Fox News contributor Erik Rush complains in his latest column at World Net Daily that he was only joking when he said that Muslims are evil and should be killed. But he manages to prove otherwise by closing the column with a justification for killing Muslims:
For the record, I still maintain that Islam is, by its nature, wholly incompatible with Western society. I analogize liberalism, which is promoting this dhimmitude, to Stage 3 cancer in America’s body politic. For the record: While killing people is definitely undesirable, that is what war tends to be about.
And we are at war – just study the history of Islam, or ask any Islamist.
We reported on the exchange, and it was quickly picked up by other media outlets. Rush accuses us and others of “leaving out the fact that it was sarcasm.” Rush claims that Bill’s “irate” tweet prompted his “sarcastic response,” and that “kill them all” was merely echoing Muslims’ “favored disposition toward Americans.”
Rush deleted the tweet later that day and rolled out his sarcasm defense, which numerous outlets uncritically parroted. We didn’t buy it then, and we certainly don’t buy it after reading Rush’s latest column.
Rush has a long track record of paranoid and hate-filled rhetoric. The “just kidding” defense doesn’t work when you’ve previously called for armed revolution against President Obama, said that liberals and journalists should be jailed for treason and claimed that the Chinese government is building a military base inside the US with help from Obama.
It’s clear that Rush supports the sentiment behind his “sarcastic” tweet. The onus was on him to prove otherwise. Not only has he failed to do so, he’s doubled down with a justification for killing Muslims.
Until now, Rush has enjoyed a close relationship with Fox News, and Sean Hannity in particular. A transcript search reveals that he’s appeared on Fox nearly 20 times and has made additional appearances on Fox News Radio, as recently as last Friday. Hannity’s website even features a review for Rush’s book, with the catchy name of Negrophilia.
Despite this close relationship, representatives of Fox News scrambled behind the scenes this week to distance the channel from Rush. If they don’t want their precious brand to be tainted by him, they need to cut ties with him entirely. We have a petition calling on Fox to do so, which has already been signed by more than 50,000 people.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality spoke to “Coach” Dave Daubenmire last week, telling Daubenmire that he finds it “reassuring” that the gay community is impacted by STIs and violence as it confirms to him that “God believes [homosexuality] is an abomination.”
“If it really is a detestable behavior as God says, you’d expect it to be linked disproportionately to disease, we see lots of gay-on-gay violence, domestic violence,” LaBarbera said. “There’s no logic to the liberal left, they are all about doing whatever the homosexual movement wants, it is like spoiled children but nobody wants to say no them.”
UPDATE: Peter LaBarbera has posted an “explanation” of his remarks on his website.
The Christian Post is out with two op-eds today on the Boston attack. Neither is exactly constructive.
The first comes from Tony Katz, who inexplicably claims that the shooters in Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and Tucson were “connected to the left”:
Facts don't matter to Progressives. The shooters in the Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook murders each were in some way connected to the left. But in aftermath of those shootings, the media machine worked overtime to make a connection between conservatives and the mass murders.
Once we know who set the bombs there will be time for commentary. In the meantime, Americans should be alert to pseudo-journalists interested not in truth but rather in a Clockwork Orange approach of forcing you to throw up when you hear the words Republican, right, freedom, rights, or guns - regardless of the truth.
Next, Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips, who has already blamed President Obama for the bombing, suggests that the Obama administration is working with Saudi Arabia to cover up the potential role of a Saudi student in the attack.
But since Phillips is convinced that a Muslim must be responsible for the attack, he argues that Obama is in cahoots with Saudi officials to protect the student, whom Phillips finds suspicious because he is Muslim and suffered burns from the blast.
Now, three days after the bombing there are even more questions than answers. While there needs to be some secrecy during an investigation, there are some questions the Obama Regime must answer now.
Immediately after the blast, reports surfaced that a Saudi national was in the hospital. Various reports said he was detained, not free to leave or in custody. Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi is the Saudi national. His apartment was searched. The first reports said it was done with a search warrant. Now reports are coming out that the search was a consent search. Reports then came out saying Alharbi was only a witness and not a suspect or person of interest.
Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism is now reporting that next Tuesday, Alharbi will be deported for "national security reasons."
On Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Saudi Foreign Minister, Saud Al Faisal in a meeting that had been scheduled for some time but was abruptly closed to the media for "scheduling reasons."
Yesterday, the same Saudi Foreign Minister met with Obama, even though the meeting was not on Obama's public schedule. The White House said, "The president and Prince Saud al-Faisal reaffirmed the strong partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia and discussed developments in the region, including the conflict in Syria." According to other sources, Alharbi is a devout Muslim and is a member of a Saudi Clan that has a lot of Al-Qaeda members.
This whole mess stinks to high heaven.
The first question that needs to be answered is why this guy was at the Boston Marathon. Did he suddenly develop an interest in long distance running? How was he injured? Press reports said he had burns as well as other injuries. Burns are significant because to be burned by the explosion would mean he would have to be very close to the explosion.
Press reports indicated that the FBI and other agencies executed a search warrant on Alharbi's apartment the night after the attack. If this was a search done by search warrant, this is very significant. A search warrant requires the showing of probable cause. An agent must go to a federal judge and swear under oath to the facts that establish probable cause. Narratives supporting probable cause in federal search warrants are not boilerplate language. They are lengthy and detailed.
If the search was a consent search, there will be a written consent form. In a search in a case of this magnitude, the FBI is not going to simply go on a verbal consent. The consent would be written. If Alharbi is not a suspect, then it is a simple matter to show the consent to the press.
Alharbi has suddenly gone from a person of interest, to a witness to no one at all. Then why is he being deported for national security reasons the day after Obama meets with the Saudi Foreign Minister in an unscheduled meeting and two days after the Minister has a meeting with John Kerry where the doors are abruptly closed?
Once Alharbi is deported, we will never see him again.
Why is the Regime in such a hurry to get him out of the country?
The Regime and far left have already tried to set the agenda. If they believed in God, they would be praying that the suspect, when caught would be a Tea Party member, whose car is covered with 2nd Amendment bumper stickers.
The Government even has an acronym for what they are searching for. It is an HVE standing for "Homegrown Violent Extremist."
The Obama Regime is desperate that the Boston Bomber be a rightwing extremist. They are in absolute fear that it turns out the bomber is a Muslim with ties to Al-Qaeda. And they are now doing their best to make sure the latter is not the case.
As with everything else with the Obama Regime, this stinks to high heaven. What really happened at those meetings? Why is there the rush to deport Alharbi? He could and should be kept in this country at least as a material witness.
If anyone is ever caught for this and there is an attempt to try him in Federal Court, the Regime is already setting the stage to make that trial almost impossible for the government to win.
This is the Obama Regime at work.
The folks at Liberty Counsel are quite upset about an email sent by a lieutenant colonel which called out anti-gay groups, and as you might expect, Matt Barber is already blaming the incident on the “homosexualization of the United States military” that began following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Barber, an ardent supporter of the military’s then-ban on gay service members, also told Faith & Freedom cohost and Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver that the email is part of a “Marxist” attempt “to marginalize people with whom they disagree.”
Jeffrey Scott Shapiro declared today in the right-wing Washington Times that the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre do not deserve a vote in Congress.
Citing the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns, Shapiro claimed that the federal government has no authority to make any laws regulating guns.
However, the Manchin-Toomey bill that was just blocked by a GOP-led filibuster wouldn’t ban any guns. It would simply expand background checks for gun purchases. The Heller opinion also makes clear that lawmakers are able to enact certain regulations on firearms.
It seems Shapiro is upset about a bill that would ban all guns that was never proposed in the first place.
But that doesn’t stop him from attacking Obama for having “exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope” and engaging in an “abuse of power.”
“The president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense,” Shapiro writes. “Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.”
Even more strikingly, Shaprio says that it would be “just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation.”
I don’t believe the families of the victims from the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., deserve a vote.
It may sound harsh and uncaring, but even the greatest tragedies are not a valid reason to disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States. If they were, our free speech and our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and against self-incrimination would have all been abolished long ago amid every crime wave in American history.
Five years ago, the Supreme Court settled the issue of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller, making it clear that guns in “common use” were constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, President Obama recently flew several family members of Sandy Hook victims to Washington on Air Force One to pressure congressional legislators to enact new gun laws.
Congress creates laws, the president enforces laws and the courts are a check and balance to decide if those laws are constitutional. Since, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” the voice of the Supreme Court is the final word on any legal issue not Congress, and certainly not the president.
It’s a relatively simple principle, but one that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to understand or care about. He seems to think the tragic shootings of innocent people at Sandy Hook is a justifiable excuse to completely disregard the Supreme Court and the Constitution. In places such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., thousands of innocent people have also been killed during times when comprehensive firearms bans were in effect. Don’t those families deserve a vote as well?
At every possible turn, the president has exploited the Sandy Hook tragedy by riling the emotions of already distressed parents and families, giving them false hope, convincing them they deserve a vote on an issue he knows has already been settled by the Supreme Court, a vote he knows would be unconstitutional and a vote that, short of a constitutional convention to repeal the Second Amendment, would be illegal.
It would be just as unconstitutional to ask Congress to ban free speech, establish a national religion or reinstitute segregation. That’s not leadership, nor is it compassion. It’s deceitful and preys upon broken families, who are lost in grief.
The president knows there is no chance of constitutionally expanding firearms regulations beyond minor changes, such as universal background checks. If the president has any common sense, he also knows that registration laws and universal background checks will accomplish almost nothing, since they will not obstruct criminals from getting illegal guns on the black market, just as they always have.
Everything Mr. Obama is doing to lessen the criminal use of firearms is counterintuitive to what makes sense. Instead of targeting criminals with illegal firearms, the president is trying regulate law-abiding citizens who buy legal firearms. Instead of waging war against Mexican cartels for trafficking millions of illegal guns into America each year, the president is determined to launch a police war against American citizens for legally purchasing U.S.-made firearms for self-defense.
Mr. Obama is wrong to say that if we can save one child’s life, we should do “everything” we can in our power. However, abuse of power is a dangerous thing in a constitutional republic.
Mr. Obama should stop exploiting the families of crime victims just to further his unconstitutional gun-control agenda.
Despite the tragic circumstances of what happened at Sandy Hook, pain, sadness and desperation are never a reason to jeopardize freedom and liberty. The families of Sandy Hook victims deserve sympathy, but they do not deserve a vote from Congress on a matter that has already been decided by the Supreme Court. The Constitution, not compassion, must remain the currency of our country’s lawmaking process.
In a WorldNetDaily column today, Ted Nugent claims that President Obama has no interest in pursuing the perpetrators behind the Boston marathon bombing and that liberals are partly to blame for the tragedy because they “champion keeping nuts out of nuthouses.”
“Liberal logic is evil’s best friend,” Nugent writes.
He adds that if the marathon bomber “is found to be from a Middle East country,” the U.S. should deport all people from the Middle East and “put a boot in their ass.”
As I write this, the cops don’t appear to have any solid leads or suspects in the Boston Massacre II.
The president pledged to bring the individuals or organizations responsible for this massacre to justice. Good for him. But I don’t believe him.
The president also promised to do the same for the terrorists who killed four of our citizens and torched our mission in Libya. So far, nothing. He should have provided proper security that was requested time and time again to have prevented the attack. Go figure.
Though no Libyan terrorists have been apprehended, the president continues to argued that punishing law-abiding Americans will somehow magically protect Americans from murderous bug-eyed psychotics. The very concept is terminally flawed: that liberal dog don’t hunt.
Regardless the flavor of psychosis, the terror America faces is planned and executed by evil, soulless lunatics. Whether its religious voodoo nutjobs or young men with loose screws or strung out on doctor-prescribed pharmaceuticals, the enemies we face are a potpourri of over-the-rainbow kooks, flakes, crackpots, screwballs, cranks and evil nuts who could stand facing a sandstorm and not bat an eye.
The lesson here is that while the good guys of the thin blue line do what they can, a crackpot intent on blowing up Americans has a reasonably good chance of setting off bombs without getting caught.
Wringing your hands and hoping you’re not in the frag pattern of the next bomb is not a meaningful strategy unless you are a frightened liberal who needs a conservative to protect you.
There are things we can do to make America safe.
Using the president’s logic of punishing the law-abiding for the acts of the deranged, should the psycho who bombed the Boston Marathon be found to be from a Middle Eastern country, we should immediately cancel all student visas and work permits for people from the Middle East. As my buddy Toby Keith sings, “put a boot in their ass,” and send them all home on the next available flight.
Keep things in perspective. You are much more likely to be a victim of a paroled thug than being blown up by a religious voodoo kook. Blowing holes in paroled punks is a great crime-control strategy and a proven deterrent that reduces the overall violent crime rate. Dead bad guys don’t repeat crimes. Never forget, the only good bad guy is a dead bad guy. I recommend ticker-tape parades for people who dust bad guys.
So long as liberals champion keeping nuts out of nuthouses, there is little we can do to keep lunatics from gaining access to guns, gas, knives, blowtorches or bomb-filled Buicks and committing mayhem.
We should arm a few teachers to protect our kids. Our shopping malls should follow billionaire Warren Buffet’s lead in allowing shoppers with concealed carry permits into his Nebraska Furniture Mart in Omaha.
Common sense will protect us. Liberal logic is evil’s best friend.
Back in September, PFAW senior fellow Jamie Raskin wrote a preview of the major cases coming before the Supreme Court this term, one of which, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, deals with the ability of foreign nationals to sue corporations for human rights abuses in American courts. The Supreme Court today issued a sweeping ruling siding with the multinational corporations accused of abuse. Main Justice sums up the facts of the case:
The plaintiffs accuse Royal Dutch, the Shell Transport and Trading Company and their joint Nigerian subsidy of allowing, indeed encouraging, atrocities by the Nigerian military against people who were protesting environmental damage caused by drilling in the Niger Delta in the 1990s. The companies were complicit in beatings, rapes and mass arrests by paying the soldiers, feeding them and allowing them to use oil company property as staging areas for their attacks, the plaintiffs maintain.
At issue was the application of the Alien Tort Statute, enacted in 1789, that gives United States courts jurisdiction over civil actions brought by aliens alleging torts committed in violation of United States treaties or international law. The seldom-used ATS was enacted partly in response to piracy on the high seas. The Nigerian plaintiffs, now legal residents of the United States, tried to use it in a present-day context.
As Jamie Raskin wrote in his Supreme Court preview, the Second Circuit radically twisted legal precedent in this case to rule that individuals could not sue corporations under the Alien Tort Statute:
Jurisdiction to hear the suit was clear. In 2004, the Supreme Court held, in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, that the Alien Tort Statute gave federal courts jurisdiction to hear claims about torts committed against aliens that violate well-established international norms like the human rights norms implicated in this case. Yet a bitterly divided Second Circuit panel in Kiobel held for the first time that the statute does not allow courts to hear suits against corporations as opposed to individuals. The Kiobel majority’s ruling on this issue was amazing since the issue was never raised, never briefed, never argued and never decided in any of the proceedings below that took place over the course of nearly a decade. (This rings a bell for close observers of the Citizens United majority, which also pulled a rabbit out of a hat to ask and answer a question never raised below.)
Today, the Roberts Court agreed. The Court unanimously ruled against the Nigerians in Kiobel, but disagreed about how far the ruling should go. Justice Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, wrote a broad ruling in favor of the corporations accused of human rights abuses. The four moderate justices concurred with the majority’s ruling on this particular case, but left the door open for similar cases to be tried in U.S. Courts. Main Justice explains:
Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the defendants’ “minimal and indirect presence in the United States was not enough to give American courts jurisdiction over the case.” But he stopped short of declaring that similar cases should never end up in American courts if the abuse at issue “adversely affects an important American national interest.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed with him.
Nicole Flatow at ThinkProgress explains the possible implications of the majority’s ruling:
This decision not only means that Nigerians cannot sue foreign corporations for their conduct abroad. On this particular point, the four-justice Breyer concurrence agreed that this case did not pass muster. Roberts’ sweeping pronouncement against extraterritoriality may also mean that foreign nationals subject to abuse, for example, at the hands of a U.S. corporation that houses its factories in places whose laws shield it from liability, or an American citizen who commits human rights violations abroad against foreigners, also could not be subject to suit in the United States.
The scope of the opinion will not become clear until it is interpreted by courts. Extraterritoriality is a legal concept that asks not just whether conduct took place abroad, but also whether the claims “touch and concern the territory of the United States” such that a plaintiff can overcome the presumption against them. The only hint the court gives is that lawsuits against corporations will face a particularly heavy burden, noting, “Corporations are often present in many countries, and it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices.”
What is clear is that the presumption is exceedingly difficult to overcome, and that both individuals and corporations have a high chance of skirting liability simply by doing their dirty work elsewhere.
Introducing a story on the 700 Club yesterday about the debate over legalizing same-sex marriage in France, Pat Robertson claimed that marriage equality supporters are following in the footsteps of the Illuminati.
Robertson told viewers that the French Revolution was “spurred by the writings of a group called the Illuminati,” which meant “to destroy the family, to destroy the state, to destroy capitalism and to destroy the church.” The gay community, he claimed, has similarly broad goals. “We have here a debate over same-sex marriage,” Robertson said.
“But is it really just about marriage or does it go far beyond that: to destroying the traditional family and building a country without God?”
During a Family Talk program to promote his wife’s “National Day of Prayer” effort, James Dobson floated a claim by a pastor that Christians must prepare for imminent and severe persecution and that pastors may spend the rest of their days in prison. While Dobson didn’t name which pastor told him that, he asked his guest Greg Laurie of Harvest Ministries whether he was onto something. Laurie argued that America is experiencing “a complete, total moral meltdown” that seems to “be happening at an accelerated rate.”
Dobson: If I’m reading the mood of the American people at this time, especially Christians, there is great concern for the welfare of our nation. I think more than I’ve ever seen in my adult lifetime. One pastor whom you would know, I won’t name him, he said to me this week, ‘we’re losing ground morally all the time,’ and he said, ‘I’ve told my people get ready for persecution because it’s coming, it’s coming to everyone who is a vocal believer in Jesus Christ,’ and he said that he really expects to end his life in prison. I don’t know if you would put it that way but are you also aware of a growing anxiety or angst that’s out there at this time?
Laurie: Well there is no question Dr. Dobson that there is a complete, total moral meltdown happening in our country and it seems to be happening at an accelerated rate right now, almost shockingly so. This is due to just a lack of knowing God. I think the only ultimate thing that could turn our country around right now is a revival, we need an awakening and we’ve had them in our nation in the past when things also were very dark and we need another one.
In an email to members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project yesterday, Gordon Klingenschmitt said that Religious Right activists must become “the voice” of the “abused kids” raised by same-sex parents, who he says are “not only recruited into but used as pawns for the homosexual agenda.”
Klingenschmitt responded to Justice Kennedy’s statement about the need to remember the “voice of those children” who “live with same-sex parents” while hearing the Proposition 8 case by arguing that “those abused children really wanted one mom and one dad, they just didn't know better having been misled by California Judges who impose homosexual parents upon innocent kids, against their will, and against the will of California voters.”
He also claimed that Christians cannot support politicians who favor legalizing same-sex marriage and warned that gay rights advocates are bent on “taxing heterosexuals more to pay homosexuals to engage in immorality” and “reward their acts of sodomy.”
Now 51 of 55 Democrat Senators are now openly pro-homosexual (all but Pryor, D-AR; Johnson, D-SD; Manchin, D-WV; and Landrieu, D-LA) compared to just 2 of 45 Republicans(Portman, R-OH; Kirk, R-IL). [Dr. Chaps' comment: Never again can any Bible-believing Christian support them, if Christ is still Lord of your heart.]
Shocker: Last week Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) literally blamed Jesus Christ for creating homosexual "marriage." Really Senator? Jesus made you vote for sin?
If you saw how the left-wing major media (including Fox News) reported today's Supreme Court arguments, it appears all but a foregone conclusion that 5 of the 9 justices will vote to homosexualize "marriage" this week, and release their decision in June.
For example, here's a quote from Justice Kennedy, supposedly the 'conservative' but open-minded swing vote, who today voiced concern about the estimated 40,000 children in California with homosexual 'parents': "They want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case," Kennedy said.
No, Justice Kennedy, those abused children really wanted one mom and one dad, they just didn't know better having been misled by California Judges who impose homosexual parents upon innocent kids, against their will, and against the will of California voters.
But here's some good news. 15,000 Christians marched on the Supreme Court today, demanding we define marriage as only valid between one man and one woman, for the sake of the kids, because every child deserves a mom and a dad. Let's petition with them, and let's be the voice of those abused kids, not only recruited into but used as pawns for the homosexual agenda, as proven in today's court arguments by Justice Kennedy himself.
While the national media covers only the debt crisis, Democrats in the Senate are attacking traditional marriage between one man and one woman, by attempting to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Not satisfied with homosexualizing the military, or forcing gay "marriage" in states like New York, radical homosexuals testified on Capitol Hill today demanding homosexual "bonus pay" with more than 1,100 federal benefits that reward their acts of sodomy in all 50 states, taxing heterosexuals more to pay homosexuals to engage in immorality.
On Tuesday Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced, and President Obama quickly endorsed a new bill S.598 to promote homosexual marriage, mislabeled the "Respect for Marriage Act" (RFMA) to end federal law that defines traditional marriage between one man and one woman. White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters Tuesday "President Obama is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act," which disrespects traditional marriage by enforcing homosexual marriage upon all 50 states. His views are no longer "evolving" rather Obama is now fully out of the closet promoting gay marriage nationwide.
On Monday, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios hosted Linda Harvey of Mission America to criticize the Day of Silence, the anti-bullying event which Harvey has previously described as dangerous and blasphemous.
Rios, who once said that test scores are dropping as a result of schools “teaching” homosexuality, kicked off the program by arguing that public schools no longer instruct students in subjects like “reading, writing, cursive, spelling, grammar [and] punctuation,” but are instead completely dedicated to “cramming, twisting, perverting all academic subjects to the way of supporting homosexuality.”
Rios: That’s an advertisement for this Friday’s Day of Silence in American public schools. You know there was a day when American public schools actually taught reading, writing, cursive, spelling, grammar, punctuation, English literature, British literature, American civilization, but no more. For the last twenty-five years the National Education Association has been cramming, twisting, perverting all academic subjects to the way of supporting homosexuality. Now in an activist move to really further intimidate anyone who would object to it they incorporated a few years ago what’s called the Day of Silence.
The two also latched onto conspiracy theories that common core standards will lead to the “promotion of homosexuality” and criticized schools and publishing houses for offering “pro-homosexual novels.”
Rios: Common Core, do you know anything about what they’re doing to promote homosexuality? Do they have any stated goals with this?
Harvey: I don’t know the details, I do know that everyone believes that will be part of it as they get into the more social science areas, I think they are just in English language arts and math at this point, isn’t that the case? Even English language arts, oh my goodness, the choices for reading pro-homosexuals novels out there are vast; the publishing industry is going crazy. I have found many, many school districts recommend these on a selected and chosen school reading list and so you really have to watch for that.
Rios: If no other way, and it isn’t the only way, I guarantee you if you got kids in the public school this isn’t the only way but the reading lists, the suggested reading lists are enough to make your ears just smoke.
Harvey said that conservatives should “be rolling our eyes” at claims that LGBT youth face bullying and claimed that parents should not allow their children to “witness” the Day of Silence.
Harvey: Students pledge to be silent all day because they feel that as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered [sic] students or allies, that’s other kids, that they have been silenced over the years; many of us will be rolling our eyes at that one with the loud homosexual militancy in our culture right now. But that’s what they’re claiming and they’re saying that the issue of bullying is so rampant and it is traditional values that is causing all of these kids to be bullied, it’s causing hatred and that they need to engage in a silent protest against that. And of course we’re all going: what? You can prevent bullying and stand against bulling without endorsing homosexuality but our kids are being manipulated into thinking that this is a social justice issue and that they can just make this into a protest day and it’s this Friday in many schools, April 19.
Harvey: What we are saying is find out about your school’s position on this, call your schools and say, ‘are you going to allow students to be silent to recognize this Day of Silence, this pro-homosexual day, Friday April 19 or any other day that they designation…are you going to allow to remain silent to protest the Day of Silence,’ and if so keep your kids home. We suggest that you not let your children have to sit there in class and witness teachers condoning this, other students being allowed to be silent in class. This is political propaganda and it’s manipulating an issue of kids. Everybody is concerned about bullying and it is manipulating kids’ compassion but it is all for supporting homosexuality. So we’re suggesting to people, if that’s the situation, keep your kids at home.
Rios: How do you think this issue has progressed in public schools? I wouldn’t of thought it could get much worse but what are we seeing now about the propaganda in our public schools?
Not only should parents pull their kids out of school on the Day of Silence, but according to Harvey, they should remove their children from the public school system altogether as the influence of gay “propaganda” in schools is now “beyond belief.”
Rios: How do you think this issue has progressed in public schools, I wouldn’t of thought it could get much worse, but what are we seeing now about the propaganda in our public schools?
Harvey: It’s beyond belief. I am very discouraged and I would urge any parent out there…if you are a parent and you have any ability at all to move your children to another schooling situation, Christian schooling, homeschooling, please to do so. You do not know all your children are being exposed to, this propaganda is throughout. Our kids are being told in so many ways, if it’s not direct instructional time it’s through their peers at school, that homosexuality is like race, it’s a social justice issue, which we know is not true, people do not have to be involved in homosexual behavior. This undermines the word of God, at the very bottom line your Christian kids; everything around them is undermining the clear instructions of the word of God.
Rios: Even if your kids are in so-called safe areas: conservative districts, conservative areas of the country; in their textbooks, the influence of their teachers who are part of the National Education Association, it’s really a very dangerous situation, I’m with you on that. There was a time when I used to think it was pretty outrageous to insist that Christian parents remove their kids from public schools, that seemed very extreme to me, but I have come a long way, I really am at this point where I would be frightened really to have my kids in public school.
Michael Brown is quite upset that Sojourners head Jim Wallis now supports marriage equality, and in a column for Charisma yesterday accused Wallis of “apostasy” and taking the “path to spiritual and moral suicide.” “Rev. Wallis, you have brought reproach to the name of Jesus, to the Word of God and to evangelical Christianity,” Brown writes, “you will need to humble yourself and repent.”
Rev. Wallis, you have brought reproach to the name of Jesus, to the Word of God and to evangelical Christianity.
You raised concerns for many of us when you argued in 2008 that justice requires Christians to support (and even bless) same-sex unions, but you also stated clearly in 2008, “I don’t think the sacrament of marriage should be changed. Some people say that Jesus didn’t talk about homosexuality, and that’s technically true. But marriage is all through the Bible, and it’s not gender-neutral.”
Now you have declared your support for the radical redefinition of marriage, explaining, “I think we have to talk about, now, how to include same-sex couples in that deeper understanding of marriage. I want a deeper commitment to marriage that is more and more inclusive, and that’s where I think the country is going.”
How can you say this as a student of the Word and a professing disciple of Jesus?
Rev. Wallis, you don’t strengthen marriage by removing its foundational components—as emphasized by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19—namely, one man and one woman coming together in sacred, lifelong union. Instead, by advocating for the radical redefinition of marriage, you align yourself with the many groups in America who want to marginalize, ostracize and even criminalize religious opposition to same-sex “marriage.” What has become of your Christian conscience?
What? Jim Wallis, the critic of the religious establishment; Jim Wallis, the counter-cultural revolutionary; Jim Wallis, the advocate of a Jesus who changes the world rather than conforms to it. You, sir, are now willing to redefine one of the most foundational and sacred human institutions, the institution of marriage, based on where the country is going? Isn’t that the path to spiritual and moral suicide?
You of all people should know that as followers of Jesus, we are called to swim against the conformist, worldly tide of the age, calling society back to the timeless ways of God, especially when society forsakes the Word of God and the God of the Word. Yet you have now joined in the apostasy, choosing to go with the populist flow—one that is becoming more anti-faith by the day—rather than having the courage and integrity to stand your ground.
Rev. Wallis, your best years of ministry could still be ahead, but you will need to humble yourself and repent. I am praying that you do.
The House GOP’s resident provocateur Steve Stockman (R-TX) appeared on The Steve Deace Show yesterday to urge his fellow Republicans to oppose immigration reform because Latinos typically vote Democratic. Stockman mocked the claims of pro-reform conservatives who believe that many Latinos would back the GOP if the party backed away from its hard-line stance on immigration reform, while noting that reform efforts would only help Obama in his plan to “destroy America.”
Stockman: Their advice is: allow this to happen and they will somehow overnight turn into Republicans. I can assure you, if these people were voting Republican, the Democrats wouldn’t want a single person to be legalized, not one, and yet we are somehow fooling ourselves believing that they are magically going to go into a corner and turn into Republicans. It’s not going to happen.
Deace: Why would anybody think that Charles Schumer and Bob Menendez and John McCain, that all the sudden these people that you’re going to do this photo-op with that have already shown they have no regard for the rule of law where this issue is concerned, people like me are just looking at it from the outside in and thinking: why would I support anything they support? When David Axelrod goes on national television and says this issue is Obama’s legacy, pardon me if I’m a little skeptical of fueling the legacy of a guy—
Stockman: To destroy America
Deace: Who thinks that the Constitution is—he just puts it through a paper shredder. Exactly, I don’t get this.
He also lashed out at groups such as Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, which is led by Richard Land, for supporting the pro-reform Evangelical Immigration Table. Stockman said that such social conservative organizations are unwittingly pushing the Republican Party’s demise, imperiling the Religious Right’s political agenda and creating permanent Democratic majorities.
Stockman also accused NPR of calling undocumented immigrants “unregistered citizens,” a charge we haven’t found any evidence to back up, and said that it is like calling drug dealers “unregistered pharmacists.”
I’m upset with our own guys. I’m shocked that Focus on the Family and Richard Land, I’ve been in their camps and worked with them a long time, are coming out against us and saying they’re for legalizing twelve million unregistered Democrats, or as NPR calls them ‘unregistered citizens,’ that’s the new term they are using now. I was really appalled at NPR, government-controlled radio, says they are ‘unregistered citizens.’ I guess drug dealers now are unregistered pharmacists. It’s bizarre. I’m a little bit upset with our side so I’m taking bullets on both the right and the left for my stance. I have a dear friend, he came from Lebanon, he took fifteen years to follow our laws, he respects our laws, he is abiding by our laws, if we go and say ‘okay you guys that break the law now get to cut in front of everybody else that’s been waiting in line,’ what kind of message are we sending to the rest of the world?
Reagan allowed a million illegal immigrants at that time and after he did that two things happened: 1) they voted primarily and increasingly for the Democrats; 2) ten million more came in. The system is if we pass this it’s going to increase illegal immigration and it’s also going to turn Texas, Florida into Democrat states, we will never keep the White House and the entire agenda of Focus on the Family and Richard Land that is pro-life and all those things that we hold dear are going to be washed away because of the stupidity and the folly of granting citizenship to people who have not a clue about how our system is or the principles. They are saying here this is the rope, please put it around your neck and then jump off the tree and young hang yourself. It’s just bizarre that we’re so willingly doing that and a little bit frustrating.
Liberty University professor Judith Reisman is out with a column in WorldNetDaily today which seems to blame homosexuality on “erototoxins,” or mind-altering chemicals, which she believes are emitted from pornography.
She points to a lecture which called pornography a “visual pheromone” to argue that sex-ed rewires the brain and consequently promotes homosexuality.
Reisman points to a case where pheromones were used to confuse male gypsy moths in order to prevent them from mating with females, which is apparently like how pornography could be confusing men and making them less attracted to women, or something.
On Sept. 21, 2012, Texas neurosurgeon Donald L. Hilton Jr., M.D., spoke on pornography addiction and sexual orientation, saying:
“Pornography is a visual pheromone, a powerful 100-billion-dollar per year brain drug that is changing sexuality even more rapidly through the cyber-acceleration of the Internet. It is ‘inhibiting orientation’ and ‘disrupting pre-mating communication between the sexes by permeating the atmosphere’ and Internet.” (emphasis added)
Hilton’s lecture, “Changing the Stamp of Nature: Pornography Addiction, Neuroplasticity, and the ASAM and DSM Perspectives,” put a hard neuroscience face on pornographic brain rewiring, implicating sex-education promotions of homosexuality as a normal genetic variation.
Pornography, homosexuality and the gypsy moth Hilton agrees, “Pornography is inducing a cultural pheromonic effect,” recording the mis-orientation of male gypsy moths.
In 1869 gypsy moths, imported to create an American silk industry, instead decimated our deciduous trees – oaks, maples and elms – and devastated our forests for the next 150 years. In the ’60s scientists found male moths mate with the female “by following her scent,” her “pheromone.”
A 1967 paper, “Insect population control by the use of sex pheromones to inhibit orientation between the sexes,” reported that scientists permeated the moth’s environment with strong, artificial female moth pheromone “This … scent overpowered the normal females ability to attract the male, and the confused males were unable to find the females.”
So, our trees got saved by what could be called olfactory moth pornography, a heavy-duty phony scent that unmanned male orientation to create an impotent moth population.
Hilton reports this abstract of the paper: “We have for the first time obtained experimental confirmation that pre-mating communication between the sexes can be disrupted by permeating the atmosphere with an insect pheromone.”
In 1972 another paper described mating disorientation as “preventing male gypsy moths from finding mates,” using pheromones. Called the confusion method:
“An airplane scatters … pellets imbedded with the scent of the pheromone … [that] overpower the male’s ability to find the female. He is thus desensitized to the natural scent of the female by this artificially produced pheromone. … The male either becomes confused and doesn’t know which direction to turn for the female, or he becomes desensitized to the lower levels of pheromones naturally given out by the female and has no incentive to mate with her.” (emphasis added)
Gypsy moth pornography? In the trapping method, male moths looking for the female, enter traps with no exit “only to find a fatal substitute.” As a neurosurgeon, Dr. Hilton concludes:
“Pornography is a visual pheromone, a powerful 100-billion-dollar per year brain drug that is changing sexuality. … It is ‘inhibiting orientation’ and ‘disrupting pre-mating communication between the sexes by permeating the atmosphere’ and Internet.”
So can Cynipidae desensitization tell us genius humanoids about pornographic mating desensitization, say, about pornography as Erototoxic, as the toxic form of Eros? Gosh.
Sandy Rios on her radio show today was joined by her boss, American Family Association president Tim Wildmon, to discuss the bombing at the Boston marathon, and said the attack “reminds” her of when the Roman emperor Nero “burned Rome” and then “blamed Christians.”
“It’s that psychological process of blaming people that you hate so that they will take the blame for something and it solves two problems for you,” Rios claimed. “So this is nothing new.”
Rios accused the Obama administration of trying to stop security officials from referencing Islam while supposedly identifying conservatives, like gun owners and AFA radio listeners, as “enemies on equal footing with Islamists.”
She said that this alleged policy makes America “less safe” while Wildmon criticized the media for saying that the bombing could have been an “anti-government” attack when he thinks it was almost certainly an act of “Islamic jihadism.”
Wildmon: These Islamic jihadists, the extremists, they are here among us now and we’re going to have to be vigilant, we’re going to have to keep our eyes open. I don’t know, you’re not going to prevent everything; something’s are going to happen like what happened in Boston yesterday. Again, we’re saying this not knowing for certain that this is what happened that is that it was an act of an Al Qaeda type group or jihad, but that’s what I’m thinking it is, that’s my default position because of all the attacks that have taken place around the world by these groups.
Rios: There’s a good reason why these terrorist strikes have been thwarted because our guys have been working 24/7, our security forces, our FBI, all of these really good guys who are really disconnected from what’s happening at the top but things are changing. The military training manuals, the FBI manuals, all of the people fighting Islam within and without, the manuals have been scrubbed, they don’t dare speak of Islam, they don’t dare speak of jihad. I have to tell you, that’s going to have a correlation to our safety, it can’t help. If we’re now saying, ‘oh it’s probably people who listen to AFA who are right-wing in their politics, they want to keep their guns, they are probably—’ if we broaden the scope that those are the enemies on equal footing with Islamists we are going to be less safe because our resources are going to be spread thin.
Wildmon: You have like twenty acts of terrorism that are related to Islamic jihadism and then you have one Timothy McVeigh anti-government, and the media acts like, ‘oh we don’t know there are a lot of both out there.’
Rios: Chris Matthews weighed in on this last night too, sort of hinting the same thing. This reminds me Tim, do you remember when Nero was the Emperor of Rome? Remember that he burned Rome and what did he do? He blamed the Christians. So I’m just saying it’s transference, it’s that psychological process of blaming people that you hate so that they will take the blame for something and it solves two problems for you. So this is nothing new.
In an email to members today, Tea Party Nation head Judson Phillips claimed that the Boston marathon bombing occurred because “we have a government that is not committed to protecting America” since it isn’t willing to “destroy radical Islam.” Phillips said that “Radical Islam and perhaps even non-radical Islam” is a danger to western civilization, arguing that Muslims believe that “non-Islamic nations may be conquered or otherwise taken over.”
Unfortunately the sad truth is we will be hit again. It will happen sooner or later. It will probably be sooner than later.
There are two reasons why we will be hit again. First, we have a determined enemy who hates us. Second, we have a government that is not committed to protecting America.
It is a pretty safe bet right now that this attack was carried out by an Islamist. It was a well-coordinated attack. In its publication, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula called for just this kind of attack.
While the government and media have fallen all over themselves to downplay this fact, there is a twenty-year-old Saudi student being detained as a “person of interest.” Person of interest in a nice police term that is used for someone who is not under arrest and therefore does not have to be read his Miranda rights and who hopefully will not lawyer up.
Barack Obama could not force himself to use the word “terrorism” in his speech last night and the FBI right now won’t call this a terrorist incident.
The reason we will be hit again is because our government is not committed to destroying our enemy. Radical Islam is our enemy.
Some in the far end of the Liberty Movement will start screaming about war mongering “Neo-cons.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
We need to first recognize our enemy and then come up with a strategy to destroy them. This is an ideological war. While sometimes that will mean guns and bombs, neither will destroy an ideology.
The values of the west, most of them good, some of them not so good are what will destroy radical Islam. In the west, we fall all over ourselves not to insult Islam.
We can go down the list of things Islam has done to the west. During the height of the Cold War, the Soviets came up with something called the Brezhnev doctrine. It said, “What’s ours is ours. What is yours is negotiable.” Radical Islam and perhaps even non-radical Islam holds to the same belief.
They believe that once a nation becomes Islamic it cannot have Islam removed from it. However, non-Islamic nations may be conquered or otherwise taken over.
Reagan knew that America had to stand up to the Communist threat. Bill Clinton wanted to ignore the Islamist threat. George W. Bush just wanted to hold the hand of the Saudi king and Barack Obama just wants to bow to him. As we mourn the victims of Boston, we need to make a solemn vow that we will not allow this to happen again.
The only way we make sure this never happens again is to identify our enemy and then craft a strategy to totally defeat that enemy.
I am a 24-year-old, proud Floridian. My parents came to the U.S. from Colombia many years ago, looking for a safe and opportunity-rich place to raise their daughters. From the time I was a toddler, I have spent my whole life here in Florida. I received a great public education, participated in sports, and served as a member of a Christian youth group. I am also an undocumented American.
What does that mean in my day-to-day life? It means that despite my top grades in high school, I can’t get financial aid to go to college. It means that no matter how hard I study traffic rules or parallel parking, I don’t qualify for a driver’s license. It means that though I am proud to have been raised here in America, there is no waiting list I can join to one day become a U.S. citizen. The path is simply not there for me.
The Senate “Gang of 8” includes my senator, Marco Rubio, who has said he believes in a path to citizenship. “But,” I asked in an Orlando Sentinel op-ed last month,
“when push comes to shove, will Rubio support a meaningful path to citizenship? It can't be a path in name only; it must be clear and direct, not tied to arbitrary metrics around border security, like he has proposed. The path to citizenship can't be full of hurdles and trap doors, and it can't require a decades-long wait in line. No one should be blocked from citizenship and relegated to a lifetime stuck in second-class status.
Rubio's parents left Cuba and came to the U.S. for economic opportunity – the same reasons my parents left everything they knew, making sacrifice after sacrifice for my family's future. Would Rubio deny my family the same opportunity his family had?...It's time for Rubio to truly represent Florida – the immigrant families who came here seeking a better life and everyone who believes in a common-sense solution that doesn't involve deporting millions of hard-working men and women or forcing them into a permanent underclass. It's time for Rubio to step up, on behalf of his mother and my mother...”
And thousands of other mothers and fathers out there. My parents had a dream that I could grow up in the United States and get a world-class education. My dream for my parents is that they can see me and my sisters thrive and fulfill our potential – and for them to be part of the American dream, too. Right now that dream seems distant for my mom, who was stopped while driving without a license over six years ago and is back in Colombia. My dream is now my parents' dream. A dream that immigration reform will include family reunification and that my mom will return to the United States. I miss her every day.
I’m a Young People For Fellow, a member of the United We Dream Network, an undocumented American, and most importantly a daughter to the most courageous woman I have ever known. I hope that no other family has to endure the separation that mine has, but I know that so many others are suffering the same heartbreak.
Our country needs immigration reform that creates a path to citizenship and keeps families like mine together. The national conversation on immigration reform isn’t a distant policy debate – it’s a conversation about my life.
Evelyn Rivera, Seminole State College
Member of affiliate People For the American Way Foundation’s Young People For Program