Russia’s anti-gay laws, the rising tide of anti-gay violence, or the controversy over the impact that Russia’s anti-gay “propaganda” law might have on athletes and visitors? Sure, if you’re Sen. Ted Cruz speaking at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation. 

Cruz, darling of the Religious Right and Tea Party, slammed Russia’s “increasingly autocratic” president at the January 28 Heritage event.  He portrayed Vladimir Putin as a tyrant systematically working to crush Ukrainian independence and reassemble the old Soviet Union. And of course he took the opportunity to slam the Obama administration, which he said was not standing up forcefully for human rights.

Following Cruz to the microphone was Katrina Lantos Swett, Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Swett, a “proud Democrat,” detailed a litany of anti-democratic laws adopted in Putin’s Russia, including “religious freedom” and “extremism” laws that give the government wide latitude to discriminate against minority religions, including Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Pentecostal Christians.  She said the Russian government is undermining civil society with severe restrictions on protests and the return of Soviet-era tactics like sentencing dissidents to psychiatric treatment. Swett did mention the anti-gay “propaganda” law in her list of Putin’s anti-democratic actions.

There are a couple remarkable things about this panel, other than finding myself in agreement with Cruz about something (Putin is an anti-democratic strongman).

First, in his 26-minute speech and during the Q&A, at an event about human rights and the Olympics, Cruz did not breathe a word about the raging controversy over Russia’s attacks on the rights and lives of LGBT people. The closest Cruz came was mentioning, as an example of Putin’s efforts to crush dissent, his moves against “a punk rock band.” Cruz joked about his unwillingness to say the band’s name (Pussy Riot).

Second, Cruz is clearly at odds with anti-gay and anti-abortion leaders in the U.S. who have been busily praising Putin as the defender of traditional values and savior of Christianity. Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber, for example, has said Putin is being allowed to “out-Christian our once-Christian nation.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has called Putin “the lion of Christianity, the defender of Christian values, the president that’s calling his nation back to embracing its identity as a nation founded on Christian values.”

In fact there is a whole gaggle of Religious Right leaders who have, as Miranda has reported, fallen all over themselves to praise Putin and his anti-free-speech, anti-gay crackdown. And some of them have done more than just praise Putin. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage traveled to Russia to build support for anti-gay legislation. The Illinois-based Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society is excited about heading to Moscow for its 2014 “World Congress of Families” summit.

Cruz was eager to criticize the Obama administration for not advocating more strongly for human rights in Russia, but what does he have to say about his Religious Right pals who are actively praising and enabling Putin’s anti-democratic moves? And who have attacked the Obama administration’s efforts to promote the human rights of LGBT people abroad? We’re listening.

Prove You're Not Homophobic By Complimenting Your Lesbian Store Clerk's Haircut

Tea Party activist Selena Owens, whose Conservative Campaign Committee is trying to air a Super Bowl ad thanking Ted Cruz for shutting down the government over Obamacare, writes in WorldNetDaily today that she was offended by the “blasphemous” Grammy Awards.

She calls the awards show “a forthright assault on conservatives” that aided the “homosexual advancement” in American culture.

Owens claims that conservatives shouldn’t “be so defensive” about their anti-gay views or “surrender” to gay rights advocates. Instead, she advises conservatives to just show how totally-not-homophobic they are: “Sometimes I deliberately go through the checkout line of the lesbian clerk to drop a few words of Jesus’ love in her ear and then compliment her haircut.”

The Grammy Awards is proof positive that the culture war has unabashedly come front and center against conservatives – let alone Christians.

I don’t watch the Grammys, but in light of all the frenzy via social media over the gay-marriage ceremony that aired live during the show, I decided to watch this segment on YouTube to understand exactly what went down.

What I witnessed was a forthright assault on conservatives.



Are we shocked or appalled that straight couples happily exchanged marriage vows alongside homosexuals and lesbians on national television? Haven’t we seen the signs all along? For decades, homosexual advancement has encroached upon Christians and conservatives. Everything from rainbows to school curriculum to parades have been hijacked by progressives, tossed to politicians and handed down to liberal activists working alongside comrades in the entertainment industry. Macklemore was not ONE voice with a few stage props who sang for ONE night. He adequately represents a culmination of years of erosion of Christian and conservative values through liberal ideology and implementation.

So what should Christians and conservatives do? Complain to CBS? Sign petitions? Blog about how awful this behavior is for society? Those are sound starting places.

I propose this: Be yourself and don’t be so defensive. I’m myself no matter the situation or people. Sometimes I deliberately go through the checkout line of the lesbian clerk to drop a few words of Jesus’ love in her ear and then compliment her haircut. Or I encourage the star-struck 17-year-old to become informed on political issues that will affect her life, then discuss those big hoop earrings she’s sporting. No defense, no arguments, no worries. I remain offensive. I’m me.

Remind yourself that conservative values are still a major element in society, and Christianity is the only answer for cultural depravity. The Grammy folks want us to believe otherwise. They took a blatant shot at us through deplorable lyrics and godless imagery and tried to frame the narrative to say that homosexuality is widely accepted as the norm. They’re wrong. Society at large does not accept that narrative. They hope we’ll throw our hands up and surrender. Don’t do it. Order my book for a “how to” approach to dealing with godless liberalism within society.

WND: Save Democracy By Prohibiting Anyone Who Receives Public Benefits From Voting

WorldNetDaily columnist Christopher Monckton thinks that democracy is in danger, and the only way to save it is by banning anyone who receives any government benefits — “everything from food stamps to Medicaid and Medicare” — from voting.

This proposal would strip voting rights from most elderly and low-income Americans; in fact, nearly half of Americans live in a household where someone receives some form of government benefit. But Monckton says that this massive voting prohibition would prevent the “death of democracy.”

The Union is now in a state of disunion. On one side of the Great Divide, those who work for a living and pay their taxes. Most taxpayers vote Republican. On the other side, those who do not work for a living and pay little or no tax. Nearly all non-contributors vote “Democrat.”



Nearly everyone who is unemployed votes “Democrat.” Nearly every immigrant, at least in the first generation, votes “Democrat.” Nearly every non-white American votes “Democrat.” The GOP know that so intellectually and financially bankrupt an administration should never have been re-elected – indeed, given the scale of electoral fraud practiced by the “Democrats,” he may not actually have been re-elected (always supposing that he had the constitutional right to hold the office of president in the first place).

Houston, we have a problem. America as we knew her and admired her is going down, sinking financially and politically under the tide of takers. For takers are also voters, and that is the problem. The taxpayees can vote themselves more and more and more of the taxpayers’ money.

Yet so little attention has been given to the death of democracy via the growing cost and reach of federal welfare programs that the word “taxpayees” has not existed until this moment. Google it and the search engine will assume you have made a spelling mistake. It will give you thousands of references to “taxpayers.”



First, the federal authorities need to know who is getting welfare benefits – everything from food stamps to Medicaid and Medicare. In the future, if you want a handout from Uncle Sam, you will need to prove to him who you are. If you are an illegal immigrant, sorry, but no more handouts. If you are a lawful immigrant, sorry, but no handouts in your first five years in the United States. Period. If you don’t like that, don’t come.

Very important: If you are claiming any handout, you are not entitled to vote. Taxpayers will have the right to vote, but taxpayees will not. That way, no one can vote himself a handout.

'Family' Group: 'Pimp' Jay-Z And 'Homosexual Faux-Pastorette' Queen Latifah Hurl Grammys 'Spitball' at God

Anti-gay activists including Rush Limbaugh, Fox News’ Todd Starnes, and the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and Tim Wildmon have been having a field day this week attacking the Grammy Awards for hosting a performance involving a mass marriage that included same-sex couples. Today, the Illinois Family Association, the state affiliate of the AFA, joined the fray, sending out an email attacking the awards show for contributing to the “destruction of marriage.”

IFI’s “cultural analyst” Laurie Higgins writes that the Grammys were “a tragic freak show” and “a gawdy[sic] spitball hurled in the all-seeing eye of a holy God.”

The wedding ceremony, Higgins writes, was “a sorry, sick, non-serious ceremony that looked like something from the garish dystopian world of the Hunger Games” and “a non-wedding festooned with all the indulgent gimcrackery [sic] of Satan's most alluring playground: Hollywood.” She particularly attacks “homosexual faux-pastorette” Queen Latifah and “the Dorian Gray-esque” Madonna for taking part in the proceedings.

But Higgins disapproval goes beyond the same-sex marriage portion of the entertainment. She also criticizes Beyoncé -- the object of a fewrecent tirades from the Right -- for providing a “vulgar anti-woman, anti-marriage performance” that Higgins compares to “soft-core porn.”

“Beyoncé has abused her power as a beloved role model for young girls to teach them terrible lessons about sexuality and marriage,” Higgins writes. Her anger extends also to Beyoncé’s husband Jay-Z, whom she claims “seems to revel in the lustings of strangers for his wife.”

Is it money that motivates his eager embrace of his wife's immodesty, or pride that he has access to her body when all other leering men do not?” Higgins asks. “If it's money, how is he different from a pimp?”

This past Sunday night's Grammy awards was a tragic freak show that demonstrated the entertainment industry's arrogance, ignorance of marriage, and disregard for children. It was a gawdy spitball hurled in the all-seeing eye of a holy God.

The spectacle was bookended by a soft-core porn performance by the not-single lady Beyoncé who twerked and jerked her half-revealed derriere in a series of "dance" moves that simulated sex and stimulated sexual appetite, while the crowd cheered in puerile excitement.

Beyoncé was later joined by her husband Jay-Z who seems to revel in the lustings of strangers for his wife. What kind of man gets pleasure from his wife's flaunting of her sexuality and from the certain knowledge that men desire to do things to his wife because of her arousing dress and actions? Is it money that motivates his eager embrace of his wife's immodesty, or pride that he has access to her body when all other leering men do not? If it's money, how is he different from a pimp?

Beyoncé's performance reinforced the cultural deceit that modesty and the notion that conjugal love is private are archaic puritanical irrelevancies. Beyoncé has abused her power as a beloved role model for young girls to teach them terrible lessons about sexuality and marriage. Her performance raises many questions:

  • What motivates a young, married mother to flaunt her partially-exposed sexual anatomy to the world and simulate sex movements?
  • Deep down is this what she truly wants to do?
  • Deep down does she really want her husband to delight in the objectification and commodification of her body for the prurient pleasures of other men?
  • Would Jay-Z and Beyoncé want their daughter to one day perform like her mother for the pleasures of men? What would they think about an 18-year-old Blue Ivy recreating her mother's performance but in a seedy club for the eyes of less expensively attired and botoxed men and women?
  • Is Beyoncé comfortable with her father watching her performance?
  • What kind of mixed message does this performance send to children? Parents and pediatricians tell children that parts of their bodies are "private parts" that only parents and doctors should look at or touch. We convey that message to them from the earliest prepubescent ages. So, what happens after sexual maturity? Do those "private parts" suddenly become public parts?
  • Is modesty in dress the same as prudery, or is it a virtue to be cultivated?

Beyoncé's vulgar anti-woman, anti-marriage performance foreshadowed the climactic setpiece of the evening: Queen Latifah, long-rumored to be a lesbian, officiated at the "weddings" of 33 couples, many of whom were same-sex couples, while accompanied by the preachy, feckless song "Same Love" by Macklemore and the song "Open Your Heart" by the Dorian Gray-esque Madonna. It was a sorry, sick, non-serious ceremony that looked like something from the garish dystopian world of the Hunger Games, replete with a cheering sycophantic audience, faux-stained glass windows, a faux-choir, a homosexual faux-pastorette, and "Madonna" with her faux-face. It was a non-wedding festooned with all the indulgent gimcrackery of Satan's most alluring playground: Hollywood.

Alex Jones Prays For Bob Barr's Return To Congress

Former congressman and Clinton/Obama impeachment crusader Bob Barr is mounting a comeback campaign to win the Georgia congressional seat currently held by Rep. Phil Gingrey. And lucky for Barr, he has won the support of Alex Jones.

On his show last week, the InfoWars host saluted the Republican candidate’s supposed bravery in leading the fight to impeach President Clinton, telling him that “a lot of people died that went against Clinton, a lot of airplanes blew up, a lot of people got shot in the head five times and it does take backbone to try to impeach somebody when you’re going against gangsters like this.”

“We’ve got to get rid of the Clinton mafia and I think what you’re hinting at is that if we put you back into Congress, you are going to start investigating, bringing charges of impeachment up in the House,” Jones said.

Barr, who discussed his plans to impeach President Obama at November’s “Second American Revolution” rally, told Jones that he intends to recycle the articles of impeachment he brought against Clinton to use against Obama: “I took that documented, figuratively dusted it off, added a little language to it, and darned if it doesn’t sound pretty good with Barack Obama’s name in there.”

Later, Jones praised Barr’s congressional campaign. “We need to get him in there,” he said. “We’re going to pray and hope you get in there.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious