WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is upset that Americans may appreciate other (read: inferior) cultures, lamenting that it all started when “the Beatles brought East Indian culture to the West.”
Rush asks: “Why in the world ought America be more like India? It was their culture that gave the British the impression they were only a few steps out of the trees, so India was colonized. The same goes for Africa.”
He goes on to explain that it is all part of a communist conspiracy, of course, that seeks to “insidiously break down our sense of national pride” and establish “slavery to elites.”
Still, for many years, I have puzzled over Americans who become inordinately and superficially enamored of foreign things. We’ve all seen the plight of starry-eyed young American girls who fall in love with a mass media-proffered stereotype of some romantic foreign male, then run off and marry one, only to discover that the man’s culture is frighteningly cloying and patriarchal, sometimes dangerously so. They wind up losing their children to a parental kidnap, or having to escape a sadistic family situation in a misogynistic regime somewhere, coming to the heartbreaking realization that their studly beau was only looking for a quality breeding cow.
We’ve also witnessed the fads that have come and gone from overseas – sometimes not going fast enough – having been brought to light by the media or some celebrity du jour. In the 1960s, the Beatles brought East Indian culture to the West, and the ripples of that introduction are still passing through the lives of Americans in the form of yoga and other such pursuits.
Why in the world ought America be more like India? It was their culture that gave the British the impression they were only a few steps out of the trees, so India was colonized. The same goes for Africa. Contrary to the claim of liberals, these things have far less to do with race than they do with culture. Here, it bears mentioning that the British did not have nearly as easy a time with China. One will also note that in recent years, both India and China have prospered by becoming more like America, rather than the reverse.
To be entirely truthful, I would have no qualms with a one-world government, had the world’s leaders determined that the American paradigm represented the most prudent course to take. But global power players have opted for a collectivist thugocracy in which cheap hustlers, decadent old-money deviants and narcissistic elites will rule like princes over us all.
Americans have the right to take a measure of pride and satisfaction in their accomplishments. It’s taken 50 years for America’s enemies to insidiously break down our sense of national pride and pervert those accomplishments into atrocities with their lies, and the collectivist (some would say communist) movement behind it has been under way for nearly a century. Thus, it will take time and monumental effort to reverse this.
But more than that, it will take the will to do so. The enemy is determined, well-entrenched and possesses the will to do things many Americans cannot yet conceptualize. They have shown that they will go to any lengths to fulfill the leftist agenda, so we must be unapologetic in our resolve and practically militant in the delivery of our message.
America’s founders were willing to risk death to break free from slavery to elites. How many are willing to take the same risk now to prevent us from slipping back into it?
Speaking at today’s Ex-Gay Pride rally in front of the Supreme Court, Chuck Peters condemned gay rights advocates for being “heterophobic,” “bigoted,” and “anti-pro-choice.” Peters is a research assistant with Christopher Doyle’s Voice of the Voiceless, a group that describes itself as “the only anti-defamation league for former homosexuals.”
“We are ex-queers and we’re not going anywhere so get used to us!” Peters exclaimed. He then went on to create his own cheer for the ex-gay movement.
“Hip hip hurray for ex-gays. Hip hip hurray for ex-gays. Hip hip hurray for ex-gays.”
Yesterday, American Family Radio’s Sandy Rios spoke to Ex-Gay Pride Month organizer Christopher Doyle about today’s ex-gay lobby day on Capitol Hill. Doyle, who was organizing the since-canceled Ex-Gay Pride banquet at the Family Research Council, complained in an interview with the Christian Post that “un-American” LGBT rights advocates have “shut us out,” explaining that “because of all this homo-fascism and indoctrination in the media, ex-gays aren’t given a fair shake.”
Rios confidently predicted that “thousands of ex-gays are descending” on Washington for a press conference planned for today at the Supreme Court. She lamented that when she led Concerned Women for America the media refused to hear “our ex-gay friends” because it “undermined the whole effort of the homosexual lobby.”
Doyle told Rios that “tens of thousands” of ex-gays exist but are “in the closet because of fear, shame and threats from gay activists.”
Well, despite the expectation that “thousands of ex-gays” would partake in Ex-Gay Pride Month, fewer than ten people showed up for the big event.
Besides Doyle, ex-gay activists Greg Quinlan of Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays (PFOX), Richard Cohen of the International Healing Foundation and Douglas McIntyre of Homosexuals Anonymous also participated.
Photo credit: Tory Roberts
Here at Right Wing Watch, we write a lot about the fringe efforts, now increasingly embraced by mainstream conservatives, to challenge Roe v. Wade in the courts by passing radical “personhood” and “heartbeat” bills. But there is a parallel effort, embraced by major conservative groups and the mainstream GOP, to gradually chip away at Roe by passing incremental state-level bills that cut down on access to abortion services.
Today, People For the American Way released a report outlining five increasingly common ways state governments are undermining women’s right to choose, including implementing TRAP laws, funding crisis pregnancy centers, imposing mandatory waiting periods, banning “race- and sex-selective” abortions, and interfering with the doctor-patient relationship.
But while extreme attacks on reproductive rights – such as radical “personhood” bills that threaten to criminalize even some forms of birth control – rightly receive significant attention and opposition, more incremental anti-choice proposals frequently escape wide notice and face minimal resistance as they become law. Often presented as “common-sense” or “women’s health” measures, these laws are in fact meant to gradually chip away at reproductive health access, undermining the foundation of long-standing rights.
By passing mandatory ultrasound and waiting period laws, or requiring doctors to provide inaccurate medical information, anti-choice politicians create a culture in which women’s rights are up for grabs. As conservatives call for smaller government, they pass laws that intrude into our most private and significant decisions, put a script in our doctors’ hands, and tell us we do not know our own minds. In addition, these laws are meant to chip away at women’s constitutionally protected right to autonomy over our own bodies in a deliberate attempt to undermine Roe v. Wade.
The report also looks at the impact of the movement to pass “personhood” and “heartbeat” bills, which even as it is rejected by voters and courts, presents a real threat to women’s rights.
Since the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s right to choose an abortion in 1973’s Roe v. Wade, anti-choice activists have been split on how to go about restricting abortion rights. Several major anti-choice groups, including Americans United for Life, argue for taking incremental measures in legislatures and in the courts to chip away at Roe’s protections. AUL’s general counsel once compared his group’s approach to carving a Christmas ham: “Each slice makes it smaller and smaller until it is no more.”
While this “slice-by-slice” approach still dominates the anti-choice movement, more extreme attacks on choice have begun to enjoy some success in states and in the U.S. Congress. These blatantly unconstitutional head-on attacks on Roe – including “personhood,” “heartbeat” and “fetal pain” measures – are frequently blocked by voters, legislatures and the courts. But even if these measures never become law, they present a real threat to women’s health: By spreading these extreme views, anti-choice activists create a culture in which established rights are questioned, abortion providers live in fear and women’s health access continues to be up for debate.
While incremental measures such as those outlined above provide the greatest immediate threat to women’s healthcare access, it is important to also understand the risks posed by extreme broadsides on Roe v. Wade. In fact, anti-choice advocates see even these extremist laws as incremental steps in chipping away at abortion rights: Even if personhood and heartbeat bills are overturned upon challenge, they have succeeded in calling abortion rights into question, and forcing pro-choice groups to spend time and money fighting these unconstitutional bans.
Read the full report here.
NewsMax TV interviewed Bill Donohue of the Catholic League yesterday where he spent most of the interview explaining that he, like the Catholic Church, has no problem with gay people as long as they are celibate or married to someone of the opposite-sex. After Donohue argued that the only purpose of marriage is procreation, host David Nelson asked him what he thinks then of married heterosexual couples who can’t have children.
Donohue said there is nothing sinful about that…since they will serve as “ready substitutes” who will raise kids whose parents have died.
He then launched into a tirade against same-sex marriage, which he said is wrong because it doesn’t have enough support from religious groups and called it “one of the most bizarre ideas in history.”
Sandy Rios of the American Family Association yesterday ranted against policies to accommodate transgender students in California and Massachusetts, even claiming that the Bay State’s “horrible” trans-inclusive guidance represents a “nightmare, Sci-Fi scenario.” While speaking with Americans For Truth About Homosexuality head Peter LaBarbera about a recent move by the Justice Department on behalf of transgender students, LaBarbera called it “public policy insanity.”
“The transgender movement shows the absurdity of the whole LGBT notion of civil rights,” LaBarbera told Rios. “Martin Luther King would be rolling over in his grave if he saw what civil rights has become according to Eric Holder.”
We have been posting videos and reports from the recent Religious Right gathering in Iowa as they become available – so far we’ve seen Rand Paul warning of the country’s collapse and Ted Cruz repeatedly attacking gay rights.
Today, the 700 Club finally featured a segment with additional footage from the summit. CBN’s David Brody interviewed chief organizer David Lane, who has predicted divine punishment on America in the form of car bombings, along with billionaire brothers Dan and Farris Wilks, the latter of whom told Brody that he is upset about the rise of the “gay agenda.”
Brody also showed footage of right-wing pseudo-historian David Barton praying over Cruz and conservative pastor Laurence White telling activists that they can sway politicians if they “change the direction of the wind.”
On the July 13 Eagle Forum Live program, Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori spoke with conservative activist former New York Lieutenant Governor Betsy McCaughey about the Senate’s bipartisan immigration bill, which Schlafly claims McCaughey is “only one known to have actually read.”
Discussing a provision of the bill (page 384 of this pdf) that would provide grants to organizations helping new immigrants through the citizenship process and with English and civics lessons, Cori claimed the real purpose of these grants would be to register new citizens “as Democratic voters.” McCaughey agreed, saying that the real goal is “tilting the scales permanently against a fair two-party system.”
“The Tea Party’s not getting any of this money,” she said.
Through the immigration bill, McCaughey added, the Obama administration is emulating the ward bosses of Tammany Hall, only “nationalizing this kind of political corruption.”
McCaughey: Under this law-- under this bill, excuse me – community activists are the ones who are going to be paid by the federal government, our taxpayer dollars, they are going to be paid to walk the immigrants through the amnesty process, collect their documents, apply for waivers, gather their families together, educate them on the principles of American citizenship, walk them all the way through the various stages of this process. And that’s really a method of pouring huge amounts of money, taxpayer money, into groups that are always affiliated with the Democratic Party.
Cori: I’m sure one of the things they’ll do as they hold their hand is register them as Democratic voters.
McCaughey: Exactly. This is tilting the scales permanently against a fair two-party system.
McCaughey: Providing permanent funding to the community organizations that are allies of only one party. The Tea Party’s not getting any of this money!
Cori: Well, do you think the IRS is going to look into these Democratic organizations?
McCaughey: No, not at all. But you know what it reminds me of? Way back in the 1930s and ‘40s and ‘50s, we had James Curley in Boston, we had Tammany Hall, these local ward bosses, and poor people and newcomers would go to these ward bosses and get whatever they needed – a job, health care, food – in exchange for their vote. Well, now the Obama administration is nationalizing this kind of political corruption. They are creating a permanent infrastructure dedicated to making the Democratic Party the majority party, and it’s all in this immigration bill.
Later in the program, Cori speculated that the immigration bill – which the Congressional Budget Office has found would dramatically reduce the deficit – could in fact “make the United States just Detroit on a large scale, in terms of bankruptcy.”
McCaughey: We certainly shouldn’t rush through a comprehensive bill. You know, the nation is facing a $17 trillion debt, and the debt ceiling is coming up. End of the fiscal year, September 30, the nation runs out of money. And we really have to pay, John Boehner said, the number one issue is to get government spending under control. And this is not the time to rush through an immigration bill that could cost the nation trillions of dollars, and there’s no accurate assessment even of what it would cost.
Cori: Well, it could make the United States just Detroit on a large scale, in terms of bankruptcy.
American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer yesterday alleged that former congressman Anthony Weiner is running for mayor in order to “create an opportunity for more jihadist activity” as part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot, led by his wife Huma Abedin. Fischer, who on Monday said that Abedin seeks to “destroy Western Civilization,” claimed that Weiner is running for mayor in order to “pull back” on the NYPD’s surveillance of the city’s Muslim community and aid “Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood and their agenda to exterminate and destroy Western Civilization.”
WASHINGTON – North Carolina’s governor signs a law forcing most of the state’s abortion providers to close. Ohio threatens to defund rape crisis centers that counsel women about abortion. Wisconsin tries to make it illegal for many abortion providers to provide care. A new report from People For the American Way, "Chipping Away at Choice," details how conservative state legislatures throughout the country are quietly chipping away at women's ability to make informed decisions about their health care, including mandating that doctors provide false or misleading information; requiring that women undergo costly and unnecessary medical procedures and waiting periods; and forcing clinics to shut their doors.
"While national attention often focuses on extreme efforts to ban all abortion and challenge Roe v. Wade in the courts, anti-choice activists are staging a dangerous parallel effort to chip away at women's reproductive rights," said Dawn Huckelbridge, policy director of YEO Action, a program of People For the American Way that represents the interests of young, progressive elected officials. "Just this week, North Carolina’s governor signed a law meant to close most of the abortion clinics in the state, making it harder for women to exercise their constitutional right to choose. Reproductive choice without access to reproductive care is an empty promise."
The PFAW report examines five growing threats to women's health care access:
"These attacks on women's health often receive little national attention," added Huckelbridge. "But women are noticing. As a NARAL poll in Virginia found this week, attacks on women’s health motivate women to go to the polls. And throughout the country, progressive state elected officials are fighting to restore the rights of women to access safe, affordable reproductive care, guided by doctors rather than politicians.”
The full report, Chipping Away at Choice: Five Growing Threats to Women's Healthcare Access and Autonomy is available at www.pfaw.org.
Ohio-based Religious Right activist Linda Harvey today expressed outrage that a district court judge ruled on behalf of a gay couple, who are both Ohio residents but were married in Maryland, against the state’s ban on same-sex unions. One of the men has Lou Gehrig’s disease and is seeking to have his partner listed on his death certificate as his surviving spouse and be buried in the same family plot.
Harvey called their lawsuit “nonsense” and charged that if the men wanted to be married, they should have married women: “There’s no discrimination or inequality, either of these men could be married to a woman.” She said that the couple is in a pretend marriage, just like a girl who pretends to be a doctor simply because she believes she is one:
Can marriage just be what anyone thinks it is? Here’s a possible analogy. Sophie wants to be a doctor, she’s never gone to medical school but in her mind she’s qualified to treat patients, even perform surgery. But the law only allows the practice of medicine by those who have attended medical school, passed the state board exams and so on. But isn’t this unequal protection? Aren’t Sophie’s fantasies valid? She believes she should be allowed to practice medicine therefore the requirements to be a licensed MD are unconstitutional for her.
That’s right: a married gay person is no different than an unlicensed surgeon.
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality was the special guest today on Sandy Rios In The Morning, where he was called in to discuss the Pope’s recent comments on gay priests. While LaBarbera didn’t think the Pope’s remarks reflected a major shift in church policy, he was worried that the new Pope isn’t anti-gay enough.
“It seems to me that the last thing that the Catholic Church needs is more homosexual priests,” he said, claiming that gay activists led a “penetration of the church” in order to molest children and shield themselves from blame: “Homosexuality has done incredible devastation to this church but you listen to gay activists and it’s like they don’t even acknowledge that, it’s so bizarre; homosexual activists never take responsibility for their own behavior and the repercussions from it.”
Rios added that gay people won’t take responsibility for the Catholic Church’s abuse scandal because they are “very narcissistic.”
When discussing recent vandalism at the National Cathedral, LaBarbera said that the Episcopal congregation was already “desecrated” by its support of gay rights.
“You could say that the Cathedral was desecrated by vandalism but I think that the Cathedral has already been desecrated by homosexual activism and sexual immorality,” LaBarbera told Rios, who asserted that the vandalism at the Lincoln Memorial was a “metaphor” for America’s decline.
Frank Gaffney is upset about the “fatuous” coverage of the marriage of Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner: “Weiner is married to a woman who has longstanding ties to a dangerous jihadist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Like the other conservative commentators demanding that the media report on debunked claims that Abedin is part of a Muslim Brotherhood secret agent, Gaffney is incensed “the mainstream media and many others are deliberately ignoring or papering over the fact that Ms. Abedin was brilliantly placed to run Islamist influence operations for sixteen years under the recently departed Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) accused President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder of acting like “despots” over the “outrageous” Justice Department decision to challenge new voter suppression efforts in Texas.
While the Supreme Court recently gutted a key enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, DoJ retains the right to ask a federal court to impose preclearance requirements on a particular state under Section 3 of the law, which the court’s ruling did not alter.
“He’s trying to reinstitute the Voting Rights Act in Texas; if I was a Texan I would be so doggone livid and mad about that I don’t think I’d ever get over it,” Hatch told NewsMax. “It just shows how this administration ignores the law; they act like they are tinpot despots.”
After arguing that the administration’s actions to protect voting rights are part of a plan to create permanent Democratic control, he claimed that Democratic-leaning states treat people of color the “like dirt”: “Some of the worst states are blue states where they treat minorities like dirt, don’t care of them, don’t do what’s right about them and frankly a lot of this liberal stuff comes out of those states.”
It was just another day on the 700 Club, as a viewer asked Pat Robertson what to do about his seemingly haunted house: “My house is haunted. There is moaning coming from the walls, lights turn on and off, the TV changes channels on its own, the beds move, stuff floats off tables, mirrors break, and there is sometimes a creepy fog. The ghosts look like people, but have dark blue light around their feet and hands. What do I do?”
Robertson joked that “if it was me I’d burn the house down and move on,” but “assuming you can’t afford that,” he advised the viewer to get an exorcism.
After explaining that he doesn’t believe in ghosts, Robertson said that the house is likely haunted by “demonic forces and you need to get people to come and do an exorcism over that property and command those demons to leave, that’s what you do…. If you can’t do that, move.”
Texas Attorney General and GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott claims the Obama administration’s lawsuit against a redistricting plan, which a federal court unanimously ruled was designed to deliberately discriminate against Latino voters, is proof that the administration is actually discriminating against Latino Republicans.
With new legal battles heating up between the Justice Department and Texas over redistricting and voter ID laws, Abbott has taken to the Washington Times to argue that the Obama administration seeks to violate “the rights of Hispanic voters who preferred representatives” who are Republicans. “The administration’s approach reveals the Democrats fear that Republican candidates were making inroads with Hispanic voters,” Abbott writes.
While around 1.4 million Texans lack voter ID, Abbott claims that “crying ‘voter suppression’ is nothing but a cynical scare tactic designed to mobilize Democratic partisans, none of whom ever will be prevented from voting by these laws,” adding that “the Obama administration is sowing racial divide to score cheap political points.”
In redistricting, the Obama administration has aligned itself with Democratic state representatives and Democratic members of Congress who already are suing Texas. It is no surprise then that the legal position of President Obama’s attorneys seeks to improve Democratic candidates’ prospects. Of course, Mr. Obama’s attorneys conceal this partisan agenda with lofty rhetoric about minority voting rights. But it is no coincidence that every change to district lines supported by the administration benefits Democrats. Behind the empty allegations of racial discrimination lies one goal — helping Democrats in 2014.
The president’s partisan use of the Voting Rights Act actually hurts many minority voters in Texas. With the administration’s support, redistricting litigation already has unseated Texas state Reps. Jose Aliseda, Raul Torres, Aaron Pena and John Garza, as well as U.S. Rep. Quico Canseco. These representatives — all Republicans — won in 2010 in predominantly Hispanic districts. In 2011, however, the Obama administration and other partisan interest groups succeeded in getting a court to draw district lines so that only a Democrat could win these seats. As a direct result, all of these Republican Hispanic representatives lost their seats in 2012 except for Mr. Aliseda, who chose not to run for re-election. His district had been dismantled altogether at Democrats request.
The administration’s approach reveals the Democrats fear that Republican candidates were making inroads with Hispanic voters. Democrats could never “turn Texas blue” if that trend continued, so they got the courts to draw district lines that guarantee Democratic victory in predominantly Hispanic areas. What about the rights of Hispanic voters who preferred representatives such as Mr. Aliseda, you might ask? They apparently don’t matter to this administration.
Similarly, polling consistently shows that Hispanic Texans strongly support voter-ID requirements, another target of the administration’s litigious political strategy. Electoral fraud harms voters of all races, and voter ID is a simple, nondiscriminatory way to help stop it. Getting an ID is free of charge for any Texan who needs one. Voter-ID laws already have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Crying “voter suppression” is nothing but a cynical scare tactic designed to mobilize Democratic partisans, none of whom ever will be prevented from voting by these laws. The administration’s absurd claim that this common-sense fraud prevention device is actually a racist plot to prevent minorities from voting would be comical if it weren’t so depressing to see an American president stoop to that level.
After the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act still works. It just no longer imposes an onerous and costly preclearance requirement that disrupts the state-federal balance of power enshrined in the Constitution. Instead of allowing the Voting Rights Act to work in a way the Constitution allows, the Obama administration is sowing racial divide to score cheap political points. The president is using the legal system as a sword to wage partisan battles rather than a shield to protect voting rights. This overreaching action undermines the Voting Rights Act and the rule of law. Texas will not tolerate it. So far, neither will the Supreme Court.