Jim Garrow reacted to President Obama’s State of the Union by once again callingforthepresident’s death, this time comparing him to a rabid dog who should be “put down.”
In a Facebook post today, Garrow suggested that Satan was behind Obama’s rise to power and called the president a “quisling agent” who should face a revolution.
"The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is at it again. Perhaps a real wolf will eat him so we don't have to listen to the lies. Rabid dogs are put down for the protection of the innocent and to prevent the spread of disease.
Our "loyal opposition" can't even yell "You lie" without offering an apology later and backing down from speaking the truth. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul made their usual attempt at truth telling but like the Scripture tells us "A prophet is without honor in his own land", and they will be ignored unless it is to hold them up to ridicule on the morning talk shows.
In the meantime the meteor of doom continues on its course with the mad man Obama laughing derisively at the "colonialist empire" he is wreaking havoc on and bringing down. The great Satan allowed its guard to slip and a quisling agent to penetrate. His work of devastation is not done and he has spread his manure of deceit across the land again.
The lonely voices of those not addled into submission to the lies find themselves Alinskied at every turn, browbeaten into conformity, or forced to disappear into obscurity for their audacity in declaring the Emperor to be unclothed, and bare faced in his lies.
Obama is revolting in his prevarication, and our response should be to revolt - period.
Surprising no one, the Family Research Council is attempting to spin a new Harvard study which found that “children raised in communities with high percentages of single mothers are significantly less likely to experience absolute and relative mobility” as a reason to oppose marriage equality. FRC president Tony Perkins and senior fellow Peter Sprigg addressed the Harvard findings on Monday’s edition of Washington Watchduring a discussion of a proposed anti-gay amendment in Indiana.
After Sprigg noted that “if a child grows up in a community with married households, that child will do better than a child raised in a community where there are many single parent households,” he said that the study affirmed his opposition to marriage equality: “This is exactly what I’ve been saying about the marriage issue, if you redefine marriage it’s not going to affect just those couples, it’s going to affect the whole community by setting an example.”
“That study then answers that question: how does my same-sex marriage affect yours?” Perkins added. “Well, it may not affect my marriage but it affects my children because it has an impact upon marriage across the board.”
Essentially, Perkins and Sprigg are arguing that by banning gay couples from getting married, they will somehow reduce the number of single parent households.
Don’t worry if that argument makes no sense to you, because it shouldn’t: it relies on an oft-repeated but discredited claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage makes it less likely for opposite-sex couples to get married.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby found [PDF] that Utah couldn’t provide any evidence to support its claim that banning same-sex marriage was necessary to curb a negative impact on opposite-sex marriage:
The State has presented no evidence that the number of opposite-sex couples choosing to marry each other is likely to be affected in any way by the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Indeed, it defies reason to conclude that allowing same-sex couples to marry will diminish the example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts. Both opposite-sex and same-sex couples model the formation of committed, exclusive relationships, and both establish families based on mutual love and support. If there is any connection between same-sex marriage and responsible procreation, the relationship is likely to be the opposite of what the State suggests. Because Amendment 3 does not currently permit same-sex couples to engage in sexual activity within a marriage, the State reinforces a norm that sexual activity may take place outside the marriage relationship.
Bob Vander Plaats, the head of the social conservative group The Family Leader, will reportedly be deciding in the next few weeks whether to run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Tom Harkin this year. While he hasn’t made a final decision yet, Vander Plaats is widelyconsidered to be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination if he enters the race, and already seems to be selling himself as a candidate.
Progress Iowa shares a video of Vander Plaats speaking at The Family Leader’s annual “Life, Marriage & Family” rally yesterday, in which Vander Plaats lays out his Christian nationalist view of government. Speaking about recent court decisions in favor of marriage equality, Vander Plaats – who led the effort to oust three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who ruled for marriage equality in 2009 – claimed that “rogue justices” and President Obama (“who is in over his head”) have “forgotten” that the American government is actually an instrument of God.
“God institution (sic) government,” he said. “He has three institutions: He has the Church, he has the family, and he has government.” He went on to explain that “the purpose of government: to promote righteousness,” which he counts as following “God’s principles and precepts” on everything from economics to family policy to foreign affairs.
Vander Plaats frequently portrays the Constitution as an extension of the Bible, claiming that marriage equality is unconstitutional becauseit “goes against the law of nature’s God” and that the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision provoked a “constitutional crisis” by “going against the document that predates the Constitution.”
The remarks start about three minutes into the video.
I happen to believe the reason you will see a leader who is in over his head, why you will see a Congress with a nine percent approval rating, and why you see rogue justices taking authority that isn’t theirs to take, is that they have forgotten, many of them have forgotten who is the Lawgiver. That God institution (sic) government. He has three institutions: He has the Church, he has the family, and he has government. Where those three intersect, that is the focus of The Family Leader. That is where we focus our attention, we focus our crosshairs.
God instituted government. That’s why we have the founders who referenced in the Declaration of Independence, ‘the law of nature and the law of nature’s God.’ Because they knew when you start walking away from the law of nature and the law of nature’s God and you start implementing your own laws about what’s best for Bob, what’s best for Greg, what’s best for Tamara, what’s best for Nancy, you will have a train wreck. there has to be a higher standard. And that’s the standard that we try to achieve here at the Family Leader, we try to promote at the Family Leader. The purpose of government: to promote righteousness.
All you have to do is look at God’s principles and precepts. They are for our good and our benefit, not our harm and our destruction. You apply his principles and precepts to economics, then your economic house is in order. You apply his principles and precepts to marriage and the family, well marriage and family is in order. You apply his principles and precepts to foreign policy, and foreign policy is in order. So, when you’re looking for the solutions, where should we look? We should look up, and not to the sides, and definitely not to the poll of the day.
Is it possible to talk about human rights abuses in Russia in the context of the Olympics and not once mention Russia’s anti-gay laws, the rising tide of anti-gay violence, or the controversy over the impact that Russia’s anti-gay “propaganda” law might have on athletes and visitors? Sure, if you’re Sen. Ted Cruz speaking at an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation.
Cruz, darling of the Religious Right and Tea Party, slammed Russia’s “increasingly autocratic” president at the January 28 Heritage event. He portrayed Vladimir Putin as a tyrant systematically working to crush Ukrainian independence and reassemble the old Soviet Union. And of course he took the opportunity to slam the Obama administration, which he said was not standing up forcefully for human rights.
Following Cruz to the microphone was Katrina Lantos Swett, Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Swett, a “proud Democrat,” detailed a litany of anti-democratic laws adopted in Putin’s Russia, including “religious freedom” and “extremism” laws that give the government wide latitude to discriminate against minority religions, including Muslims, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Pentecostal Christians. She said the Russian government is undermining civil society with severe restrictions on protests and the return of Soviet-era tactics like sentencing dissidents to psychiatric treatment. Swett did mention the anti-gay “propaganda” law in her list of Putin’s anti-democratic actions.
There are a couple remarkable things about this panel, other than finding myself in agreement with Cruz about something (Putin is an anti-democratic strongman).
First, in his 26-minute speech and during the Q&A, at an event about human rights and the Olympics, Cruz did not breathe a word about the raging controversy over Russia’s attacks on the rights and lives of LGBT people. The closest Cruz came was mentioning, as an example of Putin’s efforts to crush dissent, his moves against “a punk rock band.” Cruz joked about his unwillingness to say the band’s name (Pussy Riot).
Second, Cruz is clearly at odds with anti-gay and anti-abortion leaders in the U.S. who have been busily praising Putin as the defender of traditional values and savior of Christianity. Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber, for example, has said Putin is being allowed to “out-Christian our once-Christian nation.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer has called Putin “the lion of Christianity, the defender of Christian values, the president that’s calling his nation back to embracing its identity as a nation founded on Christian values.”
In fact there is a whole gaggle of Religious Right leaders who have, as Miranda has reported, fallen all over themselves to praise Putin and his anti-free-speech, anti-gay crackdown. And some of them have done more than just praise Putin. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage traveled to Russia to build support for anti-gay legislation. The Illinois-based Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society is excited about heading to Moscow for its 2014 “World Congress of Families” summit.
Cruz was eager to criticize the Obama administration for not advocating more strongly for human rights in Russia, but what does he have to say about his Religious Right pals who are actively praising and enabling Putin’s anti-democratic moves? And who have attacked the Obama administration’s efforts to promote the human rights of LGBT people abroad? We’re listening.
She calls the awards show “a forthright assault on conservatives” that aided the “homosexual advancement” in American culture.
Owens claims that conservatives shouldn’t “be so defensive” about their anti-gay views or “surrender” to gay rights advocates. Instead, she advises conservatives to just show how totally-not-homophobic they are: “Sometimes I deliberately go through the checkout line of the lesbian clerk to drop a few words of Jesus’ love in her ear and then compliment her haircut.”
The Grammy Awards is proof positive that the culture war has unabashedly come front and center against conservatives – let alone Christians.
I don’t watch the Grammys, but in light of all the frenzy via social media over the gay-marriage ceremony that aired live during the show, I decided to watch this segment on YouTube to understand exactly what went down.
What I witnessed was a forthright assault on conservatives.
Are we shocked or appalled that straight couples happily exchanged marriage vows alongside homosexuals and lesbians on national television? Haven’t we seen the signs all along? For decades, homosexual advancement has encroached upon Christians and conservatives. Everything from rainbows to school curriculum to parades have been hijacked by progressives, tossed to politicians and handed down to liberal activists working alongside comrades in the entertainment industry. Macklemore was not ONE voice with a few stage props who sang for ONE night. He adequately represents a culmination of years of erosion of Christian and conservative values through liberal ideology and implementation.
So what should Christians and conservatives do? Complain to CBS? Sign petitions? Blog about how awful this behavior is for society? Those are sound starting places.
I propose this: Be yourself and don’t be so defensive. I’m myself no matter the situation or people. Sometimes I deliberately go through the checkout line of the lesbian clerk to drop a few words of Jesus’ love in her ear and then compliment her haircut. Or I encourage the star-struck 17-year-old to become informed on political issues that will affect her life, then discuss those big hoop earrings she’s sporting. No defense, no arguments, no worries. I remain offensive. I’m me.
Remind yourself that conservative values are still a major element in society, and Christianity is the only answer for cultural depravity. The Grammy folks want us to believe otherwise. They took a blatant shot at us through deplorable lyrics and godless imagery and tried to frame the narrative to say that homosexuality is widely accepted as the norm. They’re wrong. Society at large does not accept that narrative. They hope we’ll throw our hands up and surrender. Don’t do it. Order my book for a “how to” approach to dealing with godless liberalism within society.
WorldNetDaily columnist Christopher Monckton thinks that democracy is in danger, and the only way to save it is by banning anyone who receives any government benefits — “everything from food stamps to Medicaid and Medicare” — from voting.
This proposal would strip voting rights from most elderly and low-income Americans; in fact, nearly half of Americans live in a household where someone receives some form of government benefit. But Monckton says that this massive voting prohibition would prevent the “death of democracy.”
The Union is now in a state of disunion. On one side of the Great Divide, those who work for a living and pay their taxes. Most taxpayers vote Republican. On the other side, those who do not work for a living and pay little or no tax. Nearly all non-contributors vote “Democrat.”
Nearly everyone who is unemployed votes “Democrat.” Nearly every immigrant, at least in the first generation, votes “Democrat.” Nearly every non-white American votes “Democrat.” The GOP know that so intellectually and financially bankrupt an administration should never have been re-elected – indeed, given the scale of electoral fraud practiced by the “Democrats,” he may not actually have been re-elected (always supposing that he had the constitutional right to hold the office of president in the first place).
Houston, we have a problem. America as we knew her and admired her is going down, sinking financially and politically under the tide of takers. For takers are also voters, and that is the problem. The taxpayees can vote themselves more and more and more of the taxpayers’ money.
Yet so little attention has been given to the death of democracy via the growing cost and reach of federal welfare programs that the word “taxpayees” has not existed until this moment. Google it and the search engine will assume you have made a spelling mistake. It will give you thousands of references to “taxpayers.”
First, the federal authorities need to know who is getting welfare benefits – everything from food stamps to Medicaid and Medicare. In the future, if you want a handout from Uncle Sam, you will need to prove to him who you are. If you are an illegal immigrant, sorry, but no more handouts. If you are a lawful immigrant, sorry, but no handouts in your first five years in the United States. Period. If you don’t like that, don’t come.
Very important: If you are claiming any handout, you are not entitled to vote. Taxpayers will have the right to vote, but taxpayees will not. That way, no one can vote himself a handout.
Anti-gay activists including Rush Limbaugh, Fox News’ Todd Starnes, and the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer and Tim Wildmon have been having a field day this week attacking the Grammy Awards for hosting a performance involving a mass marriage that included same-sex couples. Today, the Illinois Family Association, the state affiliate of the AFA, joined the fray, sending out an email attacking the awards show for contributing to the “destruction of marriage.”
IFI’s “cultural analyst” Laurie Higgins writes that the Grammys were “a tragic freak show” and “a gawdy[sic] spitball hurled in the all-seeing eye of a holy God.”
The wedding ceremony, Higgins writes, was “a sorry, sick, non-serious ceremony that looked like something from the garish dystopian world of the Hunger Games” and “a non-wedding festooned with all the indulgent gimcrackery [sic] of Satan's most alluring playground: Hollywood.” She particularly attacks “homosexual faux-pastorette” Queen Latifah and “the Dorian Gray-esque” Madonna for taking part in the proceedings.
But Higgins disapproval goes beyond the same-sex marriage portion of the entertainment. She also criticizes Beyoncé -- the object of a fewrecenttirades from the Right -- for providing a “vulgar anti-woman, anti-marriage performance” that Higgins compares to “soft-core porn.”
“Beyoncé has abused her power as a beloved role model for young girls to teach them terrible lessons about sexuality and marriage,” Higgins writes. Her anger extends also to Beyoncé’s husband Jay-Z, whom she claims “seems to revel in the lustings of strangers for his wife.”
“Is it money that motivates his eager embrace of his wife's immodesty, or pride that he has access to her body when all other leering men do not?” Higgins asks. “If it's money, how is he different from a pimp?”
This past Sunday night's Grammy awards was a tragic freak show that demonstrated the entertainment industry's arrogance, ignorance of marriage, and disregard for children. It was a gawdy spitball hurled in the all-seeing eye of a holy God.
The spectacle was bookended by a soft-core porn performance by the not-single lady Beyoncé who twerked and jerked her half-revealed derriere in a series of "dance" moves that simulated sex and stimulated sexual appetite, while the crowd cheered in puerile excitement.
Beyoncé was later joined by her husband Jay-Z who seems to revel in the lustings of strangers for his wife. What kind of man gets pleasure from his wife's flaunting of her sexuality and from the certain knowledge that men desire to do things to his wife because of her arousing dress and actions? Is it money that motivates his eager embrace of his wife's immodesty, or pride that he has access to her body when all other leering men do not? If it's money, how is he different from a pimp?
Beyoncé's performance reinforced the cultural deceit that modesty and the notion that conjugal love is private are archaic puritanical irrelevancies. Beyoncé has abused her power as a beloved role model for young girls to teach them terrible lessons about sexuality and marriage. Her performance raises many questions:
What motivates a young, married mother to flaunt her partially-exposed sexual anatomy to the world and simulate sex movements?
Deep down is this what she truly wants to do?
Deep down does she really want her husband to delight in the objectification and commodification of her body for the prurient pleasures of other men?
Would Jay-Z and Beyoncé want their daughter to one day perform like her mother for the pleasures of men? What would they think about an 18-year-old Blue Ivy recreating her mother's performance but in a seedy club for the eyes of less expensively attired and botoxed men and women?
Is Beyoncé comfortable with her father watching her performance?
What kind of mixed message does this performance send to children? Parents and pediatricians tell children that parts of their bodies are "private parts" that only parents and doctors should look at or touch. We convey that message to them from the earliest prepubescent ages. So, what happens after sexual maturity? Do those "private parts" suddenly become public parts?
Is modesty in dress the same as prudery, or is it a virtue to be cultivated?
Beyoncé's vulgar anti-woman, anti-marriage performance foreshadowed the climactic setpiece of the evening: Queen Latifah, long-rumored to be a lesbian, officiated at the "weddings" of 33 couples, many of whom were same-sex couples, while accompanied by the preachy, feckless song "Same Love" by Macklemore and the song "Open Your Heart" by the Dorian Gray-esque Madonna. It was a sorry, sick, non-serious ceremony that looked like something from the garish dystopian world of the Hunger Games, replete with a cheering sycophantic audience, faux-stained glass windows, a faux-choir, a homosexual faux-pastorette, and "Madonna" with her faux-face. It was a non-wedding festooned with all the indulgent gimcrackery of Satan's most alluring playground: Hollywood.
Former congressman and Clinton/Obama impeachment crusader Bob Barr is mounting a comeback campaign to win the Georgia congressional seat currently held by Rep. Phil Gingrey. And lucky for Barr, he has won the support of Alex Jones.
On his show last week, the InfoWars host saluted the Republican candidate’s supposed bravery in leading the fight to impeach President Clinton, telling him that “a lot of people died that went against Clinton, a lot of airplanes blew up, a lot of people got shot in the head five times and it does take backbone to try to impeach somebody when you’re going against gangsters like this.”
“We’ve got to get rid of the Clinton mafia and I think what you’re hinting at is that if we put you back into Congress, you are going to start investigating, bringing charges of impeachment up in the House,” Jones said.
Barr, who discussed his plans to impeach President Obama at November’s “Second American Revolution” rally, told Jones that he intends to recycle the articles of impeachment he brought against Clinton to use against Obama: “I took that documented, figuratively dusted it off, added a little language to it, and darned if it doesn’t sound pretty good with Barack Obama’s name in there.”
Later, Jones praised Barr’s congressional campaign. “We need to get him in there,” he said. “We’re going to pray and hope you get in there.”
After calling for a flat tax in order to provide “fairness” the Texas Republican said that the poorest Americans who rely on public programs should pay federal income taxes, even if they are simply returning government transfers.
“What if you’re so poor that the only money you have is what the government gives you? I wondered, isn’t that wasting money, you give it and you take it back?” Gohmert pondered. “No that gives you an investment in the country and we need that.”
We’ve writtenquite abitabout South Carolina state senator Lee Bright, who is challenging Sen. Lindsey Graham in the state’s Republican primary this year. But Bright is hardly alone in the race to topple Graham. Over Martin Luther King, Jr. Day weekend, the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition held a convention that included a lively debate between Bright and his three fellow Tea Party candidates vying for the chance to face Graham in a runoff.
We put together a highlight reel of Connor’s commentary during the debate, including his assertions that the Europeans he fought alongside in Afghanistan were less hard-working and ingenious than American soldiers because “Europe had gone socialist” and “post-Christian”; that Congress should impeach President Obama over his executive order implementing part of the DREAM Act; that the separation of church and state has led “atheism to be our national religion”; and that Congress should disband federal appeals courts that enforce church-state separation because “if you’re being biblical, you’re doing your job as a judge.”
Another memorable moment was when the moderator asked all four candidates to react to Sen. Graham’s former support for legislation to combat climate change.
The first candidate, businesswoman Nancy Mace, claimed that a recent freeze disproved the fact that climate change exists. Bright contended that climate change was a “scam” concocted by people out to make money. Another candidate, Richard Cash – who owns a “fleet of neighborhood ice cream trucks” --was “open to the idea that there’s possibly global warming,” but claimed that there’s not “enough evidence” yet to create policy. Connor, for his part, called climate change “gobbledygook,” a point he illustrated by asking everybody in the audience to take a deep breath and breathe it out, then telling them, “you’re putting carbon deposits in the air and you’re causing global warming.”
And a roundup of the debate would not be complete without Cash’s opening statement, in which he edited Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech to be about banning abortion.
American Family Association president Tim Wildmon yesterday joined other anti-gaypundits in criticizing the Grammy Awards for a performance that included a wedding service for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, which Wildmon said shows that liberals are “force feeding the American public” with homosexuality.
“Hollywood, the entertainment industry and the political left just can’t get enough ‘gay,’” Wildmon said.
He also attacked President Obama for inviting openly gay NBA player Jason Collins to the State of the Union address: “President Obama now has invited an NBA player to sit in the gallery for the State of the Union speech precisely because he has sex with other men and is proud of it. These people don’t just want acceptance, they want middle America’s approval.”
Tim Graham of the Media Research Center accused the Grammys of trying to “flush the Bible on national TV,” while Family Research Council senior fellow Peter Sprigg said the award show has been “shamelessly exploited in support of a radical social and political agenda.”
“Hollywood, the entertainment industry and the political left just can’t get enough ‘gay,’” American Family Association president Tim Wildmon told LifeSiteNews. “They are force feeding the American public. We have ‘Kinky Boots’ which are cross-dressers in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade, we got a homosexual wedding float in the Rose Bowl Parade and now we are pushing ‘gay marriage’ during the Grammy Awards. President Obama now has invited an NBA player to sit in the gallery for the State of the Union speech precisely because he has sex with other men and is proud of it. These people don’t just want acceptance, they want middle America’s approval.”
“It is unfortunate that CBS and the Grammys would allow an entertainment awards show to be so shamelessly exploited in support of a radical social and political agenda,” Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council, told LifeSiteNews. “It’s ironic that these ceremonies accompanied a song, ‘Same Love.’ The government has no legitimate interest in ‘love’ alone, but it does have an interest in encouraging procreation and mother-father households.”
The on-air same-sex “weddings” were the brainchild of Grammy producer Ken Ehrlich, who told theNew York Times he got the idea from his lesbian daughter, who told him that Macklemore and Lewis sometimes allow couples to propose marriage onstage during concert performances of “Same Love.” Ehrlich said he suggested the duo “[take] it a step further with a full wedding.”
But Ehrlich denied that it was just a stunt. “We’re serious about this,” he told the Times. He added that while he personally believes marriage should be redefined to include same-sex couples, “I would not want to make a broad statement that it represents the views of the [National] Academy [of Recording Arts and Sciences] or the CBS television network.”
But Tim Graham, director of media analysis for the conservative Media Research Center, strongly disagreed.
“They can say this is not a stunt, but that's exactly what it is, a piece of musical agitprop to mock the traditional values of conservative American Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others,” Graham wrote on the NewsBusters blog. “Entertainers never want to have a debate, just a series of arrogant ‘statements’ with no opportunity for a conversation as they flush the Bible on national TV.”
Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois, took to LifeSiteNews during last week’s March for Life to defend his recent performance of an anti-gay exorcism. The gay rightsfoe explained that he performed the “minor exorcism” in order to “renounce Satan and break our relationship with the Devil” and “drive out the Devil from his influence that seems to be pervading our culture.”
He called the exorcism a “fitting” response his home state’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage, adding that it is appropriate for a time when the “church is under persecution or some opposition, and certainly the redefinition of marriage is very much in opposition to God’s plan for married life.”
Paprocki said that the exorcism was done out of love for gay people, whom he explained need to be disciplined like children being punished by their parents: “Like any good parent will tell you that sometimes you have to disappoint your child, sometimes you have to say ‘no’ and sometimes you even have to punish them.”
According to Alan Keyes, President Obama’s recent statement that he doesn’t think marijuana “is more dangerous than alcohol” makes him just as bad as the hijackers in the September 11 attacks.
Keyes, who was Obama’s GOP opponent in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, writes in Renew America today that “Obama himself” may have “long-term individual damage” from smoking pot when he was young, which Keyes believes has “grave implications for the welfare of the nation as a whole.”
The right-wing activist is also upset about TV shows “saturated” with “zombies, vampires, beastly human-animal hybrids, amoral thugs, and anti-heroes,” adding that such programs “may yet prove more destructively potent than the Nuremburg rallies, or the Hitlerjugend, as factors for producing virtually soulless, self-glorifying perpetrators of atrocity.”
Keyes claims liberal marijuana laws, along with the teaching of evolution, are attempts to “affect the moral judgment and character of the American people” and undermine “America’s liberty.”
“Much like the terrorists who targeted the Towers in New York, which symbolized America's material commerce, these scornful elitists target the pillars of moral and spiritual commerce that uphold our political constitution,” he writes. “But when liberty's pillars fail, the smoke that rises from their crater will signify the fatal triumph of our stupefaction, courtesy of those, like Obama, who are working hard to make us too stupid to be free.”
"Stupéfiant" is a French word for "drug." It is a compound word with roots that literally mean "to put someone into a stupor," to induce a state of mental numbness in which you are unable to think normally. More pungently put, it describes things that make you stupid.
I thought of this recently as I read a report of Obama's indulgent attitude toward marijuana. He claimed that it's less dangerous than alcohol. The salient question is, "Dangerous to whom or in what way?" With respect to individuals, his nonchalance is certainly debatable. As WND's Art Moore has pointed out, data from "an extensive four-decade study published in 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences showed marijuana can lower the IQ of young teenagers and may cause permanent mental impairment" – "a neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife."
Moore points out evidence that lends support to the conclusion that Obama himself may be an instance of this kind of long-term individual damage. But given the office he presently occupies, this compels us to remember that in America, such damage to individuals has grave implications for the welfare of the nation as a whole. After all, the person who occupies the office of president is supposed, among other things, to represent the sovereign interests of the American people.
Yet the TV shows, movies, and games massively promoted by these very elites are increasingly saturated with themes (zombies, vampires, beastly human-animal hybrids, amoral thugs, and anti-heroes who shadow forth every conceivable variety of conscienceless evil) that preoccupy the soul with evil. They focus on concepts, tools, and stratagems for the wholesale violation and degradation of human beings. Rejecting the Christian challenge ("Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good"), their preferred depictions of supposedly humanitarian heroes are often molded according to the treacherous maxim "It takes evil to fight evil."
Thus, righteous indignation is made to flow in channels of wickedness, as if there is no weapon in the arsenal of God's creation potent enough to overcome the power of every imaginable evil. Such "entertainments" may be the most insidious kind of disinformation. And they may yet prove more destructively potent than the Nuremburg rallies, or the Hitlerjugend, as factors for producing virtually soulless, self-glorifying perpetrators of atrocity.
But even in the educational institutions we more formally recognize as such, the leading lights of the elitist faction not only promote, they insist upon, an understanding of humanity (the God-denying version of the theory of evolution) that tendentiously abuses the rubric of science. Indeed, it suppresses the very idea of humanity as such (human nature), in order to discredit the moral and spiritual dimensions of the human condition. Yet these are the very aspects of humanity that inform the practical wisdom required to justify and sustain decent liberty.
Why would an individual sworn to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States show such little concern respecting things that assault the practical basis for the form of government it establishes? There is no answer consistent with his oath. Instead, such nonchalance is solid evidence that Obama targets America's liberty, as do all those who belittle the significance of issues that affect the moral judgment and character of the American people.
Much like the terrorists who targeted the Towers in New York, which symbolized America's material commerce, these scornful elitists target the pillars of moral and spiritual commerce that uphold our political constitution. But when liberty's pillars fail, the smoke that rises from their crater will signify the fatal triumph of our stupefaction, courtesy of those, like Obama, who are working hard to make us too stupid to be free.
Anti-gay commentators were none too pleased with last night’s performance of Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’ “Same Love” at the Grammy Awards, which included a ceremony where thirty-four couples — including same-sex couples — were married. Unsurprisingly, many claimed that the show was evil and mean to anti-gay activists.
Here are five of the angriest anti-gay reactions to last night’s show:
5. Grammys MakeMe Want To Vomit, SendUs To Hell
Conservative commentator Erik Rush admitted he didn’t actually watch the Grammy Awards last night, but still observed that the “Same Love” performance “makes you want to vomit.”
Rush said the performance was led by “a disgusting pack of subverts” who want America “shepherded down the path to Hell.”
4. Boycott GrammySponsors
Serial hoaxer/right-wing activist Jim Garrow insisted the people involved with the Grammys must repent for turning the event into “an excuse for some to dress up and celebrate their own perversity.”
Garrow also called on his Facebook followers to boycott companies that sponsored the Grammy’s, but didn’t name names: “Pick your sponsor and boycott them. It is the only language that they understand and will bow to. Profit.”
3. Grammys Are ‘Sick’
Fox News pundit Todd Starnes lashed out at the “sick” Grammy Awards on Twitter, accusing the event of “mocking marriage” and “cramming a social agenda down our throats.” “This was not about marriage,” he wrote. “This was about bashing god and the church.”
A very-non-self-aware Starnes said he found the performance “bigoted,” of course.
2. Rush Limbaugh Sad
Rush Limbaugh insists that no one watches the “horrible” and “despicable” Grammy Awards anyway…but he is still really, really upset about it: “Nobody watches, but because they have not strayed from the liberal path, they are still loved and adored and praised.”
1. Gays Run The World
Texas-based radio host Lynn Woolley reacted to the awards show in a post titled Gay Agenda takes over Grammys, writing that the “celebration of perversity” proves that “homosexuals have taken over the country.” Woolley added that he thinks being gay is just a fad: “I’ll bet it fades out with time as more and more men realize that women are pretty dang special.”
I don’t know these people, but — Macklemore & Ryan Lewis’ “Same Love” gay anthem became the theme song for 33 newlyweds with Queen Latifah officiating the marriages. As the network, CBS was complicit in this celebration of perversity. WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHERE THIS COUNTY GOES FROM HERE? Homosexuals have taken over the country and I’m just curious to see what they do next. I guess they want a gay president. Maybe a gay Pope. (!)
I dunno. I didn’t see the gay stuff, but I got bored quickly by the crap that now passes as music and I decided to pop in a disk and watch an episode of THE MENTALIST. I love The Mentalist as it is all about logic. The Grammy Awards were all about perversion. So what can we do?
I suppose that a few years from now, same sex “marriage” will be as common as divorce is now. I’ll bet it fades out with time as more and more men realize that women are pretty dang special. I guess we’ll see. I wonder what Patrick Jane would say?
With GOP leaders calling for Michigan Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema to resign over his latest anti-gay outbursts, we were surprised that Agema’s views would really be that shocking in a party that, as former GOProud leader Jimmy LaSalvia puts it, has a wide “tolerance for bigotry.”
Republicans like RNC chairman Reince Priebus may think by denouncing Agema’s rhetoric they are putting distance between the GOP and extremists. But at the end of the day, the party’s platform embraces the extreme anti-LGBT agenda that Agema represents, opposing not just marriage equality but also civil unions, fair employment practices, non-discrimination policies, hate crimes laws and LGBT-inclusive foreign policy.
And Agema isn’t the only RNC member who has been quite open about his anti-gay bigotry. In fact, it wasn’t very hard at all to put together a short, and by no means an exhaustive, compilation of RNC members who have made anti-gay claims similar to Agema’s.
Scheffler got his start as the head of the Christian Coalition’s Iowa chapter (which is now the Iowa Faith and Family Coalition chapter). Under his leadership, the group falsely linked homosexuality to pedophilia and claimed that gay men typically don’t live past the age of 47.
After he became a GOP committeeman, Schleffler blocked openly gay candidate Fred Karger from joining a presidential debate, saying that Karger belonged to the “radical homosexual community” which seeks “to harass supporters of REAL marriage.” He warned against a movement in Republican circles to push the party to support gay rights, arguing that such a move would “literally destroy the Republican Party.”
When Iowa legalized same-sex marriage, Schleffler tried to repeal marriage equality and warned that his state would become “the homosexual capital of the Midwest” and dangerous for kids. “We Iowans want this state to be a good, safe environment for our kids. You ask the average person in the street whether they support gay marriage, and they’ll say no,” he wrote.
3. Bill Armistead (Alabama)
Armistead, the Alabama GOP chairman, tried last year to purge a young Republican activist from the state GOP steering committee after she criticized the party’s hardline stance again marriage equality.
When the Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, Armistead accused the government of “hijacking marriage.” “Whether by a constitutional amendment or other means, US taxpayers should not be forced by their government to reward those who choose to engage in activity that had been banned in 35 states,” he said. “Alabama’s state law banning gay marriage will prevent these benefits from being extended in Alabama, but our tax dollars will still go to support a lifestyle that we fundamentally disagree with.”
Armistead also claimed same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy and charged that acceptance of gay people is a “sad testament to where we are as a nation,” warning that tolerance of LGBT people puts “America on a slippery slope.”
2. Debbie Joslin (Alaska)
Alaska Republican committeewoman Debbie Joslin led her state’s campaign to bar same-sex marriage and benefits as the state’s Eagle Forum leader.
Joslin also fought a proposal to require schools to adopt LGBT-inclusive policies, warning that increased tolerance would “foster confusion in the minds of our children.” In addition, she denounced openly gay members of the Boy Scouts, whom she claimed were not “healthy role models.”
1. Ada Fisher (North Carolina)
Fisher, a National Republican Committee member from North Carolina, expressed outrage when President Obama and former President Clinton endorsed marriage equality, suggesting that it showed a lack of respect for…straight people: “OK, now I’m confessing to a poorly kept secret — I am a heterosexual black female who loves men and has achieved some modicum of success. So, now will President Obama, Bill Clinton and others give me a call for coming out and openly expressing my sexual preference?”
Fisher also suggested that gay marriage harms the black community by destabilizing the relationships closeted gay men have with women. “The psychological side of my brain is disturbed by the further negative impact of changing gender roles in undermining already fragile black families…black men in the closet are coming out or remaining on the down-low, which may be perceived as another blow to viable relationships with these men at the expense of black women.”
The sponsor of a South Dakota bill that would allow businesses to deny services to same-sex weddings or any others that violate their “sincerely held religious beliefs,” told the Associated Press today that gay rights are taking the United States “down the road of Iran.”
Rep. Steve Hickey, Republican of Sioux Falls, is one of two primary sponsors of a bill that would allow any person or business to “decline to provide certain wedding services or goods due to the free exercise of religion.”
Hickey told the AP that “religious rights need to continue to trump gay rights” in order to prevent the country from “heading down the road to Iran,” an odd argument since Iran is a theocracy in which gay people can face flogging or the death penalty.
Hickey, pastor of a Sioux Falls church, said a court ruling legalizing gay marriage in South Dakota might expose him to lawsuits or prosecution because he believes in traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
“Religious rights need to continue to trump gay rights. Otherwise, we’re heading down the road of Iran, where it’s convert or die, be quiet or die,” Hickey said. “If we want to talk about church and state, this is a bill that keeps the state out of my church.”
In an interview with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Hickey seemed to oppose provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibit private businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, saying, “Let the market bear it out. If there’s some racist group, they can boycott it.” He also claimed that he would support allowing businesses to deny wedding services to Christians.
South Dakota does not currently allow same-sex marriage, but the bill covers receptions and other “wedding services or goods.” UCLA law professor Eugene Voloch pointed out to the Argus Leader that South Dakota doesn’t have a law preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so people in the state “are already free to discriminate, even much more broadly, based on sexual orientation.”
State Sen. Angie Buhl O’Donnell noted to the Argus Leader that clergy are already protected from participating in wedding ceremonies to which they have religious objections. She called Hickey’s bill “mean-spirited.”
Panicking about possible immigration legislation in the House, the communications director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is warning that any steps towards reforming the immigration system will lead to “tyranny.”
Bob Dane, the chief spokesman for the Nativist group, told Sandy Rios of the American Family Association last week that immigration reform will “split” the GOP, and as a result collapse the multi-party system of government and the system of checks and balances.
“If they split over this GOP bill you’ve got a one-party system in America and that’s one step closer to tyranny,” Dane said.
Of course, you could argue that it is groups like FAIR that are “splitting the GOP” by pressuring lawmakers to embrace unpopularpositions on immigration reform.
If the Republicans in fact endorse this amnesty bill and I expect they will and we’re going to fight hard against it, they’re going to face another type of retreat, the one they’re coming out of with their amnesty principles, they’re going to be facing the retreat of disillusioned conservative voters starting to look for other options. We don’t want that. If the GOP splits — if the GOP needs party unity, at any point, it’s right now, but if they split over this GOP bill you’ve got a one-party system in America and that’s one step closer to tyranny. You always need checks and balances, not only within the framework for the government itself but a two-party system is vitally important for democracy.
When conservative writer and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza was indicted last week on campaign finance charges, we suppose we should have known that it was only a matter of time before D’Souza’s supporters claimed that he was politically targeted by a vengeful Obama administration.
Conservative columnist Rachel Alexander promptly declared that the Obama administration had “criminalize[d] dissent.” Laura Ingraham claimed, “This indictment is the kind of thing that we’re kind of accustomed to seeing come out of a place like China” and speculated that the president is ultimately interested in “putting us all in reeducation camps.” Meanwhile, D’Souza’s fellow anti-Muslim activists Pamela Geller and Robert Spencercomparedthe administration to European fascists in the 1930s. Matt Drudge and the Daily Caller also joined the pile-on.
Gerald Molen, the co-producer of D’Souza’s film, “2016: Obama’s America,” also weighed in, telling the Hollywood Reporter that the administration is “criminalizing dissent” and that D’Souza’s indictment “should send shivers down the spines of all freedom-loving Americans.”
On the Steve Malzberg show Friday, Molen elaborated on his theory, telling Malzberg that D’Souza is a “great American” and citing the debunked IRS-targeting scandal to claim that the Obama administration is cracking down on dissent. “I’ve never had the occasion to think that I had to fear my government, I’ve never had the thought that I had to have a reason to look over my shoulder until now.”
Speaking to a Tea Party group late last year, retired Army general and Fox News pundit Paul Vallely insisted that he doesn’t want to see a revolution take place…but if a revolution does happen then he will be happy to lead it.
Vallely reminisced about how he once discussed plans to “surround the White House and surround the Capitol building” with 250,000 marines, adding that “it’s going to take physical presence” to make elected officials heed their demands.
“I’m not inciting a revolution but we’ve got to get more physical and stand up and protest,” Vallely insisted. “I don’t want to be criticized for starting a revolution, but I’d certainly head it if we had to. We all love a good fight if it’s worth it, right?”