Residents of Bay County, Michigan, are receiving robocalls from the state chapter of the American Family Association urging them to reject a proposed nondiscrimination ordinance that the group claims “threatens religious freedom and women’s privacy rights by giving special protections to individuals involved in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.”
The Bay City Times has posted a recording of the robocall, in which AFA Michigan president Gary Glenn calls the LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance a “discriminatory law.”
The ordinance would prohibit [pdf] the county government from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental limitation, familial status, sexual orientation, or gender identity/expression.” It would not apply to private businesses, although Glenn has nevertheless fretted that it would require a Christian bookstore to “hire a man who comes to work wearing a dress.”
This has emerged as a popular message among anti-immigrant activists and politicians. Phyllis Schlafly and Michele Bachmann have both argued that Republicans should drop Latino outreach efforts because, in their minds, Latino immigrants are inherently unable to understand the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. CIS figures have likewise claimed that Latino immigrants have an inherent antipathy to the Republican Party because they lack “strong family values” and have large numbers of “illegitimate” children .
CIS research director Steven Camarota repeated this theme in an interview yesterday on the Chuck Morse Speaks radio program, where he said that Democrats are “the party of minorities” and are backing immigration reform because they “would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens.”
On the Democratic side, it’s coalition politics. The Democratic Party is the party that tends to draw a lot of support from Hispanics and Asians now as well, so they’re the party of minorities. And so, since a very large fraction – you know, about 80 percent of illegal immigrants, in particular – would be Hispanic, based on government statistics, and probably another ten, 12 percent are Asian, so the party would like all these folks to stay because they want votes once they become citizens. But just in the existing citizen population of people of recent immigrant origin, they’re hoping to draw a lot of support. So there’s a political reason there. So, if you had to sum it up in a bumper sticker, the Democrats are looking for votes and the Republicans are looking for cheap labor.
Just in case you aren’t familiar with Marshall, here is a quick refresher on some of his most extreme positions:
1. Disabled Children Are God’s Punishment For Abortion
At a 2010 press conference attacking Planned Parenthood, Marshall said that “the number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically” because “when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.” He called disabled children a “special punishment” from God on women who have had abortions.
It is no wonder that Marshall sponsored a personhood bill that would ban abortion in call cases along with some forms of birth control, one of several bills he proposed that would curtail abortion rights and contraception coverage.
2. Ban Gay Service Members From The National Guard
He also complained that anti-gay activists are being treated in the same way as Dred Scott.
4. Health Care Reform Is Like Rape
In an attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, Marshall demanded that Virginia exempt itself from the individual health insurance mandate, warning that health care reform represented “criminal activity” akin to the work of “mobsters.”
“This is a fight over whether you are a citizen or you are a serf,” he said. “It’s not your wallet that they want, it’s your soul, it’s your family.” But Marshall didn’t stop there: “Indeed, the individual mandate is not voluntary commercial intercourse; it is forcible economic rape.”
Marshall has also said that health care reform would “euthanize seniors” and “kill capitalism.”
5. Creating A New Currency
Marshall, fearing an economic collapse, called on Virginia to consider creating its own currency due to the likelihood of “a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System. He said that economic doom may be one result of the 2009 stimulus package, which he said is “as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state...it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape.”
Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch last week that he was “stunned” and “shocked” by the president’s speech and was angry that Obama would “insult those who really believe” in the freedom of religion — like him.
Southerland argued that Obama is trying to “trivialize our deeply held beliefs by making statements that are so contrary to his actions and those of his administration.” “It’s the ultimate disrespect,” he said.
Conservative columnist Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution who also has a regular gig at the Washington Times, takes to WorldNetDaily today to offer his “random thoughts” on various things that bother him, from tolerance of immigrants to attractive women who don’t dress well.
Sowell writes that he’s reminded of the ancient Greeks when he sees “Western nations take tolerance to the extreme,” particularly when it comes to immigrants. He also “bothers” him when he sees a “good-looking” Berkeley-educated woman “who could be truly beautiful if she only took the trouble” end up losing her husband to “another woman, who had not gone to Berkeley.”
Sowell also has “random thoughts” on the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (“government all but owns us now”) and the current Republican Party, which he claims is not enough like Reagan (we assume he’s not referring to Reagan’s support of immigration reform).
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
It is amazing how many people still fall for the argument that, if life is unfair, the answer is to turn more money and power over to politicians. Since life has always been unfair, for thousands of years and in countries around the world, where does that lead us?
I am so old that I can remember when sex was private. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” applied to everybody.
The ancient Greeks understood that carrying any principle to extremes was dangerous. Yet, thousands of years later, some Western nations take tolerance to the extreme of tolerating intolerance among immigrants to their own societies. Some even make it illegal – a “hate crime” – to warn against intolerant foreigners who would like nothing better than to slit the throats of their hosts, but who will settle for planting a few bombs here and there.
How do the clever Beltway Republicans and their consultants explain how Ronald Reagan won two consecutive landslide election victories, doing the opposite of what they say is the only way for Republicans to win elections?
I don’t know why it bothers me when I see a good-looking woman who could be truly beautiful if she only took the trouble. But I can recall a woman like that who was educated at Berkeley, and who apparently thought attention to her appearance was not hip. Unfortunately, her husband met another woman, who had not gone to Berkeley, and who did not have this inhibition – or many other inhibitions.
With his decision declaring Obamacare constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts turned what F.A. Hayek called “The Road to Serfdom” into a super highway. The government all but owns us now, and can order us to do pretty much whatever it wants us to do.
On Friday’s edition of Washington Watch, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins got into a debate with a caller over marriage equality, during which Perkins said that gay marriage will turn children into gay, super-sexualized beings who won’t be able to compete in the global economy. Instead of offering credible answers to the caller’s questions, Perkins brushed them aside and repeatedly moved on to his next dubious argument against same-sex marriage.
Perkins responded that it doesn’t matter that polygamy has been considered “natural” throughout different cultures and history “because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best,” and then switched gears to claim that same-sex marriage will jeopardize the country’s prospects “on giving birth to the next generation.”
When the caller replied that people don’t choose to be gay and therefore marriage equality won’t impact America’s fertility rate, Perkins argued that the debate isn’t really about marriage but rather public school classes that teach “kids how to engage in homosexual behavior”…which he said will turn kids gay and harm America’s economic competitiveness with other nations.
Perkins: There’s actually more of a historical basis for polygamy than there’s ever been for same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best.
Caller: Well it is a new thing I’ll grant you that, I understand that the phrasing ‘natural marriage’ is great, it fits really great on a bumper sticker, but I just don’t think it means anything and I’m trying to understand what that’s supposed to mean.
Perkins: How do you plan on giving birth to the next generation?
Caller: That’s the thing, how many same-sex marriages are there out there? What is it, 2 percent, 3 percent of the total number of marriages? I don’t think that we’re going to have to worry about the next generation.
Perkins: But if it’s normative and it’s normal then we would say we would want more of it if it’s beneficial.
Caller: Well no, I don’t think that’s it at all. People don’t suddenly one day decide to become gay, you’re either gay or you’re not. I’ve never met anyone who just scratched their head and went, ‘you know what I think I’m into guys now’ or ‘I think I’m into girls now,’ it just doesn’t happen.
Perkins: …Okay. What does that have to do with marriage? What does that have to do with redefining marriage, redefining the curriculum in our schools?
Caller: Well you’re saying that we have to worry about the next generation, I’m saying that there is a very small portion of the population, probably less than 10 percent, that are gay. I think that the next generation is going to come along whether we want it to or not, it’s not about—
Perkins: No, because what happens when you change and you say heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage, then you change the curriculum in your schools and you have kids, as a natural part of growing up and developing, they’re curious and they don’t know, and we’re exposing them to even more sexuality and overt sexual messages and we’re telling them, ‘hey experiment.’ And that is what leads, in many cases, to children going down a particular path, is early childhood sexual exposure, sometimes it’s traumatic. And by normalizing that and mainstreaming that, what you will do is you will have more children going down that path and that’s why they want to get this message into our schools.
Caller: I understand your argument but is there any data to support that?
Perkins: What do you mean any data to support it?
Caller: You are saying if you expose children to homosexuality you will have more homosexuals.
Perkins: Well if you sexualize a culture — I can tell you the data is very clear on what’s happened in the last 30 to 40 years where we have inundated young people, children, with sexual messages and they become sexually active. So when you take and mix into that homosexuality and other forms of sexuality into that, yes they are going to move down that path, they are going to engage in what you tell them about. That is why it’s problematic, that is why parents are upset about what is happening in Hawaii and other states that are teaching their kids how to engage in homosexual behavior, or heterosexual for that matter. I don’t want my kids that are 11, 12 and 13 years-old taught how to put on a condom or taught about how to engage in sexual behavior with someone who has HIV in a safe fashion. That is not what the schools should be about. They should be about teaching our kids to read, to write, to engage in science. How do we ever expect to compete globally when we’re fixated on teaching our kids about sex?
The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios is, to say the least, upset about Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent decision to extend many rights in the justice system to same-sex married couples. In fact, Rios tells the AFA’s OneNewsNow today, we are now in “a war between people who love this country and want to protect and preserve it and their children and future generations, and those who literally want to undermine and destroy its laws, its nature, [and to] fundamentally transform it."
Rios adds the executive branch "is out of control" by refusing to enforce laws passed by Congress and then granting rights to homosexuals.
"This is a fight over the survival of the country," she shares. "This is a war between people who love this country and want to protect and preserve it and their children and future generations, and those who literally want to undermine and destroy its laws, its nature, [and to] fundamentally transform it."
When CIA director David Petraeus stepped down from his post after an extramarital affair went public, former general and right-wing activist Jerry Boykin confidently claimed that Petraeus resigned in order to expose an Obama administration scandal surrounding the Benghazi attack.
Boykin, now vice president of the Family Research Council, suggested in 2012 that Petraeus was “held hostage” by administration officials and resigned because “he reached a point where he was unwilling to continue spouting the party line [on Benghazi] to the American public and continuing to breach his own integrity.”
Glenn Beck, who regularly hosts Boykin on the Blaze network, suggested that Petraeus stepped down from the CIA in order to reveal information about the Benghazi attack that could bring down the Obama administration.
But, stunningly, nothing Boykin or Beck said about Petraeus came true. In fact, Petraeus recently cited former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “extraordinarily resolute, determined and controlled” handling of the incident as a reason she would “make a tremendous president.”
“She’d make a tremendous president,” Petraeus says in the new book “HRC” by Jonathan Allen and Aimee Parnes.
And for Petraeus, Exhibit A in why she would be a tremendous president is the very thing for which Republicans most aggressively attack Clinton: her performance as Secretary of State when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked.
“Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times,” Petraeus tells Allen and Parnes. “In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled.”
Petraeus was director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time of the attacks, which killed four Americans, including two who worked for the CIA and the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.
As Kyle pointed out, the GOP-led House Armed Services Committee released a report today that thoroughlydebunks the conservative conspiracy theories surrounding the Benghazi faux-scandal.
This is more bad news for Boykin, who predicted that the House would uncover a massive scandal and pressed Speaker Boehner into launching additional investigations. With his conspiracy theory unraveling, Boykin is even implicating Boehner in the Benghazi “cover-up” since the House investigations have failed to discover the “scandal” he is trying to find.
But don’t expect conservative pundits like Beck and Boykin to reconsider or retract any of their outrageous and delusional Benghazi claims that don’t hold any merit outside of the right-wing echo chamber.
World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder is once again defending Russian President Vladimir Putin’s crackdown on LGBT people. In a column posted at GrasstopsUSA yesterday, Feder defends Russia’s ban on “gay propaganda,” saying it merely prevents “two homosexuals” from standing “outside an elementary school with a banner that says: ‘Hey kids, sodomy is swell – and you should try it!’” (In fact, journalists have been fined under the law for reporting about openly gay people). He also claims that Russia is interested in cracking down on LGBT people in order to prevent HIV.
Feder echoes the assertion of Alexey Komov, a Russian anti-gay activist and the main organizer of WCF’s upcoming Moscow conference, that Putin is the new Reagan, come to “save” America from “communism,” including the gay-rights rulings of American judges “drunk on the heady elixir of sexual rights.”
There should be an event at the Sochi Olympics where advocates posing as journalists, celebrity nitwits and politicians can compete to see who can wail the loudest and longest about the supposed horror of Russia's dreaded anti-gay law, while Pussy Riot plays in the background. Extra points will be awarded for absurd and offensive analogies to the Holocaust.
A word about that law, which wasn't initiated by Putin and passed the State Duma without a single dissenting vote: It does not outlaw homosexuality. Dozens of gay clubs operate openly in Moscow. The only prohibition is publicly promoting homosexuality to minors.
For example, two homosexuals are not allowed to stand outside an elementary school with a banner that says: "Hey kids, sodomy is swell – and you should try it!" Each violation by an individual is punishable by a fine that's the equivalent of $50.00. Violations of the Nuremberg laws, which had nothing to do with Jewish parades in Berlin, were punished by imprisonment and hard labor.
Why would Russia, with a declining population, be concerned about promoting these "non-traditional lifestyles" to children? Might it have something to do with the British medical journal The Lancet's report that a male homosexual is 18 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual – or those notorious homophobes at the Centers for Disease Control disclosing that in 2010, men who have sex with men (as they delicately put it) accounted for 63% of new HIV infections in the U.S.?
The left believes in popular sovereignty – within narrowly defined limits. In the United States, between 1998 and 2012, the voters of 32 states passed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This represents 50 million votes for maintaining the integrity of the institution on which civilization depends. On average, the referenda passed by two-to-one majorities.
Despite that overwhelming expression of popular sentiment, state and federal courts (SCOTUS included) have been working overtime to negate the will of the people. When he's through remaking Russia, perhaps Rushdie will help to "bring about a healthy democracy" in America.
Christians who refuse to participate in a travesty that violates their deeply held beliefs are pulverized by judges and bureaucrats drunk on the heady elixir of sexual rights .
When did engaging in non-traditional sexual relations become a human right? Where is the sodomy clause in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
In a recent address, Putin observed: "Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values." The Russian President admonished, "Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation." Putin could never make it in U.S. politics, being too grounded in reality.
As my friend and Russian pro-family leader Alexey Komov likes to say: "Under Reagan, America helped to save us from communism. We'd like to return the favor."
“It’s a travesty,” Judge Roy Moore told WND on Monday about the move toward judiciary-imposed same-sex “marriages.” “The courts are exercising wrongful authority over this country.”
He said it was no less than the U.S. Supreme Court itself which, in an earlier ruling, said, “We come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”
“If marriage falls,” he said, “the institution of family upon which it is based falls.”
Then, he said, “We no longer have a Constitution. We have a government of individual men who have the power to decide what the Constitution means … .”
The Religious Right group Moore founded, the Foundation for Moral Law, has posted the letter and resolution, “The Marriage Preservation Amendment to the United States Constitution,” [PDF] that Moore sent to the nation’s governors pleading with them to initiate a convention of states.
A historic nomination by President Obama is being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee: Diane Humetewa is poised to become the first Native American woman on the federal judiciary. Humetewa is a highly qualified nominee with bipartisan support. She was nominated by President Obama with Senator McCain ’s recommendation to serve on the federal judiciary and was previously appointed by President Bush as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona.
The Senate Judiciary Committee had Humetewa’s confirmation hearing on January 29, and her committee vote has been scheduled for this Thursday, February 13. But there is already a growing line of nominees stalled on the Senate floor unable to get a confirmation vote. On January 29, 29 nominees were stalled, and by February 6 the waiting list grew to 32 nominees who are stuck at Senate floor step in the confirmation process. Humetewa and her five fellow Arizona nominees will be added to the end of this already unacceptably long line.
Only Native American in active service on the federal bench.
Diversity on the federal bench is always important, and Indian legal advocates and tribal leaders have emphasized the need for federal judges who understand Indian Law in particular.
Many Americans know little more about the complexities of Indian tribal laws—and their unique relationship to state and federal laws. Indian sovereign authority, recognized by federal law, extends to the Indian tribal courts that adjudicate Indian affairs-related matters. Some law firms have a specialized practice area in Indian law. Some law schools, such as Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law where Humetewa is a professor, have an Indian legal program “to promote an understanding of the differences between the legal systems of Indian Nations and those of the state and federal governments.”
“Indian legal experts have long said that tribal law gets shortchanged in the federal legal arena because so few judges are well-versed and experienced in it. This is one reason why federal cases are often harmful to tribal and Indian interests, according to many tribal analyses,” reported Indian Country Today after Republican Senators blocked Avro Mikkanen, a Native American previously nominated by President Obama to the federal judiciary.
The National Congress of American Indians applauded the nomination of Diane Humetewa and particularly noted her firsthand experience in federal Indian law. Humetewa’s Indian law background includes her work as an attorney on the U.S. Senate Indian Affairs Committee and an Appellate Judge on the Hopi Appellate Court.
This is an important nomination for which President Obama—and all Americans—should be proud. The Judiciary Committee should act expeditiously on this opportunity to make this federal judicial nomination a historic confirmation. That means that Republicans should not demand a needless delay in the committee vote as they have done in all but five cases since Obama became president. It also means the full Senate should finally be allowed to hold confirmation votes on the 32 nominees ahead of Humetewa and her fellow Arizonans.
Laurie Higgins of the American Family Association-affiliated Illinois Family Institute is a big fan of Russia’s “gay propaganda” law, and she writes today that the United States should impose a similar law here in order to restrict the work of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
She claims that GLSEN is behind the “censorship” of anti-gay views, because apparently bigotry is needed in schools for the sake of balance, and urges the US to adopt a Russia-style propaganda law in order to curb GLSEN’s “totalitarian” grip over schools.
Google’s recent “doodle” announces to the world that Google is gaga over homosexuality-affirming propaganda for minors. Google’s doodle pokes a virtual rainbow-colored flag in the eye of Russian president Vladimir Putin for signing into law a bill that protects minors from homosexuality-affirming propaganda. A financial blockbuster of a company with roots in the country founded to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” pro-actively endorses the propagandizing of children while a corrupt totalitarian cockalorum opposes it. Curiouser and curiouser.
The fanciful notion that having “two mommies” is ontologically and morally indistinguishable from having a mother and a father is not a fact. Presenting that non-fact to, for example, five-year-olds in government schools is propaganda. And presenting this non-fact to children is not a loving act even if it “feels” good to “educators” who don’t think about or discuss the issue deeply.
Exposing minors to homosexuality-affirming propaganda is nowhere more troubling than in our public schools where neither children nor teachers are encouraged to study in depth all sides of issues related to homosexuality. Quite the contrary. Curricula and supplementary resources and activities are controlled by “progressive” dogma, the kind of dogma promulgated by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (Privately, “progressive” teachers actually scoff at the suggestion that there are sides other than theirs worthy of study.)
Ask any conservative public school teachers if their colleagues or administrators ever present resources that challenge “progressive” ideas about homosexuality in professional development meetings. And ask them if they feel as free to express their moral and political beliefs in faculty meetings (or in the classroom) as their “progressive” colleagues do.
“Agents of change,” secure in their tenured positions in public schools, share a certain esprit de corps with totalitarian regimes. They all hatch plans sub rosa to control the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, those victims—I mean, students—happen to be other people’s minor children.
Until our publicly subsidized educators relinquish their white-knuckled grip on curricula with their de facto enforcement of censorship, perhaps we need an anti-propagandizing-to-minors law.
Center for Immigration Studies director Mark Krikorian tries to come across as a more reasonable voice in the movement against immigration reform, but today Krikiorian undermined this well-crafted image when he cited the work of a prominent white nationalist.
In his latest column for the National Review Online, Krikorian responds to a New York Times report this weekend that President Obama’s DACA order has created a backlog of immediate family members of U.S. citizens who are now separated from their families as they wait an unconscionably long time for visas.
Krikorian, of course, sees this not as an administrative failure that might be fixed by White House attention or a comprehensive immigration reform package, but as an indictment of the very concept of immigration reform. To back up his case, he cites a term, “anarcho-tyranny,” coined by white nationalist Sam Francis in his fight against multiculturalism and “ the transformation of American society by millions of aliens .”
“I wasn’t a fan of Sam Francis,” Krikorian writes, “but his concept of ‘ anarcho-tyranny’ describes this perfectly.”
We’re glad to learn that Krikorian “wasn’t a fan” of Francis, who edited a white supremacist journal and wanted to seal the border and impose “fertility controls on nonwhites.”
Ohio Republican legislators are up to their voter suppression tricks again, trying to limit absentee ballot registrations and restricting voting hours ahead of the November 2014 elections. The Columbus Dispatchreported Friday that GOP Rep. Mike Dovilla, Chairman of the Ohio House Policy and Legislative Oversight Committee, said the committee will vote on Senate Bill 205 and Senate Bill 238 as early as Tuesday. If passed out of Dovilla’s committee, it could be off to the full House for a floor debate on Wednesday.
• SB 205 would ban county clerks from mass mailing absentee ballot applications to all voters, holding that duty only for OH Secretary of State Jon Husted, who has proven in the past that he will restrict voting access almost every chance he gets.
• SB 238 would achieve one of Husted’s anti-voter policy agenda items by limiting early voting days, effectively eliminating Ohioans’ ability to register and vote on the same day anywhere in the state.
These legislative moves come just days after the news broke that Hamilton County officials might relocate Cincinnati’s largest early voting location to a new, much less accessible location. That decision met with considerable push-back from voting rights activists and the media, resulting in a deadlock vote from the Board of Elections. The final decision now also goes to Secretary Husted to decide, effectively putting the power to restrict access to early voting in Cincinnati’s largest city in his hands.
If you are from Ohio, call your Representative now and tell them to protect your early voting rights by voting ‘NO’ on SB 205 and SB 238. You can find your Representative’s contact information here: http://www.ohiohouse.gov/members/member-directory. Once you have talked to your Representative, drop us an email at email@example.com to let us know what they said. We’ll keep tabs on the situation and update you on voter suppression efforts in Ohio – and across the country – on the PFAW blog.
As we mentioned earlier, anti-immigrant activist William Gheen appeared on VCY America last week to denounce immigrants as cancerous tumors that need to be locked away in prisons. But the Nativist leader of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) didn’t stop there. He went on to say that immigration reform represents a “national rape.”
Gheen warned that a reform law would give voting rights to well over “20 million illegal immigrants voting in elections, backed up by the next 10-20 million that are going to pour through our ripped-open borders right after that,” undermining the political clout of “center-right Americans.”
“Immigration reform, it sounds so pleasant, but the truth of the matter is that people that have no regard and in some cases antipathy towards the citizens of the United States are controlling these mediums and their way of dealing with us, instead of using tanks or bombs, is to flood this country with people that will replace us in our jobs, homes and ballot boxes,” he said.
The truth, in my opinion after studying this for nine years, is that the purpose of the amnesty is to permanently destroy the borders of the United States, to permanently destroy the type of, what they would call, Nativist or nationalistic tendency for us to want to have borders and to protect those borders or for the American public and American workers and American taxpayers to have any say on the numbers of people that are coming into the country or what role they will have. I call it a national rape and I’m not being flippant about that, I really see it as that.
If illegal immigrants are ever rewarded in any form or fashion with citizenship and voting rights, it is all over. There is no way that you, me and the rest of the center-right Americans can ever compete with 20 million illegal immigrants voting in elections, backed up by the next 10-20 million that are going to pour through our ripped-open borders right after that. You don’t have to be a soothsayer or some type of clairvoyant to be able to tell the future here people, we have the past which has led us to this point.
There are groups that are supporting this that look really legitimate because you turn on the TV and it’s John Boehner and it’s the president, walking out for the State of the Union, everybody is clapping, the cameras are running, the show is going and it all looks real legitimate as the president walks about the surrender of the United States. Immigration reform, it sounds so pleasant, but the truth of the matter is that people that have no regard and in some cases antipathy towards the citizens of the United States are controlling these mediums and their way of dealing with us, instead of using tanks or bombs, is to flood this country with people that will replace us in our jobs, homes and ballot boxes.
Just to be clear about what he meant, Gheen threw in additional racially coded language, arguing that “traditional Americans, like those that have been here for hundreds of years in descendancy, will no longer govern our own nation” as a result of immigration reform.
He even made the utterly baseless claims that thousands of Americans are killed by undocumented immigrants each year and that such immigrants are responsible for nine million lost jobs.
Illegal immigration is leading to many thousands of Americans dead each year that are killed by drunk driving illegal immigrants, gang member illegal immigrants; illegal immigrants engaged in other types of activities end up killing Americans that would be alive today if our border were secured and our immigration laws were adequately enforced as Americans expect them to be and other countries do that. Then we have over nine million jobs lost and billions of dollars’ worth of wage depreciation.
We’ve got billionaires like George Soros and the US Chamber of Commerce and Chinese and Saudi national wealth funds all driving this plan to merge the United States with the broader powers at be around us in a way that is outside the Constitution, in defiance of existing federal law, costing the lives of thousands of Americans, ruining the lives of millions of Americans and eventually will lead to a situation where traditional Americans, like those that have been here for hundreds of years in descendancy, will no longer govern our own nation. Apparently we don’t now since we have these existing immigration laws that are not being enforced.
Last week, William Gheen of Americans of Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) spoke to Jim Schneider of VCY America, where he recommended that the government treat undocumented immigrants in the same way that doctors fight a cancerous tumor.
We believe that the first thing we do is like when somebody has cancer. Not to dehumanize illegal immigrants, but a lot of times doctors will start to shrink the tumor before they start operating. So we need to shrink the tumor. We need to make it to a point where people start leaving the country and they go back to Mexico and they go back to Brazil and they say ‘you know what, I tried to break into the United States like all the other guys did, but I couldn’t get a job, I couldn’t get a license, I couldn’t get food stamps, so I came back.’ That is what turns off the flow.
Later in the broadcast, a caller insisted that President Obama “should order them all [undocumented immigrants] to be put into a prison camp and fed oatmeal for breakfast, lunch and supper, and water, and that’s all until they want to go home; anybody coming across the border be shot as soon as they cross the border, as soon as they cross the border they’ll be shot.”
Gheen said that he disagreed with shooting immigrants, but noted “a lot of people want lethal force authorized at the border.” He did, however, agree with her other suggestion: “Locking up illegal immigrants for a while and feeding them some oatmeal before you can get them back home? Yeah, we’re for that.”
On January 13, the Senate confirmed Judge Robert Wilkins to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. So far, despite a growing backlog of judicial nominees, he is the only judge to have been confirmed this year.
There are currently 96 vacancies in federal courts across the country. Thirty-nine of them have been officially designated “judicial emergencies” by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, indicating that there are too few judges available to handle the court’s workload. This isn’t a built-in feature of the judicial system. In fact, the Senate could cut the judicial vacancy rate by one third today.
There are 32 federal judicial nominees who have been approved by the Judiciary Committee and are waiting for Senate confirmation votes – enough nominees to fill one-third of the country’s judicial vacancies and reduce the number of judicial emergencies by a quarter. All but three nominees cleared the Judiciary Committee with strong bipartisan support, most unanimously. The Senate could confirm all 32 in an afternoon if Republicans would agree to hold simple yes-or-no confirmation votes on their nominations. They could even confirm all 32 in less than five minutes by holding a unanimous consent vote.
But Senate Republicans still seem to be uninterested in confirming nominees to carry out the business of the nation’s courts, even in the many cases where nominees have been recommended and supported by Republican senators.
Since the Senate was forced to change the rules of the filibuster in response to Republican intransigence, the GOP has retaliated by obstructing nominations in other ways. One of these has been demanding that each confirmation vote take the maximum amount of time possible: Senate rules allow for “post-cloture debate” after a filibuster has been broken – 30 hours of floor time for appeals court nominees and two hours for district court nominees. If Republicans forced the Senate to take the maximum amount of time on all 32 nominees currently waiting for votes, it would take the Senate 204 hours to clear the backlog.
Those 204 hours would add up to five weeks of full-time work: five weeks in which the Senate wouldn’t be able to do anything else – not immigration reform, not a debt ceiling deal, not an update to the Voting Rights Act.
The Senate could use five weeks of its time this year to confirm judicial nominees. Or, Senate Republicans could agree to confirm all 32 nominees in five minutes, cut the number of judicial vacancies by a third, and move on to other business.
PFAW has launched a petition to urge Senators to address the judicial nominations crisis and stop the obstruction of judicial nominees .
The anti-gay pastor points to no evidence besides his own hunch video that several of the assaults seen in such video are likely staged as part of a larger “hoax.”
In an article today on BarbWire, a website run by Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber, Lively writes:
Last Fall, on behalf of pro-family advocates here in the United States and Canada, I sent a letter to President Vladimir Putin thanking his government for passing a law protecting Russian children from “gay” propaganda. In that letter I offered this warning:
In readying your society to recognize and counter the efforts of the militant gay movement it is important to understand that their propaganda and policies adhere invariably to the narrative that all disapproval of homosexuality leads inevitably to hatred, violence and murder of homosexuals. All of the pro-homosexual policies in the United States and Europe rest on this unstated and unchallenged but fictional premise. Thus, the homosexualist movement is not simply seeking social tolerance, or acceptance, but political power and control. They want the power to stamp out all disapproval of homosexuality in your society and to compel every citizen (especially the youth) to embrace the view that homosexual conduct is good and normal….In the coming months and years Russia and Her people will be increasingly portrayed by emotion laden and abusive hyperbole as bigoted haters, intent on exterminating homosexuals.
The Human Rights Watch video, released to coincide with the opening of he [sic] Sochi Olympics is fulfillment of my prophecy. I predict more will follow.
I have one final, very important point to make in this article. I am NOT saying all of the incidents described the video are fakes.
While it is true that “gay” activists are masters of public deception, and their ranks include not just veteran political propagandists but also billionaires like George Soros and movie producer David Geffin — with the capability of staging any possible scenario flawlessly – I believe some of the incidents depicted on the film are probably real.
But that begs the question, who are these perps? Q. What sort of men go out of their way to find and harass effeminate “gay” men on the public streets? A. They are, literally, NAZIs! Ultra-Macho Nationalists, of which Russia has many. Q. And who makes up a significant part of the Nationalist movement everywhere in the world through all of modern history? A. Masculine oriented homosexual men of the very same sort that created the Nazi Party of Germany.
So in conclusion, I say the Human Rights Watch video is just another piece of deceptive Machiavellian “gay” propaganda, offered to prove the completely false narrative that all disapproval of homosexuality leads to hatred and murder. Whether or not any parts of the video are unstaged, the product as a whole is perpetrating a hoax.
Do not be fooled. The “gays” are not the victims, at least not as a class. In stories like this they are usually the bullies beating up each other (or themselves) on and off camera, sometimes by consent, to dupe the public into granting them collective “victim status,” with all of the extensive social and political benefits that entails.
If the producers of this video really want to depict violence against “gays” they should turn their cameras inward.