C4

Erik Rush Links Obama to Oklahoma Murder

In his WorldNetDaily column yesterday, Fox News regular Erik Rush linked President Obama to the murder of an Australian baseball player in Oklahoma. Rush began his column by making the false claim that “three black youths” were behind the shooting. Rush isn’t alone in fudging the facts about the race of the alleged shooters: the fact that one of the three suspects is white hasn’t stopped right-wing outlets including Fox News, The Daily Caller and WorldNetDaily from using a phony photo to claim all three suspects are black. But for Rush, the Oklahoma murder—and a stabbing in Queens— is all part of an Obama-led race war.

It’s reaching near-epidemic proportions, but the press is still failing to report on the uptick in black-on-white crime in America. Some will be familiar with the accounts of violent black-on-white crime reported by WND of late, several of which have been incredibly brutal and gruesome.

Last Friday, 22-year-old Australian Christopher Lane was gunned down by three black youths in Duncan, Okla. The crime is not being reported as racially motivated, despite the fact that the assailants deliberately chose an upscale, predominantly white neighborhood. Neither is the stabbing attack on 17-year-old Natasha Martinez in Queens, N.Y., being classified as racially motivated, even though this one might be the work of a serial assailant. I imagine the lack of coverage could be due to the fact that Martinez has a Latino surname and appears white, whereas George Zimmerman (who was acquitted of second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin) has an Anglo surname but identifies as Latino. If that appears convoluted and nonsensical, that’s only because it is.



Like many of the audacious and bizarre practices of the Obama administration, the idea that it would be deliberately engaging in fomenting racial tension is incomprehensible to the average American specifically because the concept is so audacious and bizarre. Yet, we know that the Obama Justice Department was involved in materially supporting anti-Zimmerman protests within days after Martin’s killing, and that Obama has long-standing ties to black radical organizations such as the New Black Panther Party (NBPP).

There’s little doubt that such parties knew they had an advocate in their corner from the moment Obama was inaugurated; thus, they became far more vocal. While the president’s tone has been conciliatory (except for the occasional slip), his rhetoric remains in the same vein as that of a black activist, albeit more refined. In the meantime, the economic woes of blacks have increased along with the rest of America, and black-on-black crime is at an alarming high; now, they’re being told that racist whites with guns are stalking them in the night.



Whether naïveté, ideology, stupidity, or a combination thereof on the part of the press is to blame for its complicity, the fact is that this plays into the hands of the Obama administration and the radical left at large. Also incomprehensible in the minds of average Americans is the notion that these campaigns of division (race being only one) are ultimately intended to bring about a degree of civil unrest that will superficially justify the use of force on the part of the administration.

Remember, this is the president who, in 2008 advocated for a “civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].”

And all the people cheered …

The Weekly Standard’s Selective History of the DC Circuit

The Weekly Standard has a long piece in its latest print issue defending Senate Republicans’ threat to filibuster President Obama’s three nominees to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. It’s no surprise that the Standard is backing Republican obstruction, but the extent to which they must dance around the facts in order to do so is remarkable.

The piece, written by Adam J. White, a former clerk of ultra-conservative Reagan nominee and now senior D.C. Circuit judge David Sentelle, gives an extensive history of the D.C. Circuit…but leaves out a few major details.

Here are the highlights of the Weekly Standard’s selective history of the D.C. Circuit.  

1. What Caitlin Halligan filibuster?
    
White incorrectly notes that President Reagan had seven D.C. Circuit nominees confirmed during his two terms in office (he actually had eight nominees confirmed) and correctly notes that President George H. W. Bush had three. But he doesn’t quite explain the reason that only one of President Obama’s nominees has so far been confirmed to the court:

Later that year, the president finally made two nominations for the court—former New York solicitor general Caitlin Halligan and respected Supreme Court litigator Sri Srinivasan—but he made no substantial effort to secure their confirmations before the 2012 election. After his second inauguration, the Senate unanimously confirmed Srinivasan; the White House withdrew Halligan’s nomination, at her own request.

White neglects to mention that President Obama’s first nominee to the D.C. Circuit, Caitlin Halligan, didn’t just “withdraw” from consideration – she was nominated five times when Republicans kept refusing to allow the Senate to vote on her nomination and actually forced the Senate to send the nomination back to the White House.  She also faced multiple Republican filibusters based on completely made-up charges in a nomination struggle that lasted two and a half years. The idea that nobody made any effort to get Halligan confirmed is as preposterous as the explanations Republicans seized on to justify prohibiting the Senate from voting on her nomination.

2. What ideological agenda?

White mocks progressives for suggesting that “the D.C. Circuit is reflexively, ideologically antiregulatory”:

Similarly, those who seize on the court’s rejection of a single EPA rule, in EME Homer City, as evidence that the D.C. Circuit “has morphed into a hotbed of activist judges” (as a blogger for the liberal American Constitution Society put it) lack any sense of perspective. The same D.C. Circuit has affirmed the vast majority of the Obama administration’s greenhouse gas regulations, a regulatory program that far exceeds the cross-state air pollution rule at issue in EME Homer City in terms of cost and scope. Again, whether one agrees or disagrees with the decisions, they offer no plausible basis on which to suggest that the D.C. Circuit is reflexively, ideologically antiregulatory.

Perhaps he should read these words by Bush nominee Janice Rogers Brown, who last year took the opportunity of a routine case about the milk market to unleash a broad invective against the government’s power to regulate commerce, in which she accuses courts that uphold government regulation of putting “property at the mercy of the pillagers”:

America’s cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers. And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s.

Civil society, once it grows addicted to redistribution, changes its character and comes to require the state to feed its habit. The difficulty of assessing net benefits and burdens makes the idea of public choice oxymoronic. Rational basis review means property is at the mercy of the pillagers. The constitutional guarantee of liberty deserves more respect - a lot more. [internal quotations and citations removed]

And it’s not just words. This skewed interpretation of the Constitution has led the D.C. Circuit’s Republican-nominated judges to issue any number of anti-worker, anti-consumer opinions, including the recent one holding that requiring companies to inform employees of their rights under the law violates the free speech rights of employers.

3. What Bush nominees?

White closes with a repeat of the Republican talking point that there is no need for the vacancies on the D.C. Circuit to be filled, no matter who is nominated to fill them. He repeats the claims of right-wing activist Carrie Severino that “several” anonymous current D.C. Circuit judges have said that the court’s vacancies don’t need to be filled. (It would seem that these are the same anonymous judges that Sen. Chuck Grassley claims to have polled after he had already concluded the seats should be eliminated.)

Furthermore, a According to Carrie Severino in National Review Online, several of Judge Garland’s  colleagues anonymously informed the committee that “the Court does not need additional judges” to handle its workload. “If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.”

Although Sen. Grassley trotted out the anonymous quotes during a Senate hearing, he conspicuously refused to include the responses he got to the questionnaire he’d secretly sent to DC Circuit judges in the public record. The thing is, actual, non-anonymous authorities have come out to say that yes, the D.C. Circuit’s seats do need to be filled. Citing the court’s uniquely challenging caseload, former D.C. Circuit judge Patricia Wald wrote an op-ed (under her own name!) calling for the confirmation of both of the then-pending nominees and for the full staffing of the court. “There is cause for extreme concern that Congress is systematically denying the court the human resources it needs to carry out its weighty mandates,” she wrote.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts has explained that because of its unique place in the justice system, the D.C. Circuit’s workload cannot be compared to that of other federal courts.

White goes on to claim that the anonymous claims that no more judges are needed “are confirmed by the federal judiciary system’s official data.” But his numbers aren’t exactly right. He claims that the court now has 17 judges hearing cases – in fact that number is 14: eight active judges and six judges who have taken semi-retired senior status.

The judges’ anecdotes are confirmed by the federal judiciary system’s official data. Since 2001, the court has added four judges (to “replace” four who took senior status). In that same period of time, the court’s workload has remained virtually constant: 1,319 pending cases in March 2001, 1,315 in September 2012. The nation’s courts face many genuine personnel shortages; the federal judiciary formally designates some courts as “judicial emergencies,” a list published on the judiciary website (and linked by the Justice Department’s own website). The D.C. Circuit is nowhere among them; with 17 judges now hearing cases, it has by far the lightest “per capita” appellate caseload in the country.

The points of comparison that White picks in an attempt to illustrate the court’s supposedly consistent caseload are misleading, at best.   The fact that the court had 1,319 pending cases in March 2001 and 1,315 in September 2012 is meaningless for the current debate. 

Instead, let’s look at the caseload in the spring of 2003 when Republicans supported the confirmation of George W. Bush nominees John Roberts and Miguel Estrada to the 9th and 10th seats. Two years later, Republicans successfully pushed to confirm Janet Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith to the 10th and 11th seats, when there were 1,313 pending cases. Fast forward to today, when the GOP is claiming that no more than eight judges are needed on the D.C. Circuit, and the court has 1,456 pending cases. That is a whole lot more cases for a whole lot fewer judges to process.

4. What obstruction?

White concludes by saying that there is “no reason for the Senate to accelerate its own review or confirmation” of the three D.C. Circuit nominees:

The D.C. Circuit does not “need” President Obama to appoint more judges. President Obama wants to appoint more judges. As a matter of presidential prerogative, that is a perfectly fine reason to nominate judges—but it is no reason for the Senate to accelerate its own review or confirmation of nominees.

The thing is, nobody’s asking the Senate to confirm these nominees in the dark of night. Each is getting a public hearing and answering pages of written questions from senators. What the Senate GOP is threatening to do is deny these nominees up-or-down votes for reasons having nothing to do with the nominees themselves. White provides no justification for filibusters of these nominees who the president has used his “presidential prerogative” to nominate.
 

New Poll Shows Overwhelming Opposition to Private School Vouchers

The annual PDK/Gallup poll records the highest level of opposition to private school vouchers in the survey's history.
PFAW

CIS Wonders Why 'Handsome Illegal' in Zuckerberg Ad Wants Path to Citizenship

The Center for Immigration Studies was not taken with the ad that Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us put together profiling Alejandro Morales, a DREAMer who wants to serve in the Marines:

CIS fellow David North wrote in a blog post yesterday entitled “That Handsome Illegal Wanting to be a Marine – Tell It to the President!” that Morales should just give up on a roadmap to citizenship. North grants that Morales is “handsome, and frankly admirable,” but argues that instead of fighting for citizenship, the DREAMer should push for the Pentagon take advantage of a loophole in federal code and allow him to serve in the military without granting him any sort of legal status.

“If the DREAMers really want to enlist, and feel thwarted, why aren't they demonstrating outside the Pentagon, or the White House?” he demands.

Remember that handsome, and frankly admirable, young illegal who wants to be a Marine? The one in the Mark Zuckerberg TV ad reported on by my colleague Jerry Kammer?

The impression from the ad is that the nation needs to pass the omnibus immigration "reform" bill so that he can enlist.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no need for a 1,200-page piece of legislation, involving the admissions of millions of people a year as immigrants and nonimmigrants, to bring the young man and the Marines together.

The Secretary of Defense currently has the power, under law, to deem that it is "in the national interest" to issue a ruling allowing an illegal, or a bunch of them, to enlist in the services. The legal citation is here. So, if the DREAMers really want to enlist, and feel thwarted, why aren't they demonstrating outside the Pentagon, or the White House?

Rios: Media Coverage of Greenwald and Quinn Represents 'The Perversion of Normalcy'

Conservative talk show host Sandy Rios today described how she is upset about recent media stories on Kim Catullo, New York mayoral candidate Christine Quinn’s wife, and David Miranda, reporter Glenn Greenwald’s partner who was held for almost nine hours by British authorities at Heathrow airport.

“We have a mayor and a first lady—I can’t even find the language for that,” Rios commented about Quinn and Catullo, before ranting that “Glenn Greenwald has a gay partner and his gay partner David Miranda was detained at Heathrow and it’s like the world has ended.” “We are accustomed to the perversion of normality, we are getting so used to it in our headlines,” Rios lamented.

“It’s just amazing to me the power of the homosexual movement and the interest in the sex lives in all of these people.” Rios said we should “operate as individuals” and gay people should not “parade” their homosexuality.

Steve King: 'Cantaloupes' Comment Just Like Complimenting Bodies of 'Olympic Athletes'

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) continued to defend his assertion that the vast majority of young undocumented immigrants are drug smugglers “with calves the size of cantaloupes,” telling Mike Huckabee today that his remarks were no different than complimenting the body of an Olympian.

The Iowa congressman said there was nothing inaccurate or wrong about his claim that “for every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another hundred out there who they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’ve been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” insisting that “if I offended anybody I didn’t do a very good job of it, but it should’ve been offensive perhaps to drug smugglers but no one else.”

“They’re not just making one trip across the border with 75 pounds of marijuana but it is multiple trips,” King said, “they’re in physical shape for that, just like you can see in an Olympic athlete, that would be obvious to us and I don’t think that would be denigrating.”

He went on to claim that immigration reform legislation “guarantees the permanent destruction of the rule of law, at least with regard to immigration, as far as I can imagine into the future.”

Phyllis Schlafly's Totally Coherent Defense of North Carolina's Voter Suppression Law

In a WorldNetDaily column today, Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly comes to the defense of North Carolina’s new voter suppression measure with classic Schlafly logic. The new law is not politically motivated and won’t keep Democrats from voting, Schlafly claims…before adding that the law’s main virtue is that it is politically motivated and will keep Democrats from voting.

Schlafly starts out her argument by claiming that the notion that the state’s new photo ID requirement will disproportionately disenfranchise largely Democratic voting groups is “absurd” because “the poorest members of society can obtain photo ID to get taxpayer-funded handouts”….and then immediately contradicts herself by declaring “the real reason the left wants to make sure that individuals without voter ID are allowed to vote is because they are expected to vote for Democrats”:

Liberals make the absurd claim that requiring photo ID is discriminatory because some minority groups may be unable to provide proper ID. But government-issued photo identification can be obtained by anyone at very low cost.

We already need photo ID, aka a driver’s license, to drive to work, which is rather important to most people. Welfare recipients are required to show photo ID to receive money in many states, and we haven’t heard any gripes about ID discrimination.

If the poorest members of society can obtain photo ID to get taxpayer-funded handouts, they should be able to do likewise for voting. The real reason the left wants to make sure that individuals without voter ID are allowed to vote is because they are expected to vote for Democrats.

Schlafly then takes on the North Carolina law’s reduction of early voting days, including eliminating Sunday early voting, which she happily admits is a response to the popularity of early voting among Democratic voters:

The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that “early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.”

She is especially upset that the Obama campaign (or the “Obama technocrats”) ran a successful early voting get-out-the-vote effort, or, as she puts it, “identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote”:

The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.

But early voting’s sins, according to Schlafly, go beyond being successfully used by Democrats. In fact, she says, early voting “is actually contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution”:

Early voting is actually contrary to the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Article II states, “the Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes, which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Federal law sets the date for national elections on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

But that isn’t all! Schlafly -- who happens to be the recipient of the 2011 Citizens United Lifetime Achievement Award--  claims that early voting actually “increases the influence of big money spent on campaigns.” Not only that, she says, but it “increases opportunities for ballot fraud” because, she claims without any evidence, poll watchers aren’t present during early voting:

Early voting increases the influence of big money spent on campaigns because it requires candidates to campaign, to spend and to buy expensive television ads over additional weeks. Early voting increases opportunities for ballot fraud because the necessary poll watchers we expect to be on the job at polling places on Election Day can’t be present for so many days.

Schlafly wraps up her argument by declaring that North Carolina’s voter suppression law should “cheer up” conservatives  as they work to restrict reproductive choice, cut unemployment insurance and Medicaid and mandate the teaching of cursive so that “kids will now be able to read letters from their grandmothers”:

In 2012 the Democrats were so sure that North Carolina was a happy hunting ground for their votes that they held their National Convention in Charlotte to renominate Barack Obama. North Carolina promptly responded by voting down same-sex marriage in a referendum and then passing a bunch of good laws. So cheer up, conservatives.

In addition to the helpful new voting laws, North Carolina passed stricter regulations on abortion clinics, ended teacher tenure, cut unemployment benefits, blocked the expansion of Medicaid and (despite the scorn of propagandists for the national takeover of education by Common Core) mandated the teaching of cursive writing. Maybe that’s why the liberals are so angry: Kids will now be able to read letters from their grandmothers.

Case closed.

Charisma Magazine Asks Chris Christie: What If Child Predators Preyed On Your Son?

Anti-gay activists are furious that Gov. Chris Christie signed into law a bill barring ex-gay therapy for minors, and pastor Larry Tomczak penned an open letter to the New Jersey governor in his Charisma magazine blog. Tomczak, upset about Christie’s “unconscionable” decision to “capitulate to the gay agenda,” said the governor should reflect on his own “battle with overeating and endangering your health through poor nutritional choices” and realize that he shouldn’t affirm the gay “lifestyle” and its “frightening consequences.”

He goes on to ask Christie what he would think if older men preyed on his teenage son, who, as a result, “found himself temporarily confused and traumatized.” Tomczak said that after such experiences as a boy his “parents and pastors and counselors” had “early on set me on the path to normal heterosexual sexual understanding.”

Tomczak said that after such experiences as a boy his “parents and pastors and counselors” had “early on set me on the path to normal heterosexual sexual understanding.”

“I close this appeal by directing you to our Founding Fathers,” Tomczak writes. “They honored a Judeo-Christian belief system and upheld the Bible as their source of wisdom for life, laws and legislation.”

Young people today face challenges in the realm of sexuality that are unparalleled in our history. When you and I were growing up with our Roman Catholic training, we never faced the avalanche of pornography and celebration of homosexuality prevailing in the media, schools, government and entertainment there is today.

Multitudes of young children and teenagers are wrestling with sexual identity as they come of age. To capitulate to the gay agenda and stonewall providing options for those who are asking for them really is unconscionable. And since you pride yourself on being very up front and to the point, I'd like to submit to you that your three points are completely inconsistent with what should be your Roman Catholic and Christian worldview.



While parents, counselors and all of us should express understanding regarding people's upbringing and pain, we cannot release people from taking personal responsibility for their actions to do what is moral and right. Your well-publicized battle with overeating and endangering your health through poor nutritional choices probably makes this easy to comprehend.



Here's the deal: Are we really helping young people by reinforcing the prevailing notion that people are born gay—stuck to be this way for the rest of their life? And yes, there are pretty frightening consequences to this lifestyle that folks had just better accept



Gov. Christie, among your four children is a young teenage boy. Since you are known for your bluntness, can I share in a transparent manner some things that happened to me when I was his age and then ask a closing question?

As a young teen, two male teenage relatives tried to seduce me into sexual experimentation with gay sex. Additionally, I had a homosexual pick me up once while hitchhiking, and he offered me money to come to his apartment for an enema. (I was 13 and clueless as to what that was.) In a relatively short time, I jumped out of that car!

To this very day, I am grateful to God for parents and pastors and counselors who early on set me on the path to normal heterosexual sexual understanding. I knew right from wrong. I was able to discern, when faced with something that the Bible said was "unnatural" and "shameful" (Rom 1:24-27), what was the right thing to do.

Gov. Christie, I beseech you to step back and take a fresh look at this law. Think about your children. Think about the future of our nation. Think about how we can best prepare young people for a healthy and successful life. If your son when through what I did, found himself temporarily confused and traumatized, what kind of counsel—honestly—would you want him to hear?

Many believe you have aspirations for the presidency. I close this appeal by directing you to our Founding Fathers. They honored a Judeo-Christian belief system and upheld the Bible as their source of wisdom for life, laws and legislation.

Will you?

Respectfully submitted and upholding you and your family in my prayers, I remain,

Larry Tomczak

How Crayon Drawings Can Tell If There Are Demons In Your Brain

We first heard about Dr. Jerry Mungadze when he appeared on a program with televangelist Joni Lamb of Daystar dedicated to the wonders of ex-gay therapy, where he maintained that he has seen the physical “healing” of gay people’s brains as they transition from “showing the homosexuality” to “show[ing] heterosexuality.”

It later turned out that Mungadze, who is not a scientist but a “scholar” with degrees in biblical studies and counselor education, wasn’t referring to actual brain scans but to crayon drawings of brains. Mungadze claims that based on the colored pencil or crayon a person chooses to color in a picture of a brain, he can tell if they are gay or straight.

He took his “science” to televangelist Benny Hinn’s show This Is Your Day earlier this week, where he also revealed that he can tell if someone is possessed by demons if they choose darker colors on their brain map.

“Everything that I talk about is based on numbers, is based on studies, which is what you do when you’re a scientist,” he told Hinn, adding that “you can actually see demonization in people’s brains.”

“There’s a certain color that I won’t mention that tells me if someone is demonized,” Mungadze continued, until he ultimately revealed that dark colors such as black, brown and gray are proof of demonic possession.

“I can be in a room with people who are into the occult who are steeped in demonology, I may not know it just by sitting next to them but I let them do that and I can tell what spirit they have,” Mungadze said. “People that come from the occult, people coming from witchcraft usually [choose] blacks and browns and grays.”

Watch:

Robertson Warns Obama 'May Have Made A Deal With The Muslim Brotherhood'

Pat Robertson kicked off today’s edition of the 700 Club by interviewing Christian Broadcasting Network contributor Raymond Ibrahim, who spent most of the time rehashing a claim he said he heard from the Egyptian press that “Obama is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Everyone is convinced this is a conspiracy,” Ibrahim told Robertson, “you can’t help but wonder, of course it is, because why is the Obama administration so adamant about helping this organization?”

At one point in the interview, Ibrahim even suggested that the Muslim Brotherhood was behind the attack on the US compound in Benghazi and alleged that the US is trying to cover up its supposed knowledge of the group’s involvement by pushing for the release of Muslim Brotherhood officials from prison.

Later, Robertson said that it’s “appalling” and “shocking to think Obama may have made a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Robertson, who has previously warned that Obama has a Muslim “inclination” and might be a “crypto-Muslim,” lamented that “we’ve got a president, you wonder about where he is coming from.” He also warned the Obama administration is trying to aid the Muslim Brotherhood’s drive “to establish an Islamic super-state.”

Watch highlights here:

PFAW Releases Report on GOP’s Choice On Immigration: Stand With Reformers or Cave to Extremists

WASHINGTON – Will Republicans in Congress stand with the majority of their party and country in supporting comprehensive immigration reform, or will they stand with extremists attempting to derail the bipartisan momentum for reform?  That’s the choice exposed in a new report from People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch.

The report, Congressional Republicans’ Clear Choice on Immigration: Stand With Pro-Reform Majorities or Cave to Anti-Immigrant Extremists, details the strategies that have been used by the Right to block immigration reform and the defining choice Republicans face on immigration now as the national landscape shifts. PFAW Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery, the report’s author, documents the anti-immigration vitriol of far-right pundits and elected officials such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Senator Ted Cruz. Recent comments from the GOP’s far-right fringe – such as Rep. Steve King’s characterization of most young undocumented immigrants as drug runners with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from “hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert” – suggest that this fringe is not relenting as the national debate continues.

“There is new bipartisan momentum for immigration reform, and some Republicans are working to reposition the party in the minds of Latino voters,” the report notes. “But in order to make that possible, Republican officials will have to demonstrate that they are willing to face down the divisive extremists that many of them once cheered on.”

The full report is available at www.pfaw.org.

Peter Montgomery, Senior Fellow at People For the American Way, oversees the organization’s research and writing on the Religious Right.  He is available for comment on this report.

###

Steve Stockman Not a Birther on Ted Cruz; Still Thinks Obama's Birth Certificate Is Fraudulent

Birther congressman Steve Stockman says he’s not a birther after all, now that Canadian-born Sen. Ted Cruz is considering a run for president. The Texas Republican, who is crafting a birther bill with Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), said his home state senator is indeed eligible for the presidency even though he was born outside of the US.

The debunked birther conspiracy theory centers on the idea that President Obama forged his Hawaiian birth certificate to hide his foreign birth to an American mother and Kenyan father, which would make him ineligible to be president. Cruz, who also has an American mother but unlike Obama was actually born abroad, would therefore also be deemed ineligible if birthers had any logical consistency, which apparently they don’t.

Stockman told the arch-birther website WorldNetDaily that he has no problem with Cruz’s likely presidential bid, noting that they are both friends and attend the same church.

However, he still thinks Obama might have a “fraudulent” birth certificate and thinks he was listed as a “foreign student,” a reference to another discredited conspiracy theory.

To hear Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, describe it, the difference between President Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas – on the question of their eligibility for the highest office in the land – may be a case of comparing apples and oranges.

The congressman said with Cruz, it is a legal question of whether he is eligible to serve as president – whereas the issue with Obama is not really about where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.

Cruz released a copy of his birth certificate Sunday to the Dallas Morning News, as some have begun questioning the possible presidential contender’s eligibility, just as many have questioned Obama’s eligibility since 2008 when the argument was first raised by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The Cruz birth certificate shows he was born in Canada in 1970 to an American mother, which gave him American citizenship.

Obama, on the other hand, is the subject of Stockman’s proposed legislation calling for a congressional investigation of both the president’s constitutional eligibility and the authenticity of the birth certificate he released to show he was born in Hawaii.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Stockman said, in the case of Obama, it is more of a question about the validity of the documentation as well as his forthrightness, whereas with Cruz, it is more of a matter for legal and constitutional scholars to decide.

Stockman was happy to talk about his fellow Texan and tea-party favorite, saying, “He’s a good friend of mine and a great guy. In fact, I believe we go to the same church in Houston.”

The congressman said he doesn’t really know if Cruz is eligible for the presidency, but Cruz has been upfront and Obama was not.

Stockman noted that it took a long time for Obama to produce a document, and even now, questions linger.

“One of the things I always questioned was the documentation of the president, whether that was fraudulent,” he explained. “But I don’t question Cruz. Ted came right out and said, ‘Here’s the documentation.



Stockman mentioned another element that separates the case of Cruz and that of the president: the persistence of reports that Obama was listed as a foreign student in school and the fact he has yet to release records that would disprove that.

Lord Monckton, a WND commentator, even insisted that he was never a birther — despite having repeatedly claimed [PDF] that Obama’s supposed foreign birth made him ineligible to be president — and is fine with a Cruz presidency.

WND columnist and former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Lord Monckton also has said the issue with Obama is not where he was born, but whether his documentation is authentic.

Monckton has claimed the birth certificate Obama finally produced after years of prodding is “plainly a forgery” and could be dismantled with software.

Monckton, of course, just last year wrote in WorldNetDaily that people who are not born on US soil could not be president:

This is what your Constitution says:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

No ifs. No buts. This is the ancient and sensible ius soli: you are a citizen of the nation on whose soil you were born. Not born here? Go and play president somewhere else.

Unless, that soil is Canada and your name is Ted Cruz, apparently.

Harvey: Gays Seek to 'Absorb the Personality and Identity of Another Person'

Linda Harvey of Mission America explained today that gays and lesbians are attracted to people of the same-sex because they are empty inside and seek to “absorb” the personalities of others. “Those who have left homosexuality,” Harvey said, talk about how “they’ve once felt empty” and as a result want “to absorb the personality and identity of another person, even someone of the same sex because the vacant feeling inside is so great.” “When others seem to have meaning and purpose, the feelings of self-pity can be overwhelming,” she continued.

On Saturday, Harvey spoke to Ex-Gay Pride Month and Ex-Gay Awareness Month organizer Christopher Doyle who argued that the “people who experience same-sex attractions often experience change in much greater change towards heterosexuality than the other way around.”

Swanson and Buehner: Boy Scouts Will Soon Have A 'Sodomy Merit Badge' And A 'Cannibal Merit Badge'

Christian Right talk show hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner, who compared the decision to allow openly gay Boy Scouts members to inviting serial killers to teach preschool, told Generations Radio listeners Friday that the youth organization is “finding the very worst [sins] and creating merit badges for them.”

“[P]retty soon you’re going to have the sodomy merit badge,” Buehner warned, while Swanson wondered if there will be a badge for incest or even a “cannibal merit badge.”

Swanson: Manhood is a problem and the Boy Scouts are going to lead the decline since the final decision came down that the Boy Scouts as a national organization are going to invite homosexuals into the troops.

Buehner: Which is just a matter [of time] until they invite homosexuals, active homosexuals, to be leaders of the troops and pretty soon you’re going to have the sodomy merit badge. Christians are fleeing like rats.

Swanson: And after that I guess it’s incest; after that I guess it’s the cannibal merit badge, where I guess you cut up human flesh, fry it—

Buehner: Cook it in a Dutch oven out in the wilderness.

Swanson: So that’s what the Boy Scouts are doing, they are trying to add abomination on abomination, effectively going into God’s word, trying to find the thing that God really, really, really hates the most. The sins listed in the Bible, going through the lists of sins in the Bible, finding the very worst ones and creating merit badges for them is where the Boy Scouts are headed.

Krikorian: Rubio 'Blackmailing' Conservatives on Immigration

Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian joined Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio on Friday to discuss the Senate’s bipartisan immigration bill. The discussion eventually drifted, as these discussions often do, to Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s work on behalf of the immigration bill.

Last week, Rubio warned that if Congress fails to pass immigration reform, President Obama might be “tempted” to issue an executive order creating a roadmap to citizenship for undocumented immigrants in the country, a notion that the White House disputed.

Krikorian told Gaffney that Rubio’s warning essentially amounts to “blackmail” of conservatives and is like giving “the bank robbers money so that they don’t rob the bank.”

“Its’ really just one more step in Senator Rubio’s kind of delegitimation in the eyes of conservatives,” he said.

Gaffney: Let me just ask you a question about Marco Rubio. He has played a very important role in crafting the Senate bill and helping to sell it. He’s been kind of all over the lot. Senator Rubio has come to office as a darling of conservatives and the Tea Party; this has been horrifying to many of them, I think. He most recently, as I understand it, has said that, well, we have to pass this legislation because President Obama will – as is now his wont, increasingly – just enact or adopt or execute, if you will, amnesty if we don’t. What’s your response to Marco Rubio?

Krikorian: Yeah, that’s definitely what Senator Rubio said. Senator Rubio is basically engaging in a kind of blackmail, saying that if we don’t pass the amnesty, President Obama will just do it on his own. And instead of saying that means we should, you know, oppose any efforts on his part to unconstitutionally usurp the power of Congress, Rubio is offering that as an argument for voting for his bill. It’s basically like, you know, let’s give the bank robbers money so that they don’t rob the bank. I mean it’s just, I just don’t, I can’t imagine anybody takes this seriously, and it’s really just one more step in Senator Rubio’s kind of delegitimation in the eyes of conservatives.

Gaffney: Indeed it is. And a shame, at that, because he seemed to have such promise.

Klayman: America 'Has Been Hijacked by Islam and Our President Is the leader of this Muslim Revolution'

Conservatives are predictably freaking out that a tiny fringe group closely linked to the 9/11 Truthers is organizing a “Million Muslim March” in Washington D.C. on September 11. In a WorldNetDaily column, Larry Klayman suggests that President Obama is behind the march—the name of which has since been changed to the “Million American March Against Fear”—and believes he might even speak at the rally: “They have been given a virtual green light to do so by the mullah in chief. And, even if he does not show his devilish face at this highly provocative demonstration of the growing Islamic influence in the United States and abroad, Obama will be there with his fellow Muslims in spirit.”

Klayman, who links to another WND article that wonders if Obama is the Antichrist, goes on to accuse Obama of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and charging that the President fears the US military “may one day rise up and oust him and his comrades,” calling on readers to pray for a coup so that “we the People will soon be liberated from this modern-day pharaoh.”

Finally, there is good news in the Middle East. The Egyptian military, having removed the Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi after he and his terrorist group hijacked the democratic process, is now in the act of systematically destroying this Islamic cancer on the Arab state’s secular body politic. But the good news for Egypt and by extension Israel, its Jewish neighbor, is bad news for Barack Hussein Obama, our so-called “Muslim president.”

In a statement issued yesterday from the stronghold of the left, Martha’s Vineyard, where the “mullah in chief” is vacationing on our dime, Obama bellowed, “The United States strongly condemns the steps taken by the Egyptian interim government and security forces.” In so doing, Obama also canceled yearly and crucial national security joint defense exercises with the Egyptian military. This is an outrage; for once strong action is taken to snuff out the Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of all Islamic terrorist groups and the parent that houses al-Qaida, and our president condemns it, leaving no doubt where his loyalties lie – not that we needed any further proof after five years of his bowing down to Saudi kings, endorsing the Ground Zero Mosque, disrespecting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, doing all he can to harm Israel and a host of other anti-Semitic and anti-Christian actions by him and his administration. But this condemnation is the pinnacle of his pro-Muslim efforts to aid the Islamic revolution at the expense of Jews and Christians and our national security interests in the Middle East and worldwide.



The hard reality is that our nation, not just Egypt pre-Morsi, has been hijacked by Islam and our president is the leader of this Muslim revolution. It is no wonder Muslims have just in the last few days felt emboldened to declare that they will wage a “Million Man Muslim March” in Washington, D.C., this Sept. 11. They have been given a virtual green light to do so by the mullah in chief. And, even if he does not show his devilish face at this highly provocative demonstration of the growing Islamic influence in the United States and abroad, Obama will be there with his fellow Muslims in spirit.

Perhaps Obama fears what the Egyptian military has done to Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood because he knows that the American people and its military, who have been sacrificed to “win the hearts and minds” of the enemy, may one day rise up and oust him and his comrades. One can only pray – not to Allah, but to our Lord and Savior – that justice will be done and that We the People will soon be liberated from this modern-day pharaoh. While Obama’s political opposition is no Moses, we hold our own future in our hands and must act soon before all is lost.

Parker: Gay Rights Advocates 'Hijacked The Civil Rights Movement' And Are 'Destroying Black Communities'

Add Star Parker to the list of Religious Right activists angry about the exclusion of singer Donnie McClurkin, an ‘ex-gay’ preacher who has likened gay people to vultures and vampires, from an event commemorating the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Parker writes in WorldNetDaily that “homosexuals have hijacked the civil-rights movement” and “have interjected the very values that are destroying black communities,” such as “the escalation of crime and disease – much tied to irresponsible sexual behavior.”

The purging of Grammy Award winner Donnie McClurkin from performing at a concert commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 civil-rights March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech should serve as yet another wake-up call to Christian black Americans.

McClurkin, a black pastor and gospel music superstar, was asked to step down from his featured performance by Washington Mayor Vincent Gray as result of pressure from homosexual activists. McClurkin preaches against the homosexual lifestyle from his pulpit and says he himself departed and was saved from this lifestyle through God’s mercy.



I would argue that it is these very efforts to purge Christian values and replace them with political power that has limited the success and achievement of the civil-rights movement. It is the collapse of black family life, the escalation of crime and disease – much tied to irresponsible sexual behavior – that has occurred over the 50 years since the March on Washington that has been so deleterious to black progress.

The civil-rights movement was a Christian movement. It is high time that the black pastor, rather than the black politician, return to leadership in black American life. It is time for the Bible, rather than political answers, to define black life.

In a poll done by Zogby International earlier this year, commissioned by BET founder Robert Johnson, 28 percent of blacks agreed and 55 percent disagreed that gay rights are the same thing as rights for African-Americans.

Yet homosexuals have hijacked the civil-rights movement. And in doing so, they have interjected the very values that are destroying black communities.

Let’s take back our movement.

Rebuild black families by restoring the centrality of traditional Christian values to black life. Only support politicians who sign onto this agenda. And give black parents the choice to get their kids out of public schools and send them to church schools.

AFA North Carolina Affiliate: Sunday Voting Imperils Our Liberties

The Christian Action League, the American Family Association’s North Carolina affiliate, issued a statement Friday praising a restrictive new voting law in North Carolina. The group is particularly pleased with a provision eliminating early voting on Sundays. “We have always opposed voting on Sunday for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Sunday is the church’s prime time for developing the character of a nation,” said Mark Creech, the Christian Action League’s director.

He adds that Sunday voting in fact imperils our freedom because “it is a Sunday-cultivated character that makes an electorate fit to guard and preserve its liberties.”

“These new laws will not create a hardship for anyone who wants to vote in North Carolina. What they will do is ensure — through ID checks and a slowed down registration process — that all of our votes count,” said Dr. Creech. “We’re most pleased that the shortened early voting period takes at least one Sunday out of the mix.”

“We have always opposed voting on Sunday for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Sunday is the church’s prime time for developing the character of a nation,” Dr. Creech said. “It is a Sunday-cultivated character that makes an electorate fit to guard and preserve its liberties.”

Of course, Sunday early voting hours have been particularly popular among faith communities. In 2008, a “souls to the polls” drive in black churches led to 37,000 people in North Carolina casting Sunday votes. Last year, it was a similar success.
 

Focus on the Family Spokesman Distances Himself from Dobson While Mefferd Is Curious About Pro-Gay Group's '666' Address

Focus on the Family spokesman Glenn Stanton, who called same-sex unions satanic, ironically told virulently anti-gay talk show host Janet Mefferd in an interview yesterday that the Religious Right should move away from the polarizing rhetoric of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and James Dobson, the founder of Focus. While discussing a study pointing to greater acceptance of gay rights among evangelicals, Stanton said that people are moving away from the tactics and style of leaders like “Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, you know even speaking here from Focus, Dr. Dobson.”

Stanton said that activists who aren’t “fire breathing” conservatives are having a stronger appeal, such as the late Chuck Colson: “People aren’t reacting against that, they are reacting against certain manifestations of the culture war and in some sense we can say you know what some of those things were fine for the 70s but we are in a new age and we need to address these issues in truth and in a very different kind of way. I think Chuck Colson, who we don’t have anymore, was a wonderful example of that kind of thing.

That’s right, Stanton thinks that the Religious Right leader who said gay marriageinvites terrorist attacks,gravely damages children, leads to the end of democracy and a Nazi-style dictatorship and unleashes “cultural Armageddon,” and longed for the day when homosexuality was condemned as “sexually deviant” and “ shameful and embarrassing” is a figure of moderation.

Just in case you thought that anti-gay activists were toning down their rhetoric in any way, prior to the interview Mefferd discussed the lawsuit against Scott Lively over his role in Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill. She “found it interesting” that the Center for Constitutional Rights, a pro-gay group representing Sexual Minorities Uganda in the case, is located at 666 Broadway, New York, and wondered if the organization “sought out the address.” “Not that that means anything, just interesting.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious