Last month, we reported that the infighting in the anti-choice movement has gone public in Kentucky, where the National Right to Life Committee and its Kentucky affiliate are endorsing incumbent Mitch McConnell, and a small fringe group called Northern Kentucky Right to Life is endorsing his Tea Party challenger, Matt Bevin.
Like in the similarbattle playing out in Georgia, the issue is whether anti-choice politicians should vote for abortion restrictions that include exemptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest. National Right to Life and its allies, while they oppose rape and incest exemptions, are willing to support bills that contain them if that’s the only way the bills can pass. The more hardline groups, like Northern Kentucky Right to Life and the national Personhood USA, oppose any bill that contains such exemptions.
McConnell has called for the Senate to pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, already passed by the House, that contains a rape exemption. Bevin, meanwhile, filled out a questionnaire from the Northern Kentucky group agreeing to its hardline anti-choice, anti-contraception demands.
This has caused some confusion in Kentucky, as Bevin has touted the endorsement of Northern Kentucky Right to Life, and National Right to Life and Kentucky Right to Life have scrambled to clarify that they are not affiliated with the Northern Kentucky group and in fact support McConnell.
Now, according to National Right to Life, Bevin is sending around a mailer that “questions the pro-life convictions” of McConnell, citing Bevin’s endorsement by the Northern Kentucky group. NRLC is furious, and is blaming Bevin for playing into the hands of pro-choice groups:
Today, leaders of National Right to Life and Kentucky Right to Life sharply criticized a mailer sent to Kentucky voters by Matt Bevin’s campaign, which questioned Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s strong commitment to the pro-life cause.
Both National Right to Life and Kentucky Right to Life reaffirmed their unwavering support of Sen. McConnell for re-election in a joint statement last month.
“Matt Bevin is trying to mislead pro-life voters,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “No U.S. senator has done more for unborn children than Mitch McConnell.”
Both Tobias and Montgomery reiterated that endorsements made by the organization Northern Kentucky Right to Life (which Bevin cites in the mailer) do not represent National Right to Life or Kentucky Right to Life. Northern Kentucky Right to Life is not affiliated with either National Right to Life, the oldest and largest national pro-life organization in the country, or Kentucky Right to Life, the state affiliate of National Right to Life and the oldest and largest statewide pro-life organization in the Bluegrass State.
Texas GOP lieutenant governor candidate and state senator Dan Patrick warned yesterday of supposed left-wing indoctrination in public schools. Right-wing claims about CSCOPE, a curriculum program used in Texas, have been roundly debunked, but Patrick, a longtime CSCOPE critic, repeated the bogus claims in an interview yesterday on the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch.
Patrick claimed that the CSCOPE curriculum frames the Boston Tea Party as the work of “terrorists” and promotes communism. He also criticized public schools for having “a bias for the environment against oil and coal and natural gas” and “a bias for less standards (sic) and America should not be a leader in the world but we should be just part of a world community.”
The Boston Tea Party story Patrick mentioned was actually part of an assignment to see if students could discern news reports coming from the British perspective, and the “communist flag” lesson concerned how communists used propaganda.
What troubles me is that in Texas we had something called CSCOPE, which is kind of a shadow figure of Common Core, and we had lessons for example that the patriots who threw out the tea in the Boston Tea Party, they were called terrorists in these lesson plans.
Before our committee we had testimony on CSCOPE, a very related curriculum to Common Core in my view, in the case of a lesson plan where sixth graders were learning to design a flag. And that sounds reasonable, except it was a flag for a communist country. So you start seeing these things and people say, ‘That’s just an anecdote here and there.’ But the more we looked into all of this, we saw more of the curriculum, Common Core, CSCOPE -- and different states may have their own version of that -- is that the parents really don’t know what kids are learning, and what the kids are learning is controlled by liberals who often write the curriculum in education at the federal and local level.
What they see is a bias for the environment against oil and coal and natural gas, a bias for less standards (sic) and America should not be a leader in the world but we should be just part of a world community. We start seeing these things seep into the curriculum and that’s why, and I say this at every event, the most important election that anyone can be involved in is the school board.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
It turns out that getting in bed with anti-government extremist Cliven Bundy wasn’t the best idea for conservative pundits hoping to stoke anti-Obama sentiment. Now, they may also want to consider ditching serial fabricator Todd Starnes and conspiracy theorist David Horowitz as well.
5. Todd Starnes Embarrasses Himself, Again
When Fox News pundit Todd Starnes started publicizing the story of a Florida girl who said that a teacher told her to stop praying during lunch because “it’s not good to pray,” we had our suspicions. After all, Starnes habitually publishes Christian-persecution horror stories that end up being completely fabricated.
As luck would have it, it turned out that the girl in question was the daughter of the man in charge of publicizing Starnes’ book on supposed cases of anti-Christian persecution, a fact which Starnes conveniently failed to disclose in his original report.
And this week, a school investigation found that “there is no way possible” that the person identified by the girl as the one who stopped her from praying “was anywhere near the lunchroom” when she said the event occurred.
“For what the school endured, this is very vindicating,” a school district spokesman told the Orlando Sentinel, citing the harassment the elementary school received following Starnes’ bogus reporting.
4. Matt Barber Doesn’t Understand How Satire Works
Since Religious Right activists still frequently cite a sarcastic 1987 essay called “Gay Revolutionary,” it was no surprise to see anti-gay activists seizing this month on William Saletan’s obviously satirical article titled “Purge the Bigots” about the firing of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.
The Iowa-based group The Family Leader, led by Bob Vander Plaats, pointed to Saletan’s column to warn that gays want Christians to be “eliminated,” illustrating their blog post with a photo of a concentration camp.
Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber wrote an entire column denouncing Saletan …until he was forced to rewrite it after realizing that the Slate writer’s essay was a satire.
That’s okay, as sometimes we think Barber’s purportedly serious columns are so funny that we mistake them for satire.
3. Blame Obama For Kansas City Shooting!
Did President Obama inspire a former Ku Klux Klan leader to target Kansas City Jewish centers in a deadly shooting spree? In the deranged world of right-wing paranoia, the answer is an obvious yes. Appearing on Sean Hannity’s radio show, conservative luminary David Horowitz said the shooter was “encouraged by the American left” and argued that Obama has incited anti-Semitism.
“[A]fter the Second World War, there was a certain intolerance towards these types of attitudes, thanks to the American left, which goes right into the White House,” he added. “Obama is also responsible for this — attacking Israel.... And the truth is that Barack Obama is a menace to American security, and the sooner — and of course you can't impeach him because you can't impeach the first black president.”
Erik Rush for his part blamed Obama for fueling the country’s “anti-Semitic tone” and “fomenting racial discord between various races, between blacks and whites.”
2. New Birther Hysteria
While WorldNetDaily has been the source of many (debunked) birther conspiracy theories, the outlet has tried to cover up its birther past in order to make way for the Canadian-born Ted Cruz’s possible presidential bid. But in a last-ditch effort to save its dying cause, WND’s Jerome Corsi now claims that a British “self-proclaimed intelligence expert” has bombshell evidence that will redeem the birther movement.
“[Michael] Shrimpton contends to this day that the CIA collected DNA from then-Sen. Obama and a grandparent, establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother,” Corsi reports. “Shrimpton says he was informed that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in about 1960, which means, he said, the information sits in British intelligence files, because that territory was under the British Empire at the time.”
In fact, Shrimpton says “Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA.”
While Shrimpton has yet to reveal to Corsi — or anyone else for that matter — this shocking evidence, he insists that this is part of a wider cover-up of the nefarious activities of a secret German intelligence agency that he says is behind a potential nuclear attack on the London Olympics, an international pedophile ring linked to Tony Blair and the missing Malaysia Airlines plane.
We cannot wait for Corsi’s next report on Shrimpton’s clearly credible testimony.
1. Cliven Bundy Meltdown
But it seems that deciding to lionize and rally around a militant anti-government extremist wasn’t the best choice, as now Bundy is getting attention not for his “patriotism” but for his deranged racist rant.
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do. “And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked.
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
Cathie Adams, the president of the Texas Eagle Forum and former chairwoman of the Texas GOP, claimed in speech to a Tea Party group this week that Muslim-Americans practice a “warring religion” and are waging a “stealth jihad.” She warned that you can never know if a Muslim is “going to turn radical,” if they are telling you the truth, or if “when you walk out of their home” you will be “shot in the back.”
Adams also went after pastors who allow Muslims to speak to their congregations and attacked Republican leaders, including anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and President George W. Bush, who she sees as too friendly to Muslims. Last year, Adams speculated that Norquist is a Muslim himself because he has a beard.
The government and the culture of the United States are being infiltrated and undermined by “a warring religion,” and the Muslim Brotherhood is behind the drive, conservative political activist Cathie Adams warned those attending Tuesday’s meeting of the Texas Patriot Tea Party.
But Adams said that the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda includes creating a worldwide Islamic state, including the U.S., by overturning the laws and constitutions of other countries and replacing them all with Sharia law.
It’s motto, she said, is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”
Adams told her audience on Tuesday not to be taken in by claims that Islam is a peaceful religion, adding that just listening to public statements by Muslim leaders and reading the tenets of Islam provides ample evidence to the contrary.
Sharia law, Adams said, tells Muslims everything on how to live, and that it is “held by every Muslim,” not just extremists. “How do you know who is going to turn radical when every Muslim embraces Sharia law” she said.
Adams said that while Islam teaches Muslims not to lie to other Muslims, on the other hand it demands that Muslims lie to non-Muslims when necessary to protect and promote Islam.
“If it’s a Muslim telling you something, you really don’t know if it’s the truth or a lie,” she said.
And while Muslims are “extremely hospitable when you are under their roof,” as required by their religion, that hospitality ends as soon as you leave their home. “Walk out of their home and you can be shot in the back,” Adams said.
Adams quoted conservative author and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, who wrote in his book “Infiltration” that in Islam, America is fighting “a perfect enemy” that exploits America’s own culture and its tax laws to undermine the government and culture. She said Muslims in the U.S. are staging a “stealth jihad” and waging political and psychological warfare on this country.
Political leaders are being manipulated and Muslim forces are using the schools to indoctrinate young people, Adams said. Even some churches are being taken in, she said, adding that some Christian pastors have allowed Muslims to speak from their pulpits.
“They say, ‘We all worship the same God.’ No, we do not,” Adams said. “Ultimately their god is represented by a black stone. Their prophet is dead and buried in the grave, and he did not rise on Easter. If you want to be kind to Muslims, be kind with the gospel.”
Even some people seen as conservative leaders are playing into the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda, Adams said, including Americans for Tax Reform founder Grover Norquist and former President George W. Bush.
“We’ve got trouble brewing,” Adams said. But, she added, “I am not discouraged, because he is still on his throne and he will overcome and we will be victorious.”
While Cliven Bundy’s allies at Fox News have either gone silent or distanced themselves from the lawless rancher after the New York Times reported on his racist rant, the right-wing pundits at WorldNetDaily are standing by their man.
After publishing an interview with Alan Keyes that tried to absolve Bundy of racism, WND editor Joseph Farah said that the New York Times must have deliberately misquoted Bundy, calling him an “entrapment target” and victim of a “sting operation.”
This was a sting operation by the New York Times. The entrapment target wasn’t so much Bundy, but anyone in public life who denounced the Bureau of Land Management’s Gestapo-like tactics in dealing with him.
Cliven Bundy won’t be so fortunate after been stung by the New York Times.
But it won’t change Bundy’s life much. It wasn’t intended to. It was intended to isolate those in public life who stood up to the obvious brutishness and injustice perpetrated on Bundy by the federal authorities and public officials who targeted him.
Unfortunately for Farah, Bundy’s unprompted remarks are available for the world to see on video, as they were made at a public press conference.
Another WND story found that Bundy couldn’t be racist because he is planning to invite Latinos and African Americans to a party:
“Friday night we are actually planning a party and specifically inviting blacks and Latinos,” said [Shawna] Cox. “We started planning this party way before these comments were made.”
Cox told WND that after last Friday’s party, Bundy began asking why it was that not many blacks or Latinos were present. So the controversial rancher met with some of the minorities in the community on Monday or Tuesday, she said, to reach out to them and invite them to today’s party.
Kupelian accused Reid of employing Communist Party tactics by using the phrase “unite front,” warning that the Senate Majority Leader wants “to provoke a war with some rightwing ‘domestic terrorists.’”
“National Republican leaders could help show a united front against this kind of hateful, dangerous extremism by publicly condemning Bundy.”
“United front.” Where have I heard that term before?
Oh yes, it’s leftwing code, which even Wikipedia accurately deciphers:
The united front is a form of struggle or political organization that may be carried out by revolutionaries or communist political regimes. The basic theory of the united front tactic was first developed by the Comintern, an international communist organization created by communists in the wake of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.
According to the thesis of the 1922 4th World Congress of the Comintern: “The united front tactic is simply an initiative whereby the Communists propose to join with all workers belonging to other parties and groups and all unaligned workers in a common struggle to defend the immediate, basic interests of the working class against the bourgeoisie.”
The united front allowed workers committed to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism to struggle alongside non-revolutionary workers. Through these common struggles revolutionaries sought to win other workers to revolutionary socialism.
OK Harry, we get the message. It’s important for even the hated Republicans, whom you revile daily, to join in your “united front” against the rancher in your state who is disputing his grazing fees on constitutional grounds. Ever hear of civil disobedience? It’s how the Civil Rights Movement of the ‘60s was won.
You, Sen. Reid, have been a major player in harming the nation that has so graciously given you wealth, power, fame and comfort – particularly through your role in dismantling the world’s best healthcare system – but now, with our nation and world aflame, old Clive Bundy is the one with whom you are most obsessed.
Could it be that, deep down in their conniving, progressive brains, leftists like Reid kind of want to provoke a war with some rightwing “domestic terrorists”?
I hope – I pray – restraint will win out, and the situation resolve peacefully, and with finality.
Iowa radio host Steve Deace was on Larry Pratt’s Gun Owner’s News Hour last week to promote his new electoral strategy book, “Rules for Patriots.” The two spent quite a bit of time lavishing praise on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for his crusade to bust his state’s public-sector unions.
Deace shared his theory that that public-sector unions are one of the “four pillars of the leftist, statist, Marxist movement,” along with “the child-killing industry, the homosexual lobby” and “government education” (which is “how they get the next generation to indoctrinate them”).
He praised Walker for removing “one of the four pillars,” namely “the worker bees, the grassroots, the mobocracy, the ‘Hail Satan’ chanters down in Texas last year, that’s the government-sector employee unions.” Deace apparently thinks that five anonymous teenagers yelling “hail Satan” at a pro-choice protest in Texas means that all public employees are Satanists.
Deace counseled Republicans against supporting any GOP politician who supports any one of the “four pillars.”
Pratt agreed, adding that the public-sector employees, including teachers’ unions, that protested at the Wisconsin state capitol in 2011 were “such ugly, dirty people” that nobody would want teaching their children.
Deace: There are four pillars of the leftist, statist, Marxist movement in America: the child-killing industry, the homosexual lobby, government education – that’s sort of their youth ministry, that’s how they get the next generation to indoctrinate them. The homosexual lobby and the abortion industry is where they get their mega, mega hundreds of millions to fund their schemes. But the worker bees, the grassroots, the mobocracy, the ‘Hail Satan’ chanters down in Texas last year, that’s the government-sector employee unions. And if you cut them off, that’s like cutting off the recruiting ability of a college football team. That’s the lifeblood of their program is those government-sector employee unions.
And if you do some of the math, I think the average annual union due in Wisconsin is like $1,500 a year for an AFSCME member. And if they truly lost 40,000 members, Larry, 40,000 times 1,500, you can pretty much buy the Wisconsin state government every year for that kind of money. And to have him cut off the head of the snake like that, he removed one of the four pillars. He’s maybe the only elected Republican in my lifetime I can think of who’s actually removed one of their pillars. And now you know why they have done everything they can possibly do to get rid of him.
And I would just say to your audience, if you’re supporting a Republican who doesn’t threaten at least one of those pillars, you’re wasting your time. If you’re supporting a Republican who aids and abets or collaborates with one of those four pillars, I don’t care how good he is on every other issue, he’s actually working for your opponent. Because that’s the infrastructure of the American left, those four facets.
Pratt: When Scott Walker had those union thugs lying all over the lobby of the capitol dome, the capitol building itself, they were such ugly, dirty people. ‘Those were teaching my kids?,’ I think people might have been thinking. They lost so much stature, it was just amazing what was happening.
Well that settles that.
Alan Keyes tells WorldNetDaily today Cliven Bundy’s remarks on “the Negro” were not racist at all, arguing that liberals are the real racists for describing Bundy’s rant about his nostalgia for slavery as racist:
“He wasn’t talking so much about black folks, but about the harm and damage that the leftist socialism has done to blacks,” said former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who also is a columnist for WND.
“I find it appalling that we basically have a history of the leftist liberalism that wants to extinguish black people by abortion [and] destroying the family structure,” Keyes told WND. “All of these things if you just look at the effects, you would say this was planned by some racist madman to destroy the black community.”
Then when somebody comes along to comment on that damage, the leftists all scream “racism,” he said.
“I think it’s time somebody started to recognize the racism that exists in its effects – the hard leftist ideology using the black community for their sacrificial lamb, for their sick ideology. It’s time we called them what they are,” he said.
Now it’s racist to point it out.”
Ammon Bundy told WND: “They took what they wanted. They knew when they were there his comments were not racist. He wasn’t able to completely articulate. That’s just my dad. He is a very principled person.
He said he was “there standing right beside my father when he made those comments.” “He was reaching out to the black community,” Ammon Bundy said.
Yesterday, Wendy Wright, the vice president for government relations at the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), posted a story on the group’s blog about an upcoming meeting on combating the practice of child sacrifice in Uganda. Wright, of course, thinks that the practice of kidnapping children to be sacrificed in ritual murder is “terribly close” to the work of abortion providers:
Uganda will host a conference this fall to create a plan to combat child sacrifice. Attacks have risen recently as the country’s economy is booming. People are hiring experienced [witch] doctors to kill children, believing it will bring health and wealth.
Sound familiar? It’s terribly close to the claim that abortion will improve women’s health and prospects for the future.
So it’s no surprise that when Wright delivered testimony to a UN commission Tuesday on behalf of C-FAM, the Family Research Council and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians, she used any number of misleading and false arguments to urge the UN to fight for maternal health in a way that does not include access to legal abortion.
In her speech to the Commission on Population and Development, Wright downplayed the danger and frequency of illegal abortions, misled about the risks of legal procedures, and denied a link between the criminalization of abortion and unsafe procedures. She even argued that “legalizing abortion actually endangers the lives of women.”
After recommending a number of ways to improve maternal health worldwide, Wright moved onto claiming that legalizing abortion actually endangers women.
There is no quick fix here. And legalizing abortion will not improve maternal health. Mortality from abortion, estimated at less than 15 percent of all causes of maternal death, decreases proportionately with all other causes of maternal death if the right improvements to maternal health care are made, regardless of the legal status of abortion.
This means that complications from abortions, whether legal or not, can only be dealt with through adequate investments in maternal health care. Making abortion legal does not improve maternal health in any way. It only makes it safer for the abortionist. It does not make it any safer to the mother or her unborn child.
Ireland and Chile, which have highly restrictive abortion laws, are world leaders in maternal health, with lower maternal mortality rates than the United States and other wealthy countries. Legalizing abortion actually endangers the lives of women by exposing them to health risks they would not encounter if they were to carry their pregnancies to term.
In fact, as Guttmacher reports [pdf], “there is clear evidence that restrictive abortion laws are associated with a high incidence of unsafe abortion and its health consequences, and abortions in these settings contribute substantially to maternal illness and death.” The group estimates that 47,000 women die each year as a result of unsafe abortion and notes that restrictive abortion laws do not reduce the number of women obtaining abortions.
Wright’s citation of Ireland and Chile as places with low maternal mortality rates despite restrictive abortion laws is also misleading. Data on the incidence of unsafe abortion in Chile is disputed and women in Ireland commonly travel to England, where abortion is legal, to obtain the procedure.
Wright then cited false, misleading, and disputed statistics to claim that it is actually legal abortion that is dangerous.
Abortions often result in immediate complications, like massive bleeding, infection and death – even in countries where elective abortion is legal. In the United States, abortions carried out after five months of pregnancy are more likely to result in the death of the mother than carrying the pregnancy to term.
Over 130 studies show that elective abortion results in an increased risk of pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies. Women who abort have a greater risk of depression and suicide, as compared to women who give birth.
While Wright claims that “abortions often result in immediate complications,” even in countries where the procedure is legal, in fact surgical abortion conducted under proper conditions is one of the safest medical procedures. She then cites the risks of very late-term abortions, which constitute only one percent of the abortions performed in the United States.
Wright's claim that abortion leads to “a greater risk of depression and suicide” is also false. And while a study last year did find that there was a link in the past between repeated abortions and the risk of preterm birth, it also found that “with modern procedures the danger has all but vanished.”
On his Tuesday radio show, TruNews host Rick Wiles said that the militias defending Cliven Bundy’s illegal ranching are staving off President Obama’s attempts to incite mass violence and World War III.
The End Times broadcaster said that while he thought “that World War III would start in 2020,” he now thinks “events are moving so quickly and the situations inside the USA and abroad are deteriorating so fast that I am deeply troubled that we may not get through 2014 without seeing civil unrest, a financial panic and at worst, a war.”
“Civil unrest is brewing, the Obamanistas have tried a number of tactics to insult and infuriate the American people to respond with violence,” he said. “I expect dirty Harry Reid and his Washington sidekick Barry Soetoro will send federal agents back to Nevada this summer and my fear is that federal snipers will take out a bunch of cowboys and militia men.”
“When Americans see dead cowboys on the ground, a shock will go through the heartland of this country, a lot of red-blooded American patriotic men will know that the crackdown on freedom has begun and blood will flow as citizens fight back against tyranny.”
The culture-war crusaders at the American Decency Association are now joining a slew of other anti-gay activists in arguing that conservatives have been too lenient towards the gay community and need to fight against LGBT equality even more fervently.
“[W]hile we’re wielding a knife in the gunfight, we’re leaving our gun in the holster,” the ADA’s Chris Johnson lamented in an blog post last week.
Johnson insisted that the Religious Right must maintain its opposition to gay adoption, arguing that a “needy child” seeking adoption will “be better off waiting to be adopted by a heterosexual family which can give them the benefit of both a mother and father.”
When the same-sex marriage proponent says "these two people love each other; why shouldn't they be allowed to stand in front of their friends and family and make it official?" our response is that marriage has always been defined as between as a man and a woman and the state's interest in marriage is to regulate the individual units of society in the way that's most productive to society.
When they say, "why can't this loving couple adopt a needy child who just wants a family?" we answer that, statistically speaking, the child will be better off waiting to be adopted by a heterosexual family which can give them the benefit of both a mother and father.
And these arguments are solid, but the problem is that if you tell two people who really do love each other, that making the state recognize their love will fray the fabric of society, you will always look like a spiteful villain.
That is not to say that we shouldn't make those arguments. If the only result was that we would be more resolute in our own support of God-defined marriage, that would be valuable enough to focus on those aspects - and that's beside the fact that some people's emotions may still be swayed by an intellectual argument.
The issue, in my opinion is that while we're wielding a knife in the gunfight, we're leaving our gun in the holster.
Speaking with Newsmax host Steve Malzberg yesterday, former House GOP leader Tom DeLay said that President Obama’s “lawlessness” is prompting people to take up arms in Nevada to defend rancher Cliven Bundy, whose refusal to abide by court orders or recognize the federal government has turned him into a right-wing hero.
DeLay told Malzberg that Obama is ushering in “tyranny” and that he is “just shocked by [Obama’s] complete disregard or love for this country and the people that live in it.”
Later, while discussing rules changes on clemency for non-violent drug offenders, he encouraged House Republicans to cut off funding to the White House: “Cut him off, cut off the funds, use the power of the purse coming from the House of Representatives, start holding hearings about his lawlessness, bring it to the American people through this next election.”
“This is getting so far out of hand we see Americans picking up arms in Nevada because of government tyranny, this is getting out of hand,” DeLay said. “When people are taking up arms that means that the federal government and people like Obama and Holder have gone too far.”
After the 700 Club ran a story on the importance of prayer for doctors and patients, host Pat Robertson told a story about how a board member of Regent University, the school Robertson founded, used prayer to bring a dead man back to life.
Robertson, who once led a faith healing service where he promised that people could have their deceased children brought back to life, said that the patient was brought back from the dead after the doctor put his hands over him and channeled the “power of God.”
Apparently, American Family Association head Tim Wildmon and spokesman Bryan Fischer don’t understand how bathrooms work. The two revealed their stunning ignorance in interviews yesterday with OneNewsNow, the news arm of the AFA, about a new bathroom regulation in Washington D.C.
As HRC explains, “the District of Columbia requires single-occupant restroom facilities in any public space (e.g., restaurants) to be gender neutral -- restrooms designed for use by one individual at a time may not have a specific gender designation with ‘male’ or ‘female’ signage or icons -- but does not require employers to have single-occupant restrooms instead of another type” (emphasis added).
But Wildmon and Fischer suggested that now women and men will be sharing the bathroom at the same time, forcing them to “approve sexual deviancy”:
The District of Columbia is enforcing a rule that favors the fraction of transgender people over the majority who know they are male or female.
A regulation on the books since 2006 is now being enforced, requiring removal of signage on single-stall public bathrooms designating it for men or women, in order to accommodate the transgendered community. Public places that don't comply could be charged with a civil infraction and fined $500.
OneNewsNow talked with Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis for American Family Association. "Well, once again we see an example of how the homosexual lobby is seeking to coerce and compel people of faith and goodwill against their will to accept and recognize and approve sexual deviancy," he says.
In addition, AFA president Tim Wildmon feels that because businesses that don't meet the terms of the regulation face possible fines, it places "yet another strain on American business owners so the LGBTQ community can feel validated."
"Time after time," Wildmon continues, "special rules apply to the LBGTQ community; but the equality for everyone seems to end there, as it's obvious that no thought has been given to the male and female customers of these businesses who prefer the privacy of a restroom specific to their gender."
Fischer points out that mental health professionals still consider transgenderism a mental disorder, "so they need to be helped rather than their deviancy catered to," he argues.
"... We believe that public policy ought to be based on science; it ought to be based on biology," he explains. "And the truth is that every single human being is a male or a female from the moment of their conception until the moment they die – and that ought to be recognized in our public policy."
He says gender differences ought to be respected and privacy considered as well as the fact that many women will be offended, if not struck with fear, seeing a man enter their bathroom.
AFA also criticizes the DC Office of Human Rights for asking residents and visitors to tweet the business name or office if they come across a single-occupancy public restroom displaying a gender-specific sign.
It’s not just Matt Barber who didn’t get that William Saletan’s Slate column calling for the “purging” of every single person who had donated to the Proposition 8 campaign was an obvious satire skewering critics of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.
The Saletan column is still making the rounds among conservative activists, and today it's featured in a breathless blog post from the Family Leader, the Iowa conservative group run by Bob Vander Plaats that will be hosting a forum for Iowa’s Republican US Senate candidates later this week.
The Family Leader cites the satirical column to warn that “according to this well-read author, if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman and the natural/God designed parameters for sexuality, you must be purged. You must be eliminated.”
“Will the Church remain silent? They’re coming for them next,” the group adds.
Illustrating the post is a photograph of a concentration camp during the Holocaust.
Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson pointed to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent description of the United Kingdom as a “Christian country” as a source of hope against the Islamist-atheist hordes attacking America.
“This nonsense about separation of church and state has gotten way, way beyond the bounds of what the Founders of our Constitution thought,” Robertson said. “We’re under assault by militant Islamists, militant atheists, secularists, those who want to destroy all of the fabric of faith in our society.”
Later in the program, the televangelist warned that “there are people representing the Muslim Brotherhood who are in the highest councils of the security apparatus of the United States of America advising our leaders as to how to deal with terrorism. Nonsense.”
Add Erik Rush to the list of conservatives who have fallen in love with Cliven Bundy. Rush writes in WorldNetDaily today that Bundy is America’s last hope in stopping the federal government’s “blatant efforts to control our food supply.”
Rush insists that arms are required for Bundy’s stand against the “diabolical Manchurian President,” warning that otherwise Bundy and his militia allies may be “slaughtered” by law enforcement offices.
“Do we wait until Department of Homeland Security operatives come around to arrest ‘domestic terrorists’ as designated by Harry Reid and ship them off to FEMA camps?” Rush asks. “[W]hen jack-booted government thugs appear at one’s doorstep, praying them away might not quite cut it.”
In the end, I believe all that is intended to remain will be megalithic agribusiness entities that will pay the same fealty to the federal government as those industries that have already been similarly corrupted.
If the federal government intends to control everything – which has become painfully evident – why are we ignoring its blatant efforts to control our food supply?
Senate Majority Leader (and as it would happen, land-grabbing wheeler-dealer) Harry Reid has called Cliven Bundy’s supporters “domestic terrorists” and misrepresented them as well as Bundy with regard to their view of federal authority. If President Obama embodies the diabolical Manchurian President, clandestinely working to destroy America (which he most certainly does), Reid embodies the imperious, smug, progressive elite whose concept of government is so antithetical to our nation’s founding principles that crimes against the Constitution are, for him, a matter of his daily routine.
If not Bundy, then who? If not now, when? If we won’t stand up for a small rancher’s grazing rights, then I would like to know where this imperceptible line, beyond which government encroachment will allow Americans to act, is. Not necessarily in the vein of armed insurrection, but in the fashion of Cliven Bundy’s supporters, even if they aren’t as organized as one of Beck’s rallies. Do we wait until a family is slaughtered because they opened fire on government agents executing an illegal raid on their home? Do we wait until Department of Homeland Security operatives come around to arrest “domestic terrorists” as designated by Harry Reid and ship them off to FEMA camps?
I am very much in agreement with Mr. Beck that American patriots must align themselves with God, as did the founders, and that prayer and peaceful assembly are integral to our struggle against tyranny. A cadre of Bible-toting, hymn-chanting prayer warriors at the Bundy Ranch probably would have been a stellar idea, in fact.
But I also know that Beck is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment for a reason, and that when jack-booted government thugs appear at one’s doorstep, praying them away might not quite cut it.
Fox News pundit Todd Starnes has championed lawless rancher Cliven Bundy’s armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management, even going as so far as to claim that “they used to string folks up” for what the BLM did to Bundy.
In his radio alert yesterday, Starnes attacked the “government agents waging jihad” against Bundy, while dismissing the “legalese” surrounding Bundy’s extremist legal claims.
Today, the American Thinker – an online magazine that also publishes the writing of Concerned Women For America’s Janice Shaw Crouse, World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder and “ex-gay” activist Robert Oscar Lopez, published a lengthy, fawning profile of Jared Taylor, the prominent white nationalist and founder of American Renaissance.
American Thinker writer Jeff Lipkes, whose last article for the publication explored the alt-birther theory that President Obama’s real father was communist organizer Frank Marshall Davis, asked Taylor to expound at length on “the concept of an ethnostate,” the doomed future of a diverse America, “the Jewish question,” and Taylor’s own “pure heart.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Taylor as “a kind of modern-day version of the refined but racist colonialist of old” who “projects himself as a courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist.” We’ll just include that rather than going into Lipkes’ several paragraphs on Taylor’s “civility and dapper appearance.”
1. Racist Internet commenters give Taylor hope for the future.
Taylor spends a good deal of his interview with Lipkes lamenting the fact that people are leaving racist comments on his racist website. “How could people who generally agree with us be so uncivilized?” he asks. But then, later in the interview, he says that racist comments on other websites give him hope for the growth of “race realism” in the future: “More and more Americans are pointing out the obvious so long as they can remain anonymous,” he says.
“When people can post comments anonymously, they often write crude, offensive things they would never say to someone’s face. At first I was surprised and disappointed -- how could people who generally agree with us be so uncivilized? -- but every website has this problem. Most of our commenters learn good manners eventually; those who don’t get the boot.”
But if commenters don’t use vulgar language, they are free to say what they like about African-Americans, and of course the stories of heinous crimes are red meat to readers. While it may be cathartic for Whites to write things they are unable to say in public under the multicultural regime, the comments on the news stories undoubtedly lend credence to the familiar accusation of “hate-mongering.”
The crime stories sometimes inspire more interesting comments: accounts by readers of their own experiences with minorities and with the enforcers of multiculturalism. Blacks, just under 13% of the population, commit 52% of murders and still higher percentages of other violent crimes, and about 90% of all inter-racial violence is attacks by Blacks on Whites. So lots of readers have first-hand experience of the subject. Some have written about the transformation of their neighborhoods or towns. Other news stories generate more amusing anecdotes: tipping by Blacks in restaurants, adventures at the DMV, etc.
Still, the stream of abuse is depressing, and it troubles Taylor.
“I wish our commenters were better behaved. I agree that they are sometimes mean-spirited, and I wish nothing ever appeared on the site that was mean-spirited.”
Derogatory comments about Asians, less frequent, naturally, sometimes elicit counter-attacks by others. One of the divisions among readers seems to be between “White Nationalists,” who want to see the return of a White ethnostate, and color-blind “race realists,” who admire East Asians for their high IQs and test scores and low crime rates, and, occasionally, Hispanics for their work ethic. The defenders are are usually outnumbered and outgunned.
Taylor is both optimistic and pessimistic about the future.
On the one hand, he sees a growth of “race-realism.”
“There are two very clear signs of this. One is the comments sections of mainstream Internet news sites. More and more Americans are pointing out the obvious so long as they can remain anonymous.”
2. Taylor explains why "racially conscious whites" are ‘"suspicious of Jews."
When Lipkes asked Taylor about “the Jewish question,” Taylor responded that “racially conscious whites tend to be suspicious of Jews” because of their “effort to demonize any sense of white identity” and their “annoying” support for Israel. Lipkes goes on to speculate
On “the Jewish question,” Taylor seems to walk a tightrope.
Taylor acknowledges the animosity of a lot of his followers toward Jews: “Racially conscious whites tend to be suspicious of Jews for two reasons. First, Jews have been prominent in the effort to demonize any sense of white identity. Second, Zionist Jews support an ethnostate for Jews -- Israel -- while they generally promote diversity for America and Europe. This is annoying, but understandable for historical reasons.”
3. Taylor says he’s not a “white nationalist,” just supports “the concept of an ethnostate.”
Because “white nationalist” implies violent revolution…and Taylor seems himself more like Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.
Is Taylor then a “White Nationalist”?
He rejects the term: “To me, it has an unpleasant whiff of gunpowder. One thinks of Basque nationalists and Kurdish nationalists. But,” he adds, “I entirely agree with the concept of an ethnostate that reflects the heritage and aspirations of a people.” He prefers the French word “identitaire ,” but there’s no English equivalent.
“There is no good term for racially conscious white people. This is because their views were taken for granted and needed no name. How did contemporaries characterize the racial view of Thomas Jefferson -- or those of Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or of Woodrow Wilson? There was no word for someone with their views for the same reason there was no word for someone who expected the sun to rise in the East or who loved his own children more than he loved the children of strangers: Our language does not need words for unnecessary distinctions. My views on race are natural, normal, healthy, and entirely moral, just as Lincoln’s were.”
4. Taylor warns that a decline in the white population will lead to the collapse of America.
And laments that there is no party representing “race realists,” who he is confident would win “a majority of the white vote in the rural South.”
“The United States is one of the least democratic of democracies, in that our system practically bars the door against anyone not a Republican or a Democrat. Who is served by such an oppressive system? Why, the very Republicans and Democrats who pass our laws and the lobbies that cultivate them. It is this closed political structure, not a lack of racial identity, that prevents political progress.
“Imagine a system of proportional representation, and a list of attractive race-realist candidates. How many votes would we win? Fifteen percent? Twenty percent? A majority of the white vote in the rural South? As parliamentary democracies in Europe show, numbers like that have a powerful impact on policy.”
“By 2034, if current trends continue, the United States will have a bare majority of whites, many of whom will be elderly. The working-age population will be heavily black and Hispanic. To give you an idea of what sort of country we will have, I could cite endless statistics on rates of crime, AIDS, diabetes, poverty, welfare dependence, etc. but I’ll cite just one figure. By the time they graduate from high school, blacks and Hispanics are reading and doing math at the level of theaverage white 8th grader. That will not have changed in 20 years, and it will mean we are well on our way to becoming another Brazil.
“We will have a painfully stratified society, run by a mixed elite that keeps the masses of poor browns and blacks at a safe distance. Our rulers will continue to mouth slogans about equality and redemption-through-diversity but their lives will be even more hypocritical than they are today. They will live in fortified enclaves, and will increasingly see America not as a beloved nation whose destiny they hold in trust but as a herd to be milked. In 20 years, their cynicism will have begun to dull the patriotism even of Southern whites.
“Our increasingly Third-World and unproductive population will force more cities into bankruptcy, and the federal government will lurch from crisis to crisis. Our decline in world stature will not be graceful.
“There will still be pockets of white civility, but only for the wealthy. The middle class will shrink, as school quality declines and more and more whites are forced into low-wage service jobs. Marriage will increasingly be a relic practiced only by the elite, and more whites will copy the degenerate behavior of the black and Hispanic underclasses.
“We will slowly lose the public trust and moral infrastructure that prevents bribery, nepotism, kickbacks, and government looting. Politicians will begin to buy and rig elections, especially at the local level. Fewer people will feel they have a stake in society, so there will be less volunteer work or charitable giving.
“Too pessimistic? Show me trends that prove me wrong.”
5. Taylor says he's being persecuted by “elites” despite his “pure heart.”
Taylor’s views, according to political elites, their media allies, and the indoctrinated, are not only wrong, but evil.
“When I began this work 25 years ago, I was naïve enough to think that because I am right and have a pure heart, I could reach and persuade ever larger numbers of people. I did not understand the forces opposed to me or how fearful Americans have become."
In 2002, the ancient Robert Morgenthau, Manhattan district attorney, issued a report recommending that the convictions in the Central Park rape case be vacated. Justice Charles Tejada (Fordham Law 2009 Hispanic Heritage Award winner!) granted his request. Liberals are opposed to rape in the abstract, but when it comes to actual rapists, they’re all for them.
The D.A.’s report was based solely on the confession of Matias Reyes, career criminal, serial rapist and murderer. Reyes had absolutely nothing to lose by confessing to the rape – the statute of limitations had run – and much to gain by claiming he acted alone: He got a favorable prison transfer and the admiration of his fellow inmates for smearing the police.
While dumping on the police for screwing up the investigation, Morgenthau wouldn’t let the cops interview Reyes themselves, even though his “confession” was the sole evidence that he raped and brutalized the jogger by himself.
The media proclaim those five rapists innocent based on their own over-excited reports that the DNA found on the jogger matched that of Reyes, but none of the others!
Yeah, we knew that. It was always known that semen on the jogger did not match any of the defendants. (“DNA Expert: No Semen Links to Defendants,” Associated Press, July 14, 1990.)
Hallmark should have a greeting card: “Guess whose semen wasn’t found anywhere on the rape victim?” (Open card) “I’m so proud of you, son!”
Prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer expressly reminded the jurors of the missing rapist in her summation to the jury: “Others who were not caught raped her and got away.” Now we know who “got away.”
But now de Blasio wants to hold down our legs while the “Central Park Five” rape us, again.