C4

Tea Party Unity: Colorado Recall Election 'A Fitting Commemoration Of 9/11'

Rick Scarborough’s Tea Party Unity group hailed the recall of two Colorado Democratic state senators whom were targeted by gun activists over their support for tough gun laws by likening the lawmakers to the 9/11 hijackers. Tea Party Unity, which recently hosted an event honoring Rick Santorum and American Family Association founder Don Wildmon, published a column originally posted on the Tea Party Tribune on how the Colorado recall is “a fitting commemoration of 9/11.”

Tea Party activist Stephen Nemo said that Colorado voters rose up against the “gun grabbers” just like the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 and colonists fighting the British.

There is a reason I describe Colorado’s recall as a fitting commemoration of 9/11. That September morning twelve years ago, average citizens aboard United Airlines flight 93 fought the first battle against jihadists in America. The terrorists were determined to destroy our way of life, the freedoms we enjoy – our rights as individuals. American freedom is in direct conflict with the jihadist’s submissive, dictatorial ideology.

“Are you guys ready?” telephone operator Lisa Jefferson heard United passenger Todd Beamer say. “Let’s roll.”

Jihadists piloting the airliner were so alarmed by the unarmed but determined Americans charging them, they crashed the hijacked airplane into an open field in Pennsylvania in a last desperate act. It’s believed Beamer and his fellow warriors stopped al Qaeda terrorist from crashing the commandeered craft into the Capitol Building or the White House. Beamer led what our Founders defined as a “well-regulated militia.”

At the Battle of Lexington in 1775, American militiaman John Munroe told a fellow soldier, “I’ll give them the guts of my gun” as he lifted his musket to fire on the advancing red line of British troops. The Red Coats, you see, were under orders to confiscate the “guts” of Munroe’s gun in order to secure the conceits of a petty, royal tyrant.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” Colorado’s petty tyrants tried to take a cherished right from their people and paid the price for their conceit at the ballot box.

Coloradans from every walk of life, crossing party lines, said “No” to the gun grabbers …

… and “Yes” to unalienable rights.

Florida Family Association Labels Al Jazeera America 'Jihad TV'

The far-right Florida Family Association is planning to run an aerial banner this Sunday before the Cincinnati Bengals game criticizing Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble, for running ads on Al Jazeera America.

The banner reads, ‘Procter & Gamble Sponsors Jihad TV.’

The FFA used a similar tactic when targeting Lady Gaga and ‘Gay Day’ at Disney. The fringe group has taken credit for having 128 companies drop their ads on Al Jazeera America, and similarly pressured companies to stop advertising on shows like All-American Muslim, Family Guy, Modern Family and Degrassi.

The FFA is a tiny organization run by David Caton, who became involved with the Religious Right after admitting to an addiction to pornography, and has warned that President Obama and Muslim-Americans are pushing an Islamist takeover of America.

The introduction of Al Jazeera America has led to an outpouring of anti-Muslim sentiment from right-wing commentators, and it seems that some companies may be mistaking the stunts of conspiratorial activists like Caton as popular discontent with the network.

Pat Robertson Explains Faith Healing: It's Just Like Santa Claus

The 700 Club regularly features a segment where Pat Robertson and his co-host read prayer request letters they have received and then pray for their authors and call out visions of God healing certain ailments (or shelling out a cool million). All viewers have to do is “claim” their particular healing and their maladies will be gone. During today’s broadcast, a viewer named Clark asked Robertson to defend the practice, which is common among Word-Faith preachers and faith healers:

I watched your son [Gordon] and a woman on TV telling people that God was healing a certain condition that people in the audience were suffering from. Then they discussed cases where viewers had written in to say that they had been healed, thus apparently proving that they have the ability to get God to heal people during the show. Is that power only available to them during the show? If not, are they spending every waking moment healing people? If not, that is just plain wrong.

Robertson tried to laugh off the question and explained that when the 700 Club hosts are praying together they receive a “Word of knowledge” and “the Lord just shows us what he is doing at some point of time, not what we are doing, it is his do.”

He insisted that he is not a healer: “I do not believe in a resident gift to heal” — just in “gifts of healing.”

Then, the televangelist likened the whole shtick to Santa Claus passing out gifts.

“It’s plural ‘gifts of healing.’” Robertson said. “It’s like Santa Claus. He has a pack on his back and he has gifts and he’s passing these gifts out but they come from God.”

“The word of knowledge says we are merely reciting what God himself is doing, okay?”

This isn’t the first time Robertson has defended the practice. Last year, Robertson said that failed healings are not the result of the pastors (like Robertson) who conduct them but due to a lack of faith among people asking for a healing.

Watch:

The Most Important Conservative Funder You’ve Never Heard Of

It was a big week for lifting the veil – at least a little – on the secretive world of conservative groups funding political campaigns. On Wednesday we wrote about new reports on two of the Right’s shadowy front groups which have been able to disguise the transfer of large sums of money to organizations supporting Republican causes and candidates. 

Then Politico brought us a look inside what they call “the Koch brothers’ secret bank,” a previously unknown group called Freedom Partners which gave a quarter billion dollars in 2012 to sway public debate further to the right. Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei report:

The group, Freedom Partners, and its president, Marc Short, serve as an outlet for the ideas and funds of the mysterious Koch brothers, cutting checks as large as $63 million to groups promoting conservative causes, according to an IRS document to be filed shortly…

The group has about 200 donors, each paying at least $100,000 in annual dues. It raised $256 million in the year after its creation in November 2011, the document shows. And it made grants of $236 million — meaning a totally unknown group was the largest sugar daddy for conservative groups in the last election, second in total spending only to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, which together spent about $300 million. [emphasis added]

Though you likely have not heard of Freedom Partners before, you’ve heard of the groups it funds – including the NRA, Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Action for America, and Tea Party Patriots. According to their newly-launched website, Freedom Partners is “promoting the principles of a free market and free society” by advocating against scourges like “cronyism in America.” 

This, from one of the biggest spenders in the last election.

Other than the Koch brothers, who are the donors behind this massively influential group?  At this point, it’s hard to know. Despite the group’s president’s insistence that “our members are proud to be part of [the organization],” Freedom Partner’s membership page does not list a single one.  It’s yet another example of the need for legislation like the DISCLOSE Act, which would shed light on the major donors behind the secretive outside groups attempting to shape our elections – and our country.
 

PFAW

Right Still Targeting Judicial Nominee Nina Pillard's Support For Women's Equality

Georgetown law professor Cornelia “Nina” Pillard, one of President Obama’s three nominees to fill vacancies on the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, is one of the country’s most renowned women’s rights attorneys. She crafted the argument that convinced a nearly unanimous Supreme Court to open the Virginia Military Institute to women. She worked alongside Bush administration attorneys to successfully defend the Family and Medical Leave Act in the courts. She has opposed government policies that treat men and women differently based on outmoded stereotypes that harm both sexes.

So, of course, conservative activists and their Republican allies in Congress are calling her a “radical feminist" and threatening to filibuster her nomination.

In an interview with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins Friday, National Review columnist Ed Whelan called Pillard a “radical feminist law professor” and insisted that she would be “the most left-wing judge in the history of the republic.”

Phyllis Schlafly – who, of course, also opposed the opening of VMI to women and the Family and Medical Leave Act  – calls Pillard a “scary feminist.”

The Family Research Council has also gone after Pillard, skewing the meaning of her words and even citing her use of a phrase that was actually written by the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist as evidence of her “militant feminism.”

And just this weekend, right-wing activist "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt sent out an email to his backers attacking Pillard's support for women's rights, specifically charging that Pillard “attacked and questioned the Virginia Military Institute” when she argued that VMI should admit women. 

Senate Republicans have picked up this line of attack. In Pillard’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee’s Republicans (all men) latched onto the nominee’s support of reproductive rights. When fellow nominee Robert Wilkins appeared before the committee last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley tried, unsuccessfully, to trick him into dissing Pillard’s writings.

So what exactly is it that makes Pillard such a “radical”/“militant”/“scary” feminist in the eyes of the Right?

In a series of columns last month, Whelan elaborated on what he meant. He takes particular issue with a 2007 law review article in which Pillard argues that many public school abstinence-only sex-ed curricula impose a double standard on girls – hardly a radical observation. She also specifically wrote that she took no position on the abstinence message itself. Nevertheless, Whelan and others have distorted this into the idea that she would strike down all abstinence programs as unconstitutional, which is not at all what she has said.  In Pillard’s own words,

[The article] brings into focus those curricula's  persistent, official promulgation of retrogressive, anti-egalitarian sexual  ideologies-of male pleasure and female shame, male recreation and female responsibility, male agency and female passivity, and male personhood and female parenthood. I argue for a counter-stereotyping sex education that  affirms women's and men's desire, sexual agency, and responsibility.

She explained her thoughts further in her hearing before the judiciary committee:

Let me say first, I'm a mother. I have two teenage children — one boy and one girl. If my children are being taught in sex education, I want both my children to be taught to say 'no,' not just my daughter. I want my son to be taught that, too. The article was very explicit in saying I don't see any constitutional objection … to abstinence-only education that does not rely upon and promulgate sex stereotypes.

This argument – that many government-funded sex-ed curricula promote harmful and regressive stereotypes that cheat girls – is what has made right-wing activists go ballistic.

Pillard has also made it exceedingly clear that she knows the difference between testing out legal theories in law review articles and applying them as a judge. As she said in her hearing, “Academics are paid to test the boundaries and look at the implications of things. As a judge, I would apply established law of the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit” – a sentiment that many Republican senators echoed when they were defending Bush nominees who had in the past expressed opinions not consistent with existing law.

To put it simply, what conservatives object to about Pillard is that she believes in women’s equality and that she’s really, really good at making the legal case for it. In 2013 in the Republican Party, that’s what it takes to qualify as a “scary,” “radical” and “militant” feminist.
 

Jesse Lee Peterson: March On Washington Anniversary 'Looked Like A Ku Klux Klan Rally'

Conservative activist and Fox News contributor Jesse Lee Peterson is angry about the growing political clout of African Americans and women, and he believes President Obama, Al Sharpton, Jamie Fox and Oprah Winfrey used the official commemoration of 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom to spread anti-white racism and socialism. Never mind that the original March on Washington called for “a national minimum wage act” and “a massive federal program to train and place all unemployed workers” in jobs [PDF]: Peterson accused Obama of twisting the message of the original march by “call[ing] for a minimum wage increase” and pushing “socialist ideas.”

”[T]he 50th anniversary commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic march and speech looked like a Ku Klux Klan rally!”

Peterson writes in WorldNetDaily that speakers at the commemorative event “whine about the need for ‘justice’ for blacks while continuing to pervert the civil rights struggle by equating it to current efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, pass amnesty for illegal aliens and degrade the Second Amendment.”

“It was an outright attempt to rewrite history – and use King’s name to advance an anti-American political agenda,” Peterson said. “We now have a full-fledged racist, socialist president in the White House.”

He also attacked march organizers for supposedly excluding Republican speakers, even though Republican leaders were invited to speak but declined.

Most blacks have lost the moral authority to claim the mantle of civil rights because they refuse to stand for what is right.

As an example, the 50th anniversary commemoration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic march and speech looked like a Ku Klux Klan rally!

Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, Jamie Foxx and others whined about the need for “justice” for blacks while continuing to pervert the civil rights struggle by equating it to current efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, pass amnesty for illegal aliens and degrade the Second Amendment.

But these malcontents were simply the opening act for Barack Obama – or, as I refer to him, the “Fallen Messiah.”

In his address, Obama, flanked by members of the King family, shamelessly said, “We would dishonor the memory of Dr. King and other heroes to suggest that the work of this nation is complete …” He then attacked Republicans who want to preserve voter integrity at the polls. Obama said we have to fight back against those who want to “erect new barriers to the vote …”

Obama also cited how black unemployment has remained twice as high as white unemployment and that the gap in wealth between the races has grown. He left out that things are far worse since he’s become president! He called for a minimum wage increase and for higher taxes on the wealthy. It was clear that Obama’s address was not about acknowledging the great strides America has made. His speech was about using the platform to sew dissatisfaction and help usher in his socialist ideas.

There were no black or white Republican speakers. As if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could have been passed without the GOP! This was not a commemoration of the spirit of MLK’s march. It was an outright attempt to rewrite history – and use King’s name to advance an anti-American political agenda.



As a result of the absence and weakness of black men, blacks have allowed every ungodly thing to influence their communities. We literally see hell on earth in places like Detroit, Newark, Chicago and New Orleans.

The negative attitude most blacks hold is antithetical to the Christian message of love and forgiveness delivered by MLK. Yes, blacks have indeed lost the moral authority to claim the mantle of civil rights because they refuse to stand for what is right. The 90 percent of blacks who helped elect Obama have little in common with MLK.

We now have a full-fledged racist, socialist president in the White House. Obama is no different than Jeremiah Wright Jr., Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton – he’s just more polished and better at hiding who he is.

Throughout American history, whites have played a significant role in helping blacks secure freedom and equality. We can no longer relinquish the civil rights mantle to liberal racist blacks. It’s time to take back our country and confront black racism head on, but it will take both whites and freethinking blacks, standing together once again, to get it done.

Steve King Insists 9/11-Muslim Brotherhood Link Confirmed By 'Well-Placed Sources Within the Middle East'

Iowa congressman Steve King, who joined fellow Republicans Rep. Michelle Bachman and Rep. Louis Gohmert in Egypt last week, where they delivered a televised message praising the Egyptian military’s crackdown on dissenters, claims that the group’s insistence that the Muslim Brotherhood was linked to the 9/11 terrorist attacks comes from a “very reliable” source “within the Middle East.” But he won’t say who his source is because “then it would be a political incident.”

The Bush administration’s 9/11 commission found no such link, except to note a handful of instances where Al Qaeda members had peripheral contact with the sprawling group.

While Bachmann has attempted to backtrack from the comments, King has characteristically doubled down.

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Tuesday, during a call with reporters, King defended Bachmann's statements.

King said he had received evidence tying the Muslim Brotherhood to both the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and last year's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He said his information comes from “very well-placed sources within the Middle East.”

Pressed for more details, King declined to specify even the country from which the information originated.

“That source is a very reliable source and it is very sensitive,” King said. “If I were to clarify the source of it, then it would be a political incident. And I'd just as soon not initiate that.”

Radio Iowa adds:

“I have received evidence that there was a foundation there among the Muslim Brotherhood in each of those cases and it’s not something that I think that they can just simply say is wrong. They would have to be the ones to prove the negative,” King said. “It takes a fair amount of self-confidence, sometimes misplaced self-confidence, to be so critical with a basis to do so.”

King was asked twice during his telephone news conference to reveal the source of his information.

“I think I’ll just stick with my answer of very well-placed sources within the Middle East,” King said, “and I think that it will be verified over time.”

How To Make 'The Whole Homosexual Marriage Debate Go Away'

Anti-gay activists can’t be happy that polling data shows that a majority of Americans support marriage equality, and are also displeased with libertarian and conservative leaders who think it might be time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

In a WorldNetDaily article about the debate on “privatizing marriage,” Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that while heterosexual marriage should remain a government-sponsored institution, he is “fine with privatizing homosexual relationships” since gay people haven’t proven how same-sex unions “benefit society.” Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute agreed that removing a government role from marriage “capitulates” to the gay rights movement and harms children.

Herb Titus said the government should define marriage based on Leviticus and “screen out those people who were violating the rules the Bible laid down as to who could be married and who could not be married.”

But Matt Trewhella has a plan to end the debate over marriage rights once and for all.

Trewhella, the Religious Right activist who you may remember for his rant about how gays are “filthy people,” revealed that the only way to make “the whole homosexual marriage debate go away” is not through “privatization but the re-criminalization of sodomy.”

Jennifer Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, which supports traditional marriage, says privatizing marriage “doesn’t really resolve the gay marriage issue, it capitulates on the key point, which is what is the public purpose of marriage, and whether the state has any role in protecting the interests of children.”

“This is a rhetorical tactic for trying to make it go away. I don’t think it works.”

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said marriage deserves a privileged place in the law because it brings benefits “that are important to the well-being of society as a whole and not just a couple.”



Sprigg, a leading defender of traditional marriage, sayid [sic] he’s “fine with privatizing homosexual relationships” but rejects privatizing true marriage because of its special status.

“Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore the burden of proof is on the advocates of alternatives to marriage to prove that their relationships benefit society. I think that’s a burden of proof that same-sex marriage cannot meet.”

Morse said the libertarian idea that two or more people can make up their own “marital” contract any way they wish collides with the needs of children. Crafting intimate arrangements without guidance from God, culture or the state “just doesn’t work when you have a child,” she said. “The modern world does not know quite what to do with these helpless creatures.



Herbert W. Titus, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and Government, agrees that state and federal laws, especially no-fault divorce, have fostered social chaos but says a return to marriage laws that conform to biblical norms is the solution, not privatization.

Marriage licenses serve a useful purpose, Titus said, because they determine “if you’re entitled to a marriage certificate” and “screen out those people who were violating the rules the Bible laid down as to who could be married and who could not be married.” He cited Leviticus 18, which forbids sexual relations between close relations, family members and individuals of the same sex.

But once the law allows same-sex marriage, Titus said, “then it’s very difficult to see that there are any … barriers to marriage,” and that opens the door to sodomy and polygamy.



Conservative Protestant minister Matt Trewhella, founder of Missionaries to the Preborn, is sometimes lumped in with the advocates of marriage privatization because he tells Christians not to get marriage licenses and refuses to marry couples who do.

Trewhella regards marriage licenses as a grant of authority to marry from the state. “The state cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.”

Despite that view, Trewhella wants the state to ban same-sex marriage.

“I think the whole idea of privatizing marriage is absurd because the state should uphold and affirm the law word and created order of God regarding marriage as revealed in Scripture.”

He believes the solution to same-sex marriage is not privatization but the re-criminalization of sodomy.

“That’s what makes the whole homosexual marriage debate go away,” he said.

Stemberger: 'Abuse' To Affirm LGBT Youth; Sexual Relations Among Boy Scouts Will Become 'Commonplace'

John Stemberger, who leads the new anti-gay alternative to the Boy Scouts of America, reassured conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday that his group, Trail Life USA, is “not going to tolerate” any openly gay members, describing them as a threat to the “safety and security of our children.”

While the BSA allows openly gay youth (but not adults) to join, Trail Life USA will ban anyone who is gay, unless he is working to hide and banish his gay demons. Stemberger, who also runs the Florida Family Policy Council, blames “society and schools and even parents” for affirming LGBT youth, which he said is “tantamount to abuse.”

“That is just absolutely nonsense and it’s an abuse to the child,” Stemberger charged. “We are not going to tolerate someone who is ‘here and queer; loud and proud,’ all of that nonsense, that is completely inappropriate in a program where there’s children.”

Stemberger: We’re very sad to leave the Boy Scouts of America. It was a great organization but unfortunately it has taken a turn in a fundamental compromise on its values that is just not acceptable to parents and the safety and security of our children.

Mefferd: Absolutely. Now a lot has been reported about how you will handle the issue of sexuality in the Trail Life USA organization. How did it come about that you put together the parameters that you did and how do you reassure parents that the issues that may come up in the Boy Scouts are not going to be the same in Trail Life USA?

Stemberger: Well first of all, we’re not going to allow open and avowed homosexuality. It’s really important that we distinguish between a mere same-sex attraction, which by the way 20-25 percent of young boys as they are growing up will experience some sort of gender ambiguity or confusion, or just needing to wonder who they are, needing affirmation, that’s not uncommon at all. But what’s horrible is to have the society and schools and even parents, which is tantamount to abuse in my judgment, saying ‘oh he is special, he must be gay, he must be gender confused, let’s let him explore.’ That is just absolutely nonsense and it’s an abuse to the child. We need to be reaffirming that child of their God-given biology that they are special, made in His image, and help them understand these things. So we’re not going to turn away a kid like that, but we are not going to tolerate activists. We are not going to tolerate someone who is ‘here and queer; loud and proud,’ all of that nonsense, that is completely inappropriate in a program where there’s children.

Later in the broadcast, Stemberger warned that when AT&T CEO and BSA board member Randall Stephenson becomes the leader of the organization, it is likely that openly gay adults will be allowed to take part in scouting as well.

While Stemberger said he was “never concerned about the adults” because “the adults have a two-deep leadership policy where no adult can be alone with any scout at one time in scouting,” he told parents to fear openly gay adult leaders anyway and defect to Trail Life USA: “We’re not trying to be bashing the BSA but we are going to be committed to letting parents know of this and that this is a risk, this is a health and safety risk to boys.”

Stemberger even predicted that sexual relations and “physical, sexual and psychological abuse” will become “commonplace” as a result of the decision to end the ban on openly gay youth.

Mefferd: You told us that Randall Stephenson, the head of AT&T, is now going to be in charge of the Boy Scouts. Now this is somebody who drew an awful lot of fire prior to this vote as somebody a lot of conservatives wanted ousted from the Boy Scouts.

Stemberger: That’s right, in May of next year he will become the president of the Boy Scouts of America and he is on the record saying he doesn’t agree with the current policy, doesn’t go far enough, he wants open homosexuality not just with boys but with men as well. When that second shoe drops then we will be positioned to see even more parents come and join Trail Life USA. Honestly, I just hate this. I don’t like this. We’re not trying to be bashing the BSA but we are going to be committed to letting parents know of this and that this is a risk, this is a health and safety risk to boys. They have already issued proclamations saying you will not treat openly gay boys any different, that is they are going to be tented with other boys; they are not going to be separated out in anyway lest they be bullied.

This is where it’s going and this will absolutely increase boy-on-boy sexual contact, which will further contribute to the scandal and the very unfortunate abuse to countless numbers of boys who will undergo physical, sexual and psychological abuse as a result of this policy change. That is the bottom line, that is the thing no one wants to talk about, that is the reality of this change. They can deny it all they want to but you can’t control boys. I was never concerned about the adults; the adults have a two-deep leadership policy where no adult can be alone with any scout at one time in scouting. But you can’t do that with boys. They are high-risk, they’ve got testosterone, they do crazy things and so you’re going to have stuff happen commonplace as this policy goes into effect.

Pat Robertson Loses Fight To Keep 'Gay AIDS Ring' Video Off The Internet

Two weeks ago, the Christian Broadcasting Network tried to cover up remarks made by Pat Robertson, the founder of CBN and host of its flagship show the 700 Club, about how he believes gay men wear special rings that cut the hands of people they meet in order to infect them with HIV/AIDS.

CBN not only had the video we posted of Robertson’s comments removed from YouTube by complaining that it violated copyright laws, but also edited the comments out of its own broadcast of the show.

We reposted our video elsewhere, but CBN also had it removed from websites such as Vimeo and Dailymotion.

We filed a counterclaim with YouTube asserting that our video was protected by Fair Use and yesterday we finally received word that our video had been restored:

But the episode reveals the lengths CBN will go to hide and censor the statements made by its own leader. Now, the network is even considering legal action against a documentary critical of Robertson.

Schlafly: Strip Funding from Courts, Schools, Colleges, Child Protective Services, Social Safety Net, Feminists And Democrats

It’s not exactly news that Phyllis Schlafly thinks that things like gay rights, feminism, secular education, popular culture and progressive laws are ruining America. But it’s still remarkable to see her try to list all of her enemies in one place.

In a column this week entitled “America’s War Against Traditional Marriage Endangers Our Democracy,” Schlafly goes after child protection services, day care, divorce courts and domestic violence protections – all of which she sees as threats to the family and our democracy--  and issues a call to “shame and cut off taxpayers’ money from the groups that killed the American family,” groups that she goes on to list: “Feminists, judges, legislators, public school teachers and administrators, so-called child protection agencies, professors, psychologists, college courses, government handouts and Democratic politicians who want big-government spending in order to win votes.”

A combination of forces abolished the American family as we knew it.

The many factors include changes in the law such as unilateral divorce, court decisions and especially abuses by the family courts, the culture, curricula and customs from elementary grades through college, taxpayer financial incentives for illegitimacy, and the pronouncements of self-appointed experts who think they know how to manage children better than parents.

We must shame and cut off taxpayers' money from the groups that killed the American family, including feminists, judges, legislators, public school teachers and administrators, so-called child protection agencies, professors, psychologists, college courses, government handouts and Democratic politicians who want big-government spending in order to win votes.

The problem cannot be remedied by prohibiting same-sex marriage (even by a constitutional amendment) or by telling men to "man up."

Feminists demand that we abolish the patriarchy, and they argue that its worst offense is expecting mothers to care for their own children, and so the taxpayers should pay for day-care for all children. Feminists are still whining on television in 2013 about President Nixon's veto of the comprehensive Mondale day-care bill back in 1971.

All those who care about preserving the religious and economic freedoms that are the hallmark of America should realize that we cannot reassert constitutional rights, private enterprise, balanced budgets, reduction of government spending and freedom from government management of our lives without the intact, self-supporting traditional nuclear family functioning as the foundation of our society.

Texas Textbook Reviewer Sheds Light On Creationist Efforts To Undercut Science Education

In a letter sent to the State Board of Education, Jimmy Gollihar of the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Systems and Synthetic Biology describes the lengths to which creationists are going to undermine science and advance Creationism in Texas classrooms, as well as the help they are receiving from board chair Barbara Cargill.

While the panels reviewing science textbooks are supposed to be independent of the school board, Cargill worked closely with creationism advocates on the panels, leading Gollihar to note that Cargill aided “those who might reasonably be regarded as creationists.”

Gollihar’s letter details how the creationists who are serving on the panel not only lack any credentials but seem not to understand basic science, such as the one panelist, a dietician, who demanded that biology textbooks incorporate “creation science based on biblical principles.”

“With such a gross misunderstanding of science, it is hard to fathom that any other comments the reviewer made would have been helpful or even accurate, and it further underscores the unfortunate skewing of the panels away from real, practicing scientists,” Gollihar writes.

As Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network points out, Gollihar’s name was even added to the anti-evolution panelist’s comment.

“The net result of having a huge raft of non-scientists on the panels was that rather than checking for factual errors in the texts I was put into the position of having to painstakingly educate other panel members on past and current literature,” Gollihar continues. “[E]ven beyond the obviously ideologically-derived comments on the materials many of the comments found littered throughout those reviews make no sense whatsoever from a scientific viewpoint.”

He notes that actual biologists are being sidelined in the process as he was “among a small minority of panelists that possessed any post-secondary education in the biological sciences.”

By stacking the panels with advocates of Creationism, the bodies did “not in any way reflect the distribution of viewpoints within the scientific community.”

First, it would seem that the selection process for reviewers is lacking, at best — politically motivated at worst. Coming into the live review session in Austin, I fully expected that as a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin I would be the least-qualified member on the panel. My fears of inadequacy would soon subside; it seems that I was in fact one of only two practicing scientists present; indeed, I was among a small minority of panelists that possessed any post-secondary education in the biological sciences. Given the high interest amongst the scientific community in improving science education in Texas, I doubt that the make-up of the panel reflected the application pool in any way.

In fact, I know that several of my colleagues who hold PhD or equivalent degrees in their respective fields were passed over in the selection process. Instead, we had several well-known creationists and even a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design think tank. Beyond the established creationists, apologists for “creation science” were scattered throughout each of the review teams. This does not in any way reflect the distribution of viewpoints within the scientific community. It is impossible to conclude that the teams reviewing textbooks were anything other than grossly skewed and obviously biased.

The net result of having a huge raft of non-scientists on the panels was that rather than checking for factual errors in the texts I was put into the position of having to painstakingly educate other panel members on past and current literature. Somewhat unsurprisingly, a reviewer from another table, who is also a well-known creationist without any training in biology, was quite proud that he was the one reviewing the sections on evolution for his table … with no scientific counterpoint to be had. As a result, even beyond the obviously ideologically-derived comments on the materials many of the comments found littered throughout those reviews make no sense whatsoever from a scientific viewpoint and are absolutely not germane to the content prescribed in the TEKS [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills].

Secondly, I and other members of my group grew increasingly concerned with both the actions and presence of Chairwoman Barbara Cargill during the review of course materials for high school biology. We appreciated her kind words about our service to the state, but we were taken aback by the sheer amount of time spent with other panel members, especially those who might reasonably be regarded as creationists. From our vantage, Ms. Cargill was clearly trying to steer the independent review process by providing specific guidance and direction to the two other teams. She appeared to be pointing to specific locations within certain texts and encouraging the members of the panel to recommend changes to the publishers. It is our understanding that the review process should be absent of any undue influence from SBOE members.

...

Finally, I have recently been made aware that a reviewer from another team made what appears to be a grossly misrepresentative comment to the publisher. For example, in the review of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt textbook, an incredible resource, a panel member comments:

I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator and parent, I feel very strongly that "creation science" based on Biblical principles should be incorporated to every Biology book that is up for adoption. It is very important for students to use critical thinking skills and give them the opportunity to weigh the evidence between evolution and "creation science."

This is disturbing for a number of reasons. The author of this comment has obviously not mastered the material contained within the TEKS, especially 2C. With such a gross misunderstanding of science, it is hard to fathom that any other comments the reviewer made would have been helpful or even accurate, and it further underscores the unfortunate skewing of the panels away from real, practicing scientists. Moreover, while I entered into this process hoping to improve it, I now find that my name appears on the final document containing this comment! At no time did I ever sign anything resembling such nonsense. In fact, the author of that comment and I never worked on anything together. I do not know how this inaccurate statement and my name have been paired, but because I am a professional in good standing I strongly ask you to please remove my name from anything that does not have my direct signature when providing materials to the public. To do otherwise is to potentially sully my reputation. In sum, the review process is either broken or corrupt.

In hopes of the former, let’s learn from this and ensure that the next generation of students from our state is equipped with a solid foundation in the biological sciences and can compete globally. Future panel members should be experts in the irrespective fields, preferably practicing scientists up to date on the modern information that students need. If necessary, it might be useful to partition the TEKS to academics and professionals who deal with these topics in their work and research. We should absolutely not see network, mechanical or chemical engineers, dieticians or others making decisions or pressuring publishers to change books on biology. Let biologists do biology. We’re actually pretty good at it.

Erik Rush: Obama Engaging In Triple Cover-Up Of Benghazi

Channeling Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily columnist and Fox News regular Erik Rush today writes that President Obama orchestrated the attack on the US annex in Benghazi, which he claims had “clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria,” to cover up the weapons shipment. 

Now why would Obama and his supposed Islamist allies attack the same US annex they believe was arming Islamists? Well, as Rush explains, it was all an effort to cover up the fact that they were doing it in the first place, and then the administration had to cover up the reasons for the attack.

A cover-up of the cover-up.

But despite the fact that this makes absolutely no sense, Rush went on to say that the insurgents in Syria “came to possess chemical weapons” thanks to Obama, so now Obama must attack Syria in order to “erase the evidence of having provided them” and cover that up too.

Yep, it’s the old cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up.

Most observers have settled on the likelihood that it is his desire to redirect attention from his many scandals, Obamacare and immigration reform legislation that impels the president toward carrying out this attack. There is also a distinct possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he has supported worldwide and who have fighters among the rebels in Syria) is putting pressure on him to deliver after his failure to resist the ouster of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Q: How does Obama know what kind of weapons the rebels in Syria have?

A: He has the receipts …

I propose another scenario: It has been well-established that the Obama administration clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria. (I say “rebels in Syria” rather than “Syrian rebels” because many of them are jihadis from other nations.) It is a pretty safe bet that this operation was at least part of the reason for the 9/11/12 attack on the American facility in Benghazi. I have contended for some time that President Obama himself either orchestrated the attack or was party to it. His motivation, I have asserted, would have been in perceiving a need to erase the evidence of the Benghazi operation – and perhaps even some of the personnel involved.

A subsequent revelation that Morsi provided military assets for the attack on the Benghazi compound does tend to lend credence to the notion that Obama was involved. After all, Obama was Morsi’s benefactor; indeed, there would have been no Arab Spring and no Muslim Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt had it not been for Obama’s destabilization of the region.

Since it has been established that the Obama administration provided weapons to the rebels in Syria, and nearly a certainty these factions came to possess chemical weapons, is it then possible that Obama’s desire to strike Syria with all due speed stems from a need to erase the evidence of having provided them, and perhaps even other treasonous actions? It would certainly make the truth getting out with regard to Benghazi much more of a threat to Obama if evidence speaking to this being factual exists.

If this is factual, Barack Obama might ultimately be looking at occupying a noted place in history quite different from the one he currently occupies.

White Nationalist Group Upset It's Not Getting Credit for Inventing GOP 'Whites-Only' Strategy

As leaders of the Republican Party debate whether their party can remain viable without expanding its appeal among black and Latino voters, the white nationalist group that first outlined a GOP “whites-only” strategy for presidential victories wants credit for its idea.

In November of 2000, as George W. Bush and Al Gore were still wrangling over a handful of hanging chads in Florida,  Steve Sailer, an unabashedly racist columnist for the white nationalist site VDARE, wrote a column outlining a potential strategy for the GOP to remain strong in the face of changing demographics. In his column, titled “GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote,” Sailer crunched exit poll numbers and outlined a strategy by which the Republican Party could lose “every single nonwhite vote” and still win the presidency by working to increase its share of working class white voters. Sailer and VDARE continued to promote this strategy for over a decade, arguing that Republican attempts to reach out to people of color were not only bad politics, but also a losing strategy.

In the wake of President Obama’s reelection – which relied in a large part on the GOP’s alienation of black and Latino voters – the “Sailer Strategy” has seen a popular resurgence among the Right. While some GOP leaders, like RNC chairman Reince Priebus, have trumpeted the need for the party to expand its base in the face of changing demographics, others – including Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, leaders in the anti-immigrant movement, and the editors of The National Review and The Weekly Standard– have argued that the GOP can instead build a lasting strategy by increasing its share of the white vote. These leaders argue that any effort to build a more inclusive Republican Party – and especially any effort to update the country’s immigration policy – would in the long term be futile because, as Schlafly indelicately put it, Latino voters don’t “have any Republican inclinations at all.”

The mostly implicit, but sometimes explicit, subtext in the push for this strategy is that it would be partly achieved by stirring up racial resentments among white voters against the country’s growing Latino population. Buchanan put it most clearly when he called for a renewal of the Southern Strategy – which fundamentally realigned the Republican Party by digging up and egging on Southern white racism against African Americans – only this time with Latinos as the target. (Not coincidentally, Buchanan and Schlafly have both cited Sailer's writings on race in their own work.)

In a fascinating National Journal cover story this week, Ronald Brownstein examines the numbers behind the increasingly popular GOP “whites-only” strategy, concluding that the combination of an expanding non-white population, growing Democratic trends among white voters and the geographical distribution of swing states, make it unlikely to succeed.

Republican strategist White Ayres put it more bluntly in an interview with Brownstein. The strategy, he said, “is not getting much penetration among people who are serious about winning presidential elections. It is getting traction among people who are trying to justify voting against immigration reform or making any of the other changes that are necessary to be nationally competitive in the 21st century."

Which, of course, was the whole point of the idea from its very first airing in Steve Sailer’s column. 

Among those unhappy with Brownstein’s rigorously reported story were, predictably, the white nationalists at VDARE, who are not only still on board with the “whites-only” strategy, but are upset that now that the theory has taken off, Sailer is no longer getting credit for it. John Derbyshire, the VDARE columnist fired by The National Review after he wrote one too many racist screed, comes to the defense of Sailer and his strategy against Brownstein’s logic:

The wonkery here is, as you can see, very deep. For VDARE.com readers it is also deeply frustrating.

The central point of discussion here, the desirability of the GOP increasing its appeal to white voters, is the Sailer Strategy, which we have been airing, with full supporting numerical analyses, since the 2000 election.

We know that a prophet is without honor in his own country. But surely an occasional linked reference wouldn’t hurt?

Derbyshire then laments that the Sailer Strategy would be easier to implement if whites were not “too intensely engaged in their Cold Civil War—too much wrapped up in the pleasures of hating other whites—to unite as a tribe.” But he echoes other commentators in suggesting that it could be done if Republicans embraced a message of economic populism:

Note that, contra Ronald Brownstein’s title, there are some conceivable circumstances in which Republicans could win with whites alone.

Whites were 72 percent of the electorate in 2012. On current demographic trends, that number will decline at roughly two percent per 4-year cycle. That gives us ten or a dozen cycles in which whites are a majority of the electorate—well past mid-century.

If whites were to vote for white GOP presidential candidates as tribally as blacks vote for a black Democrat, with no additional votes from minorities at all, the presidency would be decided by the white vote alone in all but the last of those cycles.

Even if whites nationwide just voted as tribally as white Mississippians did last November (89 percent for Romney), all but the last three of those cycles would be a lock.

Well, conceivable, perhaps, but neither thing will happen. Whites are too intensely engaged in their Cold Civil War—too much wrapped up in the pleasures of hating other whites—to unite as a tribe.

What could happen, what we should wish to happen, is a turn on the part of the GOP to economic populism, as recommended by Sean Trende, and more recently by my VDARE.com colleague James Kirkpatrick in his article on Colorado:

Rather than serving as corporate lobbyists for the ultra-rich, the GOP should wage war on big money in politics and embrace a populist strategy against bankers, cheap labor, and offshoring.

A well-pitched populist appeal from an attractive candidate could reach parts that the current corporatist, big-donor-whipped GOP is not reaching. The fundamental issues are not hard to get across.

We don't agree with John Derbyshire on a lot, but we do agree with him on one thing: Republican proponents of the Sailer Strategy should give credit where credit's due. 

Cahn: Gay Marriage And Obama's Re-Election Are Signs Of The End Of America

Author Jonathan Cahn has become a star in Religious Right circles over his new book, The Harbinger, which basically claims that biblical prophecy regarding ancient Israel applies to the United States today. Cahn states that the September 11 attacks were a warning from God to repent and prophesied in the Bible. Instead of repenting, however, America is increasingly rebelling against God and Cahn predicts that such defiance will lead to the country’s ultimate destruction.

He appeared on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins yesterday to mark the anniversary of 9/11 and discuss a recent prayer gathering in the Capitol, where Michele Bachmann delivered a Cahn-like speech about how 9/11 and the Benghazi attack represented divine judgment. Cahn also spoke at the event.

After Perkins asked Cahn if the US is “responding to these warning signs of the Lord” appropriately, since Cahn of course knows exactly how God views America, Cahn responded that while America is in spiritual decline, the good news is that lots of people are buying his book!

The End Times author reiterated his claim that members of Congress are reading The Harbinger, including members he met at the Capitol prayer summit.

Unfortunately, America is still going downhill thanks to gay marriage and the re-election of Obama, so we may all be doomed anyway.

What I’ve experienced is there’s a lot of people—The Harbinger’s been spreading across the country, it’s even been reaching Capitol Hill. You and I were there on that night of prayer and several congressmen came up to me about it, so it’s been spreading on one hand. So we’re seeing prayers, we’re seeing repentance; we’re seeing much of that. But, on the other hand, as a nation since The Harbinger came out, America has continued its descent, its moral descent, rapidly. And this has affected the church. I believe, when I look back at it, it came out in 2012 and 2013, this is a real tipping point time where for the first time you have more Americans in favor of gay marriage, you have a president who was re-elected after declaring this, you have states coming forward, you have so many tipping points. I think there’s a reason why The Harbinger came out at that time because it’s a warning and it’s a wakeup call. What happens with a tipping point is things accelerate, unless there’s an intervention of God, things accelerate and I believe we’re really watching an acceleration; the Supreme Court just came out with its decision, I mean so much.

Perkins: Boycott Betty Crocker For Baking Wedding Cakes For Gay Couples

When gay rights advocates criticized Chick-fil-A for the company’s financial support of anti-gay organizations, the Family Research Council decried their “gaystapo tactics.” Apparently, the FRC believes that boycotts are only acceptable if they are organized by conservative groups.

In fact, the FRC is already boycotting companies like Starbucks and McDonalds, and even the Girl Scout Cookies.

Today on his daily radio commentary, FRC president Tony Perkins urged listeners to also boycott Betty Crocker and offered a link to the National Organization for Marriage’s campaign at DumpGeneralMills.com.

Perkins was outraged that Betty Crocker donated custom cakes to three gay Minnesota couples who were married after the state legalized same-sex marriage, and upset that a company spokesman said that “Betty celebrates all families.” Perkins warned that Betty Crocker’s “latest promotion is a recipe for disaster” and claimed that it is offensive to a majority of Americans who have already “made it tough on companies like Target, Starbucks and JC Penney” for not opposing gay rights.

“When you’re at the store, think outside the Betty Crocker box!”

At Betty Crocker, the only thing they're mixing up is their priorities. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker's latest promotion is a recipe for disaster. This summer, the famous dessert line decided to jump on the same-sex marriage bandwagon and bring cakes to celebrate. In Minnesota, where parent company General Mills is headquartered, Betty Crocker decided to donate wedding cakes to the first homosexual couples who exchanged vows on the first day that counterfeit marriage was legal. "Betty celebrates all families…. We don't want to be old fashioned," the company explained. Unfortunately for General Mills, the majority of Americans think natural marriage is anything but old fashioned. And they've made it tough on companies like Target, Starbucks, and JC Penney who disagree. Know where your money is going. When you're at the store, think outside the Betty Crocker box!

How Big Money Bought North Carolina for Extremists

In the years since Citizens United, North Carolina has provided a clear example of what happens when a small number of corporate interests, allied with a far-right base, are allowed unbridled influence over elections.

Klingenschmitt: Colorado Recall Election A Victory For Jesus

Heavenly angels were singing when two Democratic state senators in Colorado were defeated in a low-turnout recall election that focused on the lawmakers’ support for tougher gun laws, at least according to “Dr. Chaps” Gordon Klingenschmitt. The exorcist and former navy chaplain actively campaigned for the Republican challengers, the Colorado Independent reports:

“I was praying tonight that God would inspire His people,” Gordon Klingenschmitt, assured Linda Herpin, wife of the GOP recall challenger, minutes before El Paso County Republicans announced that her husband had unseated Morse, a Democrat.



“I wanted to help recall John Morse specifically because of 2nd Amendment issues,” he said. “As a Christian, as a person who follows Jesus, I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I believe that when Jesus said, for example, ‘sell your cloak and buy a sword,’ that he endorsed the idea of self-defense, that defending yourself is not a crime. In fact, it’s a moral obligation to defend your wife, to defend your family, and John Morse stands against families who want to do that —stands against people who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.”

In an email to members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project, Klingenschmitt writes that Jesus was the real winner in Colorado:

Victory! Jesus and 2nd Amendment win Colorado Senate races

Not only do I live in southern Colorado, where conservatives just successfully recalled two gun-grabbing liberal Senators who voted to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights, but I got personally involved in the local politics (block walking, petition gathering, donating, making phone calls, and praying) that helped elect a new Republican State Senator Bernie Herpin and throw out the Democrat Senate President John Morse. This internationally-watched race confronted President Obama himself, who sent VP Joe Biden to lobby the Colorado Senate to punish gun-owners, but those efforts backfired.



That said, I still believe religious freedom is the First right, because even if you have the right to bear arms, assemble, speak, and petition, but you don't have the right to worship Almighty God or pray in Jesus' name, then the government still owns your soul. Let's tell them "not my soul" today.

WND Is Just Asking The Question: Is Obama 'Ushering In Islamic Caliphate?'

Today’s WorldNetDaily News Alert was a true double-whammy, with two heavily slated reports phrased as questions so as to not take actual responsibility for the incendiary claims made in the articles.

“Are Terrorists Setting U.S. Wildfires?’ Joe Kovacs asks, relying on unsupported claims that Islamic extremists were maybe behind a Colorado wildfire.

As WND reported in June, an expert on Islamic terrorism believes a wildfire that ravaged the outskirts of Colorado Springs, Colo., killing two people and destroying more than 500 homes, should be examined by terror investigators.

“One thing that my investigators have given me the authority to state is that they have all but ruled out natural causes as the cause of this fire,” said Sheriff Terry Maketa at the time. “I can’t really go any further on that, but I can say we are pretty confident it was not, for instance, a lightning strike.”

In a message to WND’s Muslim readers, the NewsAlert offered this message: “If you are a Muslim … a Sunni Muslim … and you dream of the day the caliphate will be restored … then thank Allah for this man …”

Obama, of course!

WND reporter Aaron Klein’s post, “‘Manchurian President’ Ushering In Islamic Caliphate?,” argues that Obama has “empowered Islamic radicals” in order to create a global Islamic government. Klein, the author of “The Manchurian President,” is publicizing his new book “Impeachable Offenses.”

Since assuming office, President Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening U.S. enemies and tacitly supporting Muslim Brotherhood revolutions that have empowered Islamic radicals, charges a new book.

In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,”New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott demonstrate that Obama’s policies have been helping to install Muslim Brotherhood-friendly regimes to the detriment of U.S. national security and world stability.

“Obama’s policies are installing political Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa in a tidal wave of change already reaping disastrous results for those regions as well as for U.S. interests there,” write Klein and Elliott.



Islamic caliphate?

Mubarak was only the beginning, write Klein and Elliott. Obama’s support for a U.S. ally’s ouster and replacement with radical Islamic elements would be repeated numerous times in the Middle East and North Africa, to the great detriment of the American war on terror, the authors write.

Voter suppression and intimidation reported in Colorado recall election

The recall effort began earlier this year as a grassroots protest and on Tuesday resulted in State Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs and State Senator Angela Giron of Pueblo losing their seats.
PFAW
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious