C4

Charisma: Boy Scouts 'Sold Their Souls to the Devil'

In a column for the Religious Right magazine Charisma, Republican strategist Raynard Jackson argues that the Boy Scouts “sold their souls to the devil” for having “decided to make 97 percent of its troop members uncomfortable in order to satisfy the perverted needs of 3 percent.” He writes that “radical homosexuals” have targeted the Boy Scouts as part of their scheme to turn kids into “pawns in an adult game perpetrated by immoral homosexual activists,” insisting that “there will be hell to pay as a result of that bonehead decision.”

When the Boy Scouts of America’s (BSA) leadership voted to allow openly homosexual kids to become Boy Scouts, they, in that one act, sold their souls to the devil. Consequently, there will be hell to pay as a result of that bonehead decision.

To make matters worse, they decided to continue to enforce their policy of not allowing participation by openly homosexual adults as troop leaders. In its bylaws, the BSA has for more than 100 years precluded homosexuals, atheists and agnostics from being involved with the Scouts. In recent years, pro-homosexual activists have increased pressure on the Scouts to rescind the policy, and they won the vote with more than 60 percent of the 1,400 eligible voters supporting the new policy.



How can you train youth in responsible citizenship, character development and self-reliance when you have adult cowards voting to shift the group’s moral compass to make radical homosexuals feel good?

You don’t give kids choices at that age; you give them direction. Kids should not be used by adults as pawns in an adult game perpetrated by immoral homosexual activists.

Furthermore, when did morals, values and beliefs become subject to the latest opinion poll or political whim? For more than 100 years, the BSA has been very clear in its position to exclude homosexuality, atheism and agnosticism.

It is estimated that gays account for 3 percent of the U.S. population. Assuming that percentage applies to youth as well, that means the BSA has decided to make 97 percent of its troop members uncomfortable in order to satisfy the perverted needs of 3 percent.

Krikorian: 'The Future of the Republic Rests' on Defeating Immigration Reform

Center for Immigration Studies director Mark Krikorian, like Phyllis Schlafly, is trying to sell Republicans on the idea that if they support comprehensive immigration reform they will face electoral doom for years to come. In an interview with Right Wing News published today, Krikorian insists that comprehensive reform would not only “destroy the Republican Party,” it would imperil “the future of the republic.”

Krikorian’s reasoning for this doomsday rhetoric is something we hear frequently from immigration opponents:  that “Hispanic voters and immigrant voters generally are predisposed to be Democrats” because “a party that’s promoting tax cuts is of no interest to them.” CIS, like Schlafly, has been urging the GOP to abandon its Latino outreach efforts and instead focus only on turning out white voters opposed to immigration reform.

Elsewhere in the interview, Krikorian mocked policies that would let legal immigrants stay in the U.S. with their U.S.-born children because “look, they’re so cute.”

How do you think we’re looking on this bill? What are you hearing? Are we on track to beat this thing or not?

There’s still an outside chance to beat it in the Senate, which would be kind of remarkable if that happened. The likelihood of it actually getting through the House is obviously dramatically less. I’m less worried about that part, although what I fear is that the House may pass something small and narrow, but as long as it has the word immigration in it, then Boehner can just get together with Reid and re-write immigration law between the two of them and then send it back saying, “Look, Conference Committee did this. This is what we came up with; vote for it or else.” Most Republicans won’t vote for it, but if Boehner is willing to bring it to the Floor for the Democrats to vote for, with 15 Republicans passing it, then we’re screwed. But it seems to me that’s the thing. In a sense, the whole thing comes down to whether Boehner is willing to destroy the Republican Party or not. It’s kind of melodramatic, but the future of the republic rests on him.

The flip side is that they have taken one part of the family immigration program which is limited and made it unlimited — and that is the spouses and minor children of Green Card holders. So, if you’re married when you get your Green Card, then your spouse gets a Green Card, too. …Also, I put air quotes around this “temporary” employment program; this legislation exempts all family members from the numerical caps on those programs. So those numbers increase dramatically under the bill and they all get to work, too. Of course, there’s no change in the citizenship laws. So all the kids that these “temporary” workers have while they’re in the United States are U.S. citizens and then, these very same people who are pushing this bill are going to say, “Well, we can’t make them leave now just because their Visa expired. They have U.S. born kids and look, they’re so cute. Look, they all have to stay; come on.” It’s just ridiculous.

Final question: One of the ways this is being sold is that it’s a way that’s going to fix everything with the Republican Party with Hispanics — that suddenly, all Hispanics are going to vote Republican after this. That doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense if you – I mean, after Reagan’s amnesty, the GOP’s numbers with Hispanics dropped. So, what’s going to happen? Is this going to be a big boom for the GOP with Hispanics if we pass this bill?

No, it’s going to be a disaster for the Republican Party for several reasons. One is Hispanic voters and immigrant voters generally are predisposed to be Democrats. They make much heavier use of public services. So, a party that’s interested in tightening up on welfare and government spending is not going to be appealing. They pay much less in taxes. Current illegal immigrants, if you look at their wages — a large majority of them have no income tax liability and that’s not going to change significantly if they’re legalized. So, a party that’s promoting tax cuts is of no interest to them. If anything, it’s quite the opposite.
 

Ryan Dobson: Dictator Obama Might Deny Healthcare to My Dad!

James Dobson’s son and Family Talk co-host Ryan Dobson appeared alongside insane End Times radio broadcaster Rick Wiles last week on TruNews, where the two warned that the Obama administration might deny healthcare to conservatives. That wasn’t the only conspiracy theory the duo discussed.

During the interview, Dobson pushed the discredited claim that the Obama administration blocked military intervention during the Benghazi attack. Dobson also repeated the false allegation that Operation Fast and Furious operation was designed to push gun control legislation and cited a debunked Daily Caller story that the head of the IRS visited the White House 157 times.

But then they turned to spouting even fringier conspiracy theories, including the claim that the administration will act like a dictatorship and abuse the Obamacare law to the detriment of conservatives such as James Dobson.

Dobson: The person that was targeting conservative groups now can have access to every single medical record that’s ever been documented on every American. That is scary.

Wiles: Ryan, do you know about the IRS raid of a California healthcare company and the agents seized 60 million healthcare records?

Dobson: That’s what they’re looking for. And what are they going to do with that? You can’t trust them. Clearly they are targeting people. Are they going to use that to embarrass people? Are they going to use it to deny claims and benefits? My dad is seventy-seven, he’s had a heart attack, he’s had a stroke, he’s had cancer and he’s healthier today than he was twenty years ago. He works out every single day, he eats right, he exercises, he goes to his doctors and yet under Obamacare, if he has another stroke or if he’s got medical complications he is now at an age where they would deny a lot of those claims assuming that he’s not productive.

Wiles: When you go to the hospital they’re going to run a computer check on you: who you are, what your views are, who you support politically and that’s going to make the decision about whether you get medical care. I don’t care if they say that’s conspiratorial talk, I don’t care, that’s what happens under a dictatorship.

Dobson: Yeah, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. You can call it what you want, it doesn’t mean it’s not true. Yeah.

Naturally, Wiles and Dobson ended the interview by agreeing that President Obama is a “street thug.”

PFAW Statement on the Passing of Sen. Frank Lautenberg

In response to the passing of U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg, the longest serving New Jersey senator, People For the American Way President Michael B. Keegan released the following statement:

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid once called Sen. Lautenberg ‘one of the most productive senators in the history of this country.’ It’s not hard to see why.  Sen. Lautenberg was a true progressive hero, championing issues ranging from environmental protection to gun violence prevention.   He was not afraid to take principled stands on issues that affected everyday Americans, even when it was the unpopular position to take.

“We at People For the American Way are deeply saddened by his passing.  Our thoughts are with his family and friends, and we hope they can take comfort in knowing that America is a safer, healthier, more just country because of Senator Lautenberg’s life work.”

###

Illinois Becomes 14th State to Call For Amendment Overturning Citizens United

With all eyes on Illinois today for a possible marriage equality vote, the Illinois General Assembly took another important action – they called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  Following on the heels of West Virginia and Maine last month, today’s action makes Illinois the fourteenth state to call for such a resolution.

The Rock River Times reports:

“The effort in Illinois was bipartisan, underscoring what poll data have shown: People of all political stripes are deeply concerned about corporations having too much influence over our democratic process. A measure calling for a constitutional amendment was on ballots across Illinois in November, and was supported by three-quarters of voters.”

Indeed, in Illinois and across the country, Americans of all “political stripes” are making clear that they do not want a democracy ruled by corporate spending.  And with each additional state that goes on record supporting the movement to reclaim our democracy from wealthy special interests, that momentum grows even stronger.
 

PFAW

Crouse Warns Sexual Revolution and No-Fault Divorce Creating 'Boyz N The Hood' Dystopia

In a Washington Times column today, Concerned Women for America’s Janice Shaw Crouse repeats her frequent claim that progressive social policies are to blame for what she once called “realities that are evident should one take a risky drive into certain neighborhoods of our cities.”

Crouse writes that the results of “taxpayer-funded contraceptives, abortions and expanding government welfare” and “the decline of marriage, including no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution” are “there for all to see – at least on TV— in areas where married-couple families are already too scarce to provide the necessary critical mass for a healthy environment.”

In particular, Crouse cites the 1991 classic “Boyz N The Hood" as an illustration of the results of liberal social policies.

Participants at the Sydney congress were reminded that throughout history and across all cultures, marriage has been the foundation of families and the bedrock of civilized nations. Married moms and dads having babies and raising the next generation of children have been so much the norm of personal experience in every nation that now with birthrates sinking below replacement levels, it is hard to imagine the long-term impact of their absence. The result is there for all to see — at least on TV — in areas where married-couple families are already too scarce to provide the necessary critical mass for a healthy environment. Without strong families to exert moral authority, neighborhoods echo scenes from the classic 1991 movie “Boyz N The Hood” that take the viewer inside the gang-infested communities of South Central Los Angeles, where marauding gangs, constantly at war with each other, illustrated what happens when there are not enough strong fathers to control and civilize the young males.



For decades, liberals, progressives, feminists and welfare advocates have tried to find solutions to the problems associated with out-of-wedlock childbearing, single motherhood and child poverty — without advocating marriage in public policy. Their solutions? Taxpayer-funded contraceptives, abortions and expanding government welfare. We don’t need to ask how that has worked out. The answer is obvious. The decline of marriage, including no-fault divorce and the sexual revolution, is a luxury popularized by celebrities but it is a dead-end trap for the poor that exacts a price from their children.

Kids that come from healthy marriages are vital to the future of society, but the contributions of good marriages do not end there. By building strong, healthy families, married couples create virtue. In some immeasurable way, the goodness they create — simply by living according to the natural order and moral law designed by the Creator — is of benefit not just for the couple, but their success also contributes vitality to the whole. Anytime a marriage nurtures, shelters and protects, it becomes a stage for all to see where scenes of love and joyful celebration are played out again and again. Equally important, both communities and nations also benefit.
 

Swanson: Demons Pushed for Boy Scouts to Include Gay Members to Accelerate Nation's Demise

Earlier this year on Generations Radio, Kevin Swanson argued that if the Boy Scouts of America allowed gay members it would be just like letting serial killers teach preschool. Now that delegates at the BSA national conference voted to end the ban on gay youth, Swanson said that demonic spirits gained control of the convention to push the gay-inclusive resolution through.

Later, the right-wing radio broadcaster claimed that “any parent who loves his kid” should pull their child from scouting groups that don’t oppose “civilization-destroying things like homosexuality.” He charged homosexuality with “destroying our nation and our civilizations,” calling it one of “the absolute worst abominations found in the word of God.”

You have powerful principalities; you have spiritual principalities that have a fair amount of control over large, centralized systems and these demonic systems find opportunity to control these large, centralized organizations. That’s one reason why it is so dangerous to centralized power; it is very dangerous, that’s one reason why our nation was inherently decentralized at the beginning.



If at the point where they have embraced some of the absolute worst abominations found in the word of God, friends I would think people would wake up and say, ‘you know what I just don’t want my children growing up with the idea that we accept this kind of behavior as righteous behavior.’ Friends, this is the disintegration of society and morality as we know it, this is where it happens, right here. Unless parents wake up and get their kids out of the Boy Scouts and out of the Girl Scouts, I personally think you’re going to lose your kids, you’re going to lose your kids to these worldly ideas, you’re going to lose your kids to these civilization-destroying things like homosexuality. My encouragement right now is all good people, any parent who loves his kid should get their kids out of the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts because they are endorsing some of this unrighteous behavior. This is the kind of stuff that is destroying our nation and our civilizations.

Joe Miller, Proud 'Extremist'

Joe Miller, the Tea Party candidate who won the Republican Senate nomination in Alaska in 2010 only to be defeated by incumbent Lisa Murkowski’s write-in campaign in the general election, has announced that he’s planning on running again, and he’s started hitting the conservative media circuit to build support. Yesterday, Miller talked with Steve Deace, and explained that unlike establishment candidates, he’s “not afraid to use the word ‘tyranny’” and isn’t “afraid about being labeled an extremist” because “it’s the extreme component of the grassroots that’s going to elect you.”

You gotta tell the truth. And really that’s the core of, you need to tell the people why the country is headed down the path. You know, I’m not afraid to use the word ‘tyranny.’ And the fact is, and I said this in our exploratory announcement a couple of months ago, that I really believe our government is in basically a soft tyranny state. And this was even before the story about the IRS came out. But there is actions that the government is taking disrespectful of the fundamental values that made this nation great: the idea that the sovereignty of the individual, the fact that we have rights given by God [inaudible]. Don’t be afraid to talk about that.

And don’t be afraid about being labeled an extremist because the reality is, you know, it’s the extreme component of the grassroots that’s going to elect you. And, you know, you may say as a candidate, ‘What am I going to do in the general? I can’t put myself too far off to the right in the primary.’ The fact is, people resonate with truth. And the fact is, is that even if that truth makes you looks a little bit too far to the right from some perspectives, even those that disagree with you are going to respect the position. And I would suggest that many, many people want to challenge the establishment. They’re far to political, they want to be a politician. And that’s not what you can do. You’ve got to go out and tell the truth about where we’re at as a nation and not be afraid to speak it, even though you may think you’re reflecting something that is not all that political, too extreme if you will.
 

McCullough: Gays Hate God

While we here at Right Wing Watch are still reeling from Buster Wilson’s departure from the American Family Association, the new host of Today’s Issues, Kevin McCullough, is preserving the show’s anti-gay venom.

While discussing the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to include gay members under the age of eighteen, McCullough claimed that gay people hate God:

One thing that is absolutely true is that people that live active and activist homosexual lifestyles absolutely, rigidly hate the God of Scripture. There is no doubt about that, they absolutely do. People that struggle with it and try to work it out, they’re in a different category. But the people that are activists about it, they despise the God of the Bible and there is nothing short of that that can be understood.

MEDIA ADVISORY: National, State, Local Officials to Call on Corbett to Denounce Election-Rigging at Press Events in Philadelphia and Harrisburg

Top Pennsylvania elected officials, including U.S. Rep. Robert Brady, state Treasurer Rob McCord, Auditor General Eugene DePasquale and state Sen. Anthony Williams, Philadelphia City Councilman Mark Squilla, along with J. Whyatt Mondesire, Philadelphia President of the NAACP, will hold two press events next week calling on Gov. Tom Corbett to denounce his party’s plan to rig Pennsylvania’s electoral vote.

Brady, Williams, Squilla and Mondesire will speak at a press event in Philadelphia on Monday, June 3. McCord and DePasquale will hold a press event in Harrisburg on Tuesday, June 4.

Gov. Corbett has evaded questions about a plan proposed by state Sen. Dominic Pileggi that would dilute Pennsylvania’s influence in Presidential elections. In April, People For the American Way delivered over 100,000 petitions urging the governor to reject the plan.

PHILADELPHIA EVENT

WHEN: Monday, June 3, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.
WHERE: Ethical Humanist Society of Philadelphia, 1906 South Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103
SPEAKERS: U.S. Congressman Robert Brady, State Senator Anthony Williams, City Councilman Mark Squilla, NAACP Philadelphia President J. Whyatt Mondesire, People For the American Way Political Director Randy Borntrager

HARRISBURG EVENT

WHEN: Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 1:00 p.m.
WHERE: Soldier's Grove, Harrisburg, PA
SPEAKERS: Treasurer Rob McCord, Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, People For the American Way Political Director Randy Borntrager
 


###

Tony Perkins Gets Debunked On His Own Show

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins thought he was being quite clever by hosting a program about what he called the “Obama phone,” even bringing Sen. David Vitter, of all people, onto his “pro-family” radio show.

Perkins alleged that the Obama administration offered low-income people access to cell phones in order to swing the election for the President.

However, as Vitter admitted during the interview, the program to increase cellphone coverage began in 2008, the year before Obama became president.

That’s right; the Bush administration started the “Obama phone.”

E.W. Jackson: Homosexuality 'Wrong and Unacceptable'

E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP nominee for Lt. Governor, defended his frequent claims that gays and lesbians are “very sick people” who are pushing sexual abuse against children and the destruction of society in an interview with anti-gay radio host Janet Mefferd yesterday.

“Homosexuality is a sexual behavior and it is a behavior that the Bible says is wrong and unacceptable,” Jackson said. “To equate that with civil rights for black people or for women is so specious that it just amazes me that people buy into it, but they buy into it because it is emotionally appealing, it has no logic to it whatsoever.”

He also told Mefferd that gays need to “know the love of God in their lives” and that it would “betray God” to reassess his anti-gay remarks, which he said were made “without venom or hatred.”

Cathie Adams Finds Proof Grover Norquist is a Secret Muslim: 'As You See, He Has a Beard'

The Far North Dallas Tea Party posted a video this week of a PowerPoint presentation that Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, gave recently on “Radical Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Unsurprisingly, Adams sees the influence of “stealth jihad” everywhere in American society – including in the Republican Party. In her speech, Adams claimed credit for personally bringing down the candidacy of Amir Omar, an Iranian-American Republican who ran for Congress in Texas in 2006. She also railed against former Bush administration official and conservative activist Suhail Khan, wondering, “Where did he come from? How did this man get here? Did he overstay a visa?” (The short answer, if she really wants to know, is that he was born in Colorado, so no.)

But Adams saved her true vitriol for anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, who has provoked the wrath of anti-Muslim activists for his marriage to a Muslim woman and his efforts to reach out to Muslim conservatives. Adams warned that although “oftentimes we like what he says about economic issues,” Norquist is in fact “Trouble with a capital T” and is “showing signs of converting to Islam himself.”

Her evidence for Norquist’s secret conversion? “As you see, he has a beard.”

Ex-Gay Therapist Promises to Turn Gay Brains Straight

As we’ve noted, Daystar host Joni Lamb is hosting a special on homosexuality, and Lamb today brought on ex-gay activists such as Joe Dallas, Anne Paulk and Janet Boynes. One of the guests, Dr. Jerry Mungadze, claimed that his ex-gay therapy techniques have literally changed the brain structure of his gay patients and made their brains more like those of straight people. 

Watch: 

The good news is, at least with the people that I’ve seen, not a lot of people, when the healing takes place those areas of the brain that were showing the homosexuality show heterosexuality. I have had several people who when I looked at them I couldn’t tell the difference between a heterosexual who never was homosexual and them, which means the brain is able to go back and fire the way it is supposed to be, which is an argument against the whole idea of someone was born that way.

How the Kochs are Buying Silence--Without Spending a Dime

Between buying elections, billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch shop for big pieces of American media and culture. And, hey, why not?

We already knew of the Kochs' efforts to buy Tribune Company, the parent of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, among other major newspapers. Then, last week, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer took a thoughtful, in-depth look at the machinations that led New York's PBS station, WNET, to pull from the air a documentary critical of David Koch, one of the station's biggest funders. The story raises plenty of questions about the extent to which the public owns public media and the role of money in the arts and culture (see anything at Lincoln Center's David H. Koch Theater lately?). But it also provides a rare intimate look at what happens when big money begets massive influence, often without a dime changing hands.

Mayer describes the fate of two documentary films. One took on income disparities in America by profiling the inhabitants of one tony Park Avenue building - including David Koch. Under pressure, WNET aired the film but, in a highly unusual concession, offered Koch airtime to rebut it after it aired. The second film, "Citizen Koch," made by the very talented, Academy Award nominated team of Tia Lessin and Carl Deal, explored the influence that Koch and others like him have on our elections in the post-Citizens United world. But in the face of Koch's wrath, the film's distributor, a public television player with a history of gutsy moves, uncharacteristically lost its stomach for the fight and dumped the film entirely. Regardless, Koch decided to not give a hoped-for gift after the first film aired. Without lifting a finger or even taking out his checkbook, Koch cast a pall over the documentary film world.

The process that led to "Citizen Koch" being pulled from the airwaves illustrates exactly the point that Lessin and Deal's film makes: money can not only buy action in our democracy, it can also buy silence. As former Republican presidential candidate Buddy Roemer points out in the film, "Sometimes it's a check. Sometimes it's the threat of a check. It's like having a weapon. You can shoot the gun or just show it. It works both ways."

Koch and his brother Charles, both billionaire industrialists, pledged to spend a whopping $400 million on the 2012 elections, the overwhelming majority of it on behalf of Republican candidates. But that doesn't just mean that Republicans are jumping to please the brothers--it means that many of those in positions of influence, regardless of their political leanings, need to take into account whether or not it's worth the trouble of unnecessarily antagonizing the Kochs. Just as the public is unlikely to hear about the film PBS didn't run, it's almost impossible to know about the principled progressive stands that our allies in government decided not to take.

Koch's billions are a formidable political weapon, even without owning any influential newspapers. Thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, it's a more powerful weapon than ever, and we know it's having an impact even when they don't choose to deploy them. The result is a distorted government that responds to the whims of billionaires more easily than the needs of ordinary Americans.

As activists work to undo the damage being done by Citizens United, one of our main challenges is reminding voters of the dangerous, invisible effects that decision has on the country. It's a remarkable irony that by trying to hide a film about the danger of money in politics, the Kochs may have made it clearer than ever before.

This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post.

PFAW

Southern Baptist Leader Equates Homosexuality with Cancer

LifeSiteNews posted a column today by Southern Baptist leader Al Mohler in which he equated homosexuality with cancer: “They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer.”

Mohler writes that “there is no compassion in such a deadly deception,” referring to attempts by some churches and schools to, in his words, “promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.”

Other denominations are tottering on the brink, and without a massive conservative resistance, they are almost certain to abandon biblical truth and bless what the Bible condemns. Within a few short years, a major dividing line has become evident–with those churches endorsing homosexuality on one side, and those stubbornly resisting the cultural tide on the other. The homosexual rights movement understands that the evangelical church is one of the last resistance movements committed to a biblical morality. Because of this, the movement has adopted a strategy of isolating Christian opposition, and forcing change by political action and cultural pressure.

Can we count on evangelicals to remain steadfastly biblical on this issue? Not hardly. Scientific surveys and informal observation reveal that we have experienced a significant loss of conviction among youth and young adults. No moral revolution can succeed without shaping and changing the minds of young people and children.

Inevitably, the schools have become crucial battlegrounds for the culture war. The Christian worldview has been undermined by pervasive curricula that teach moral relativism, reduce moral commandments to personal values, and promote homosexuality as a legitimate and attractive lifestyle option.



The tragic fact is that every congregation is almost certain to include persons struggling with homosexual desire or even involved in homosexual acts. Outside the walls of the church, homosexuals are waiting to see if the Christian church has anything more to say, after we declare that homosexuality is a sin. Liberal churches have redefined compassion to mean that the church changes its message to meet modern demands.

They argue that to tell a homosexual he is a sinner is uncompassionate and intolerant. This is like arguing that a physician is intolerant because he tells a patient she has cancer. But, in the culture of political correctness, this argument holds a powerful attraction. Biblical Christians know that compassion requires telling the truth, and refusing to call sin something sinless. To hide or deny the sinfulness of sin is to lie, and there is no compassion in such a deadly deception.

Keyes: Including Gays in the Boy Scouts Encourages Scouts to Join Gangs, Use Drugs, Beat People Up

Alan Keyes, who previously warned that openly gay Boy Scouts will peer pressure their fellow scouts into being gay, today argues that the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to lift the ban on gay youth now means that scouts will be able to engage in “sex, drugs, lying, stealing, and beating people up for the heck of it” and join “street gangs” so long as it is not during scouting activities.

This is why scouting has had such an enormous and lasting impact on the lives of so many men. It was not just a way of passing the time. It was training for life, intended to become a way of life. The scout oath wasn't a pledge to behave a certain way during scouting activities. It was a commitment to respect the scouting standard of virtue in every aspect of life. That's why "being such a boy scout" became the proverbial term for someone who refused to go along with the crowd when doing so involved engaging in wrong activities, activities like lying, or bullying, or stealing, etc. That's why so many young men who accepted and tried to live by the scout oath became outstanding leaders in other walks of life, especially those that required individual moral courage, and/or the physical stamina and bravery it produces.

As it stands, the BSA's decision formally abandons the notion that scouting is a way of life. It puts the movement in the position of saying that you can adopt one standard during scouting activities, and another for your other life activities, as if scouting is simply a game where certain rules apply while you're on the field. If this is true with respect to the fundamental obligations of love and respect that are the basis of family life, what of the other aspects of the scouting oath and ethos? Will being a boy scout now mean that you are trustworthy during scouting activities, but lie and cheat in other respects? Will it mean helping old ladies across the street as a troop exercise on Saturday, after a little exercise in purse snatching with the gang on Friday night?

To be sure, "he's a real boy scout" will no longer be available as a sneering term of disapproval from the worldly wise. And youngsters who join the scouts will no longer have to feel torn between the choices they are supposed to make as scouts and the choices they are pressured to make by their peers. So long as they refrain from sex, drugs, lying, stealing, and beating people up for the heck of it during scouting activities, they can feel free to admit that they engage in those activities in the street gangs or school cliques that once shunned and ridiculed "real boy scouts."

Sadly, the people who have shunned "real boy scouts" in this way have a better sense of integrity with respect to their vicious ways of life than the so-called leaders who just voted to abandon the integrity of the scouting way of life. They know that the effort to mix their vices and the virtues of scouting is a problem that has no solution. "Choose you this day whom you will serve" will always be the challenge that demands separating the one from the other. The BSA once stood clearly on the side of the right choice. Now they stand for the deceitful notion that you can serve God and mammon.

Anne Paulk Claims Vast Majority of Lesbians Were Sexually Abused; Won't Discuss Ex-Ex-Gay Ex-Husband

Last month, ex-gay poster boy John Paulk announced that he was renouncing the ex-gay movement and ending his twenty-year marriage to his ex-gay wife, Anne. While John has now finally acknowledged that ex-gay conversion therapy doesn’t work and is in fact extremely harmful, his now ex-wife Anne is still a supporter of the dangerous pseudo-science.

In fact, she recently appeared on Daystar’s “Joni Table Talk” where she told host Joni Lamb that according to her “study,” homosexuality is caused by sexual abuse and “sixty-six percent of [lesbian] women had incurred sexual abuse early on in their lives and astoundingly ninety percent of the girls who were leaving homosexuality had expressed that they had been a witness to sexual abuse or physical abuse or serious emotional abuse or any number of serious verbal abuse.”

Lamb told Paulk that “the Enemy”—Satan—“came in and shut a door and opened a door to deception,” and Paulk added that “wounding leaves you hurting; it leaves you with a craving to feel a need and a hole that’s left in one’s life.”

Towards the end of the program, Lamb and her co-hosts cheered Paulk after she said she had been an ex-gay for “twenty-seven years” and called on gays and lesbians to move the “out of darkness.”

Lamb concluded the show by asking viewers to pray for John and their marriage, without ever once mentioning that John has denounced his ex-gay past and conversion therapy or discussing the “personal struggle” with Anne.

Center for Immigration Studies Echoes Schlafly, Urges GOP to Focus on Turning Out White Voters

Phyllis Schlafly has been getting some strong pushback – including from the conservative Commentary Magazine –  for remarks she made this week urging the Republican Party to abandon attempts to win back Latino voters and instead focus exclusively on turning out “the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election.”

But Schlafly’s far from alone. In a press release today, the prominent anti-immigration reform group Center for Immigration Studies echoes Schlafly’s advice, urging the GOP to abandon comprehensive immigration reform and instead pour its resources into  increasing white turnout.

Citing new census data, CIS warns Republicans that “one of their biggest problems in the last presidential election was that so many less-educated whites sat home.”

“It seems likely that by supporting the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, GOP legislators would further alienate these voters,” CIS Research Director Steven Camarota adds.

Camarota’s warning, like Schlafly’s, is not far removed from Pat Buchanan’s call for the GOP to create a new Southern Strategy, pitting white voters against Latino immigrants rather than trying to expand the party’s base.

"As Republicans think about how they can expand their voter base, the new data suggest that one of their biggest problems in the last presidential election was that so many less-educated whites sat home," said Steven Camarota, the Center's Director of Research and author of the report. "These voters, who have been hard hit by the recession, have traditionally supported Republicans. It seems likely that by supporting the Schumer-Rubio amnesty, GOP legislators would further alienate these voters."

The president received five million more votes than Governor Romney. What would have it taken for Romney to have won at least a plurality of the popular vote?

   -- If Romney had increased his share of the women's vote by four percentage points, from the 44 percent he actually received to 48 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the female vote equaled 714,000 votes.

   -- If Romney had increased his share of the black vote by 15 percentage points, from the 6 percent he actually received to 21 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the black vote equaled 172,000 votes.

   -- If Romney had increased his share of the Hispanic vote by 23 percentage points, from the 27 percent he actually received to 50 percent, then he have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the Hispanic vote equaled 112,000 votes.

   -- If Romney had increased his share of the white vote by three percentage points, from the 59 percent he actually received to 62 percent, then he would have won the popular vote. Each percentage point of the white vote equaled 980,000 votes.

Attacks on Obama's D.C. Circuit Nominations Get More and More Absurd

The New York Times reported this week that President Obama is planning to nominate three judges to fill long-vacant seats on the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is hardly unheard of: every president since Jimmy Carter has placed at least three judges on the D.C. Circuit, and Obama only just had his first nominee confirmed to the court.

But Senate Republicans and conservative activists really, really don’t want President Obama to put any more judges on the D.C. Circuit – perhaps because it is currently dominated by Republican nominees who are intent on rolling back things like clean air regulations, cigarette labeling requirements, and National Labor Relations Board rulings.
      
So the Senate GOP is threatening to filibuster anybody Obama names to the court and even trying to push through a law permanently deleting the vacant judgeships in order to prevent Obama from filling them.

What has resulted is one of the more bizarre manifestations of Obama Derangement Syndrome. The talking point that Senate Republicans and their allies have landed on to defend this planned obstruction is that President Obama, in nominating judges to existing judicial vacancies as is required by his job, is in fact “packing” the D.C. Circuit in the style of FDR. (Or, in the words of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board,  like a “king”).

In a column for Breitbart News yesterday the Family Research Council’s Ken Klukowski goes even further, writing that by merely planning to nominate judges to the court – a constitutional requirement of his job fulfilled by every one of his predecessors – Obama has launched an “attack on the independence of the federal courts,” “declared war on judicial independence,” and is “trying to declare law by executive fiat.”

Now that Obama has declared war on judicial independence, Republicans are planning a counter-strategy. There are 13 federal appeals courts. The D.C. Circuit’s caseload is light, while several other circuits are overloaded. Sen. Charles Grassley and Senate Republicans are proposing moving those three seats to courts that could very much use them. Obama would still appoint those three judges, but not to the D.C. Circuit.

It takes legislation to create or move federal judgeships, so this is shaping up as a major part of the battle over courts that are independent of political manipulation.

There are only 80 slots on the Supreme Court’s docket every year. For 20,000 federal appeals each year, whatever the appellate court says is the final word. Obama is hoping that if he can overhaul the judicial balance of the court, his unprecedented claims of federal power might withstand court challenges. From Obamacare to EPA requirements, labor rules, and IRS rules, all these topics and more are going before the D.C. Circuit.

Obama cannot enact major liberal legislation now that he’s lost the House and might also lose the Senate next year. Instead, he’s trying to declare law by executive fiat. Whether he gets away with it likely turns on whether he can change Senate rules and then pack the D.C. Circuit with sympathetic judges.

This attack on the independence of the federal courts should be of concern to all Americans.
 

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious