C4

AFA Kentucky Affiliate Claims School Prayer Ban Led to AIDS Epidemic

The American Family Association of Kentucky sent out an appeal to its members today asking them to sign a petition calling for a law legalizing school prayer in the state, similar to “inspirational message” bills recently passed in Florida and Mississippi.

The petition asserts that the 1962 Supreme Court decision prohibiting government-led prayer in schools was pushed by “anti-God forces” and led to a myriad of social ills, including a rise in teen pregnancy and violent crime, and “the AIDS epidemic and the drug culture.”

Legalizing school prayer is “one of the best ways of returning God’s protection to America,” the petition adds.

One of the best ways of returning God’s protection to America
is by putting prayer back in our schools.

FLORIDA AND MISSISSIPPI HAVE ALREADY PUT PRAYER (RELIGIOUS SPEECH) BACK INTO THEIR SCHOOLS! STUDENTS PRAYING AGAIN WILL EVENTUALLY TURN OUR COUNTRY BACK TO GOD!

Children in Florida and Mississippi are now allowed to pray in school assemblies (give an inspirational message) because their governors signed bills into law in Florida in 2012 and in Mississippi in 2013. The media has made this fact one of the best kept secrets.

Prayer was in our schools for over 200 years before the anti-God forces took it out in 1962. After prayer was removed from our schools, teen pregnancy went up 500%, STD’s went up 226%, violent crime went up 500% and SAT scores went down for 18 years in a row, opening the door for the AIDS epidemic and the drug culture.

WE NEED PRAYER BACK IN SCHOOLS! Please sign this petition.

Sincerely,
Frank Simon, Director
American Family Association of KY

 

Flashback: When Republicans Thought It Was Okay For Judicial Nominees to Have Opinions

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee spent yesterday’s confirmation hearing on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Nina Pillard harping on two points: first, that they think the D.C. Circuit doesn’t need its three vacancies filled, and second, that they think Pillard’s arguments as an academic mean she would disregard the law as a judge.

As it happens, when George W. Bush was the one nominating federal judges, the very same senators held the exact opposite view on both of these issues.

As People For the American Way has extensively shown, the argument that the D.C. Circuit doesn’t need judges holds no water – in fact, Bush nominees Thomas Griffith and John Roberts (now Chief Justice) were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit when each active judge’s caseload was significantly lower than it is today. 

And Republican attacks on Pillard’s academic writings also directly contradict their previous statements on Bush nominees with academic records. As Pillard noted in her hearing, "Academics are paid to test the boundaries and look at the implications of things. As a judge, I would apply established law of the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit."

Just a few years ago, Republican senators agreed. On the nomination of Tenth Circuit judge Michael McConnell, who took a number of far-right stands as an academic, including disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision declaring that a university ban on interracial dating constituted racial discrimination, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said, “The diversity of backgrounds and points of view are often the stitches holding together the fabric of our freedoms.”

“Surely, we can’t vote for or against a nominee on whether they agree with us on any number of a host of moral and religious issues, ” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions said of Eleventh Circuit nominee William Pryor, a far-right culture warrior who was outspoken in opposition to gay rights, women’s rights and the separation of church and state.

Then-Sen. Jim Demint defended D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, one of the most outspoken conservative ideologues on the federal bench today, by saying, “A person with strong beliefs and personal convictions should not be barred from being a judge. In fact, I would rather have an honest liberal serve as a judge than one who has been neutered by fear of public opinion.”

And before the Senate confirmed Arkansas District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes, who used Todd Akin’s line about pregnancy from rape before Todd Akin did, Hatch told concerned colleagues,  “This man is a very religious man who has made it more than clear that he will abide by the law even when he differs with it.”

These Bush nominees held positions that were clearly far out of the mainstream, yet Senate Republicans demanded and got yes-or-no confirmation votes on them, helping Bush to shift the federal judiciary far to the right.

What some Judiciary Committee Republicans objected to at yesterday’s hearings is what they apparently see as Pillard’s excessive support for women’s equality, both as an attorney and an academic. Pillard won the Supreme Court case opening the Virginia Military Institute to women and worked with Bush administration officials to successfully defend the Family and Medical Leave Act.  She has strongly defended reproductive rights and criticized abstinence-only education that sends different messages to boys and girls. It’s this record that  her Republican opponents have distorted beyond recognition.

By any measure, Pillard is well within the mainstream, and has made it very clear that she understands that the role of a judge is to apply existing law regardless of one’s personal views. But while Senate Republicans made plenty of excuses for Bush nominees who were far outside the mainstream, they are accusing Pillard of being just too much of a women's rights supporter to fairly apply the law.

PFAW

Liberty Counsel Asks Facebook Friends to 'Like' Biblical Death Penalty for Gays

Update: Liberty Counsel has since removed the photo from their page and photo albums.

We know that Liberty Counsel has praised countries that criminalize homosexuality, so it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that Liberty Counsel is citing Leviticus 20:13, which commands that gays are to be put to death, on its Facebook cover photo:

We are eagerly awaiting Liberty Counsel’s other Facebook images on stoning women who had sex before marriage; adultererskids who curse their parents; blasphemerssorcerers; Sabbath-breakers and false prophets.

Flashback: When Republicans Thought It Was Okay For Judicial Nominees to Have Opinions

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee spent yesterday’s confirmation hearing on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Nina Pillard harping on two points: first, that they think the D.C. Circuit doesn’t need its three vacancies filled, and second, that they think Pillard’s arguments as an academic mean she would disregard the law as a judge.

As it happens, when George W. Bush was the one nominating federal judges, the very same senators held the exact opposite view on both of these issues.

As People For the American Way has extensively shown, the argument that the D.C. Circuit doesn’t need judges holds no water – in fact, Bush nominees Thomas Griffith and John Roberts (now Chief Justice) were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit when each active judge’s caseload was significantly lower than it is today. 

And Republican attacks on Pillard’s academic writings also directly contradict their previous statements on Bush nominees with academic records. As Pillard noted in her hearing, "Academics are paid to test the boundaries and look at the implications of things. As a judge, I would apply established law of the U.S. Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit."

Just a few years ago, Republican senators agreed. On the nomination of Tenth Circuit judge Michael McConnell, who took a number of far-right stands as an academic, including disagreeing with a Supreme Court decision declaring that a university ban on interracial dating constituted racial discrimination, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said, “The diversity of backgrounds and points of view are often the stitches holding together the fabric of our freedoms.”

“Surely, we can’t vote for or against a nominee on whether they agree with us on any number of a host of moral and religious issues, ” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions said of Eleventh Circuit nominee William Pryor, a far-right culture warrior who was outspoken in opposition to gay rights, women’s rights and the separation of church and state.

Then-Sen. Jim Demint defended D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, one of the most outspoken conservative ideologues on the federal bench today, by saying, “A person with strong beliefs and personal convictions should not be barred from being a judge. In fact, I would rather have an honest liberal serve as a judge than one who has been neutered by fear of public opinion.”

And before the Senate confirmed Arkansas District Court Judge J. Leon Holmes, who used Todd Akin’s line about pregnancy from rape before Todd Akin did, Hatch told concerned colleagues,  “This man is a very religious man who has made it more than clear that he will abide by the law even when he differs with it.”

These Bush nominees held positions that were clearly far out of the mainstream, yet Senate Republicans demanded and got yes-or-no confirmation votes on them, helping Bush to shift the federal judiciary far to the right.

What some Judiciary Committee Republicans objected to at yesterday’s hearings is what they apparently see as Pillard’s excessive support for women’s equality, both as an attorney and an academic. Pillard won the Supreme Court case opening the Virginia Military Institute to women and worked with Bush administration officials to successfully defend the Family and Medical Leave Act.  She has strongly defended reproductive rights and criticized abstinence-only education that sends different messages to boys and girls. It’s this record that  her Republican opponents have distorted beyond recognition.

By any measure, Pillard is well within the mainstream, and has made it very clear that she understands that the role of a judge is to apply existing law regardless of one’s personal views. But while Senate Republicans made plenty of excuses for Bush nominees who were far outside the mainstream, they are accusing Pillard of being just too much of a women's rights supporter to fairly apply the law.

PFAW Calls Target’s $50K Donation to a Group Supporting Anti-Gay VA Candidate Ken Cuccinelli “Disappointing”

WASHINGTON – In response to the revelation that Target Corporation gave a $50,000 donation this year to a group supporting anti-gay Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial campaign, People For the American Way President Michael Keegan released the following statement:

“This is a disappointing move from a company that vocally supports LGBT rights. Last year, Target put out a line of gay pride t-shirts and the company has gone out of its way to talk about its commitment to LGBT families.  But through the Republican Governors Association, Target is supporting one of the most extreme anti-gay candidates in the country.  Gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli has worked to rescind non-discrimination policies covering sexual orientation, favors turning back the clock by reinstating sodomy laws, and believes that being gay ‘brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their soul.’ If Target wants to be seen as a pro-equality company, it is going to need to rethink its contributions to groups supporting virulently anti-gay candidates.”

###

Grassley Cites Anonymous Comments to Justify Rigging DC Circuit

The Judiciary Committee's senior Republican embarrasses himself and degrades the Senate with his latest stunt.
PFAW

Steve King Rests His Case: 'I Challenge This Civilization To Be Reasonable!'

Iowa Republican Steve King, who was roundly condemned for his recent comments alleging that most young undocumented immigrants are drug smugglers, took to the House Floor today to allege that his freedom of speech is under attack. In a rambling address that touched on everything from the Korean War to the George Zimmerman trial to ancient Greece, King warned that the US is on the brink of losing the freedoms of speech and assembly. The congressmen argued that people don’t agree with him because they simply aren’t being reasonable, since after all he is advocating “the most logical and rational policy” on immigration.

“I think we need a policy that’s right… for America,” King declared. “I challenge this civilization to be reasonable!”

Later, King outlined what exactly that policy looks like. “We need to build a fence, a wall and another fence,” he continued, “we need to put the sensory devices on top of there.”

Then, still defending his remarks painting the vast majority of undocumented youth as drug mules, he declared that he is being unfairly judged by others and therefore America is doomed to decline: “No nation like the United States of America can continue to grow and be a strong nation if we are going to judge people because they disagree with our agenda rather than the content of their statement.”

Watch:

Rush & Wiles: Obama's Civil War Starting Any Day Now

Nothing delights us more here at Right Wing Watch than having some of our “favorites” get together, and we were lucky enough to see that yesterday when Erik Rush, the insane WorldNetDaily columnist and Fox News regular, was the special guest on TruNews with Rick Wiles.

Rush told Wiles that no one, even people who actually know the definition of communism, will stop him from charging that his opponents are communists. After warning of a looming police state, Rush reiterated his call to put journalists in prison for treason: “I honestly believe that there are some news bureau chiefs who deserve to be sitting and cooling their heels in penitentiaries because some of what is going on in the press I really see as being treasonous, in addition to the high crimes that are being committed by the administration.”

The pair tried to outdo each other to see who was first to warn that Obama was a communist bent on inciting a civil war. Wiles said that he predicted in 2008 that Obama’s would incite a Marxist revolution and try to “start a civil war” just as Abraham Lincoln did.

Rush, however, saw Obama’s plan to “foment a Marxist revolution” develop “before 2007 was out.” He told Wiles that he now fears “there’s any number of things he can do to push the button and have that take place and he’s just getting his ducks in a row.”

Later, Rush charged that people who refuse to believe their claims about the looming civil war are simply in denial, lamenting that “it’s not going to be apparent to them until the bullets are flying.”

Wiles: I said in 2008 that if Mr. Obama gets in the White House he will start a revolution in this country; I warned that this was a Marxist takeover of the country. In January of 2009, I said this man is going to pattern himself—his supporters are going to tell us that he’s not FDR, he’s Abraham Lincoln. Because everybody was thinking they’re going to paint him as the new FDR, and I said in January of 2009, no, they’re going to paint him as Abraham Lincoln and the reason is his agenda is to start a civil war. I know that sounds wild and crazy.

Rush: No.

Wiles: But I really believe this man wants a civil war.

Rush: I don’t want to try to sound like I’m one-upping you but I believe that before 2007 was out, only by virtue of being one of the first people on it, I looked at this guy and I was like, if this guy gets in, he’s going to try to foment a Marxist revolution, straight up. If you look at the way things stand now, he’s got any number of ways he can do it: the economy, you know, economic collapse; race; he’s got the Occupy Wall Street people with Van Jones running them, which few people know, who is still working for Obama, which knew people know. There’s any number of things he can do to push the button and have that take place and he’s just getting his ducks in a row and of course people think that you and I are nuts when we say these things but there is ample evidence there, more than ample evidence.



Rush: I know that there are people who are either socialist or socialist-leaning who don’t advocate for a wholesale communist overthrow of the government, there are some of them who just don’t believe it and then there are a small percentage who are completely, as some would say, down with that. But what bothers me of course that it is so incomprehensible to so many people, even a lot of conservatives, that I’m afraid it’s not going to be apparent to them until the bullets are flying.

Target Gives $50K to Group Supporting Anti-Gay VA Candidate Ken Cuccinelli

Update appended.

Back in 2010, Target Corporation was forced to apologize when it came out that it had funded campaign ads on behalf of virulently anti-gay Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. The controversy hit the Minnesota-based company hard, in part because it vocally supports gay rights and has a reputation as a supportive workplace for LGBT people.

But Target didn’t stop giving to anti-gay candidates. As Abe Sauer reported at the end of 2010, Target gave a total of $31,200 to anti-gay candidates in that election cycle. And now, the company is indirectly funding one of the most extreme anti-gay culture warriors in the country, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Target reports that in the first half of this year, it contributed $50,000 to the Republican Governors Association, which so far this year has spent nearly $3 million on behalf of Cuccinelli’s gubernatorial campaign.

Target, like many large corporations, is an equal opportunity influence-buyer – it also gave $50,000 this year to the Democratic Governors Association, which is supporting Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe. But its indirect funding of Cuccinelli’s campaign raises additional questions. In apologizing to his employees for the company’s contributions to Emmer’s campaign, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel promised to launch “a strategic review and analysis of our decision-making process for financial contributions in the public policy arena” and to start “a dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including GLBT issues.”

How did that “dialogue” lead to support for an organization that is dedicating itself to supporting Ken Cuccinelli? After all, Cuccinelli not only opposes advances in gay rights, he actively wants to remove protections for gays and lesbians that have already been won. Cuccinelli wants to reinstate Virginia’s “Crimes Against Nature Law,” which would outlaw oral sex between consenting adults – of any gender. In one of his first acts as attorney general, he ordered  the state’s colleges and universities to rescind non-discrimination policies that covered sexual orientation. He has said that being gay “brings nothing but self-destruction, not only physically but of their souls,” and said that “homosexual acts” are “intrinsically wrong” and don’t comport with natural law.” He even disparaged gay rights activists for trying to overturn sodomy bans and push for HIV/AIDS educations in schools.

Last year, Target launched a line of t-shirts to benefit a gay rights group, declaring itself “100 percent committed to the goal of families being respected in all communities including parents who happen to be LGBT."  Yet, in Cuccinelli, Target is backing a candidate who is promising to roll back the rights of LGBT people and their families in Virginia.

Update: Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder tells us:

Target’s commitment to the LGBT community is long-standing and unwavering.         

We also believe strongly in our civic responsibility to engage in a bipartisan manner at the state and federal level in order to learn about public policy priorities and advocate on issues that affect our business, such as efairness legislation. One of the ways we do this is through membership in both the Democratic and Republican Governors Associations, both of which include several hundred other corporate members.  When paying for our memberships, we explicitly require that our dues not be used for any individual electoral campaigns or other electioneering efforts. It would therefore be wrong and inaccurate to associate our membership dues with any particular political candidate or campaign.

It’s hard to tell how supporting an organization that says its “primary mission is to help elect Republicans to governorships throughout the nation” doesn’t amount to supporting Republican candidates for governorships.

700 Club: Climate Change Helps Environment and Civilization, SUV Owners Treated Like Witches

On the 700 Club today, Pat Robertson followed a segment mocking “climatism” with an interview with Steve Goreham of the climate change denying Heartland Institute. Goreham is not a climate scientist (his degree is in electrical engineering) and the Heartland Institute regularly pushes misinformation about climate change.

Richard Littlemore points out that internal Heartland documents reveal that “Heartland advocates against responsible climate mitigation and then uses that advocacy to raise money from oil companies and ‘other corporations whose interests are threatened by climate policies.’” The group is behind an effort to promote climate change denialism in schools and a billboard campaign likening climate scientists to mass murderers.

Robertson, a climate change denier who has without a hint of irony criticized climate scientists as “nutty” and “fanatics,” unsurprisingly ate up Goreham’s claims that humans play no role in climate change and that higher CO2 levels help the environment.

“Warmer periods have actually been better for civilizations,” Goreham argued. “We have less extreme weather, we have longer growing seasons and we have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now, which is actually greening the planet.” “That’s good!” Robertson replied.

Goreham lamented that SUV owners and power company officials may be treated like witches who were burnt at the stake in the Middle Ages: “There were many people in the Middle Ages that were blamed for causing the cold temperatures and the poor crops and they labeled them witches, they burned them. And so today we blame it on our neighbor’s SUV or a power plant, it’s a little bit of a medieval thing.”

“Let’s hope we don’t burn the officials of VEPCO,” Robertson joked, referring to the Virginia Electric and Power Company.

Later, Goreham said that people in New York, San Francisco and Bangladesh should be “rejoicing” about warming as “all the climate models are wrong.”

Watch:

VCY America Laces Into Dominionism, New Apostolic Reformation

In 2010, Janet Porter lost her radio show on Voice of Christian Youth America (VCY America) due to concerns of her increasing embrace of dominion theology and self-proclaimed apostles and prophets. VCY America hosted a program at the time on why it considers the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), which believes that its leaders are modern day prophets, and dominionism to be heretical.

Leaders affiliated with NAR and the dominionist movement helped organize Gov. Rick Perry’s The Response prayer rally and work with many Religious Right and Republican figures.

Earlier this week, host Vic Eliason interviewed Reverend Keith Gibson of Kansas City, where many NAR groups such as the International House of Prayer are based, about his new book, “Wandering Stars: Contending for the Faith with the New Apostles and Prophets.”

Eliason alluded to Porter’s dismissal for her attachment to Seven Mountains Dominionism, which Gibson explained believes in “taking dominion over all of the institutions of this world and Jesus cannot return until the church does that.”

Gibson also noted that false prophets in the Old Testament were stoned to death:

NAR leader Rick Joyner of MorningStar Ministries, Gibson notes, believes that his writings are “higher than the level of the authority he gives to than the New Testament epistles” and that Jesus Christ was only “a man for a time.”

Gibson also criticized Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer and his role in the Toronto Blessing, which included “manifestations of barking and roaring and rolling on the floor and animal activities,” along with “apostle” C. Peter Wagner and “prophet” Cindy Jacobs.

In case you’re not familiar, here is video of the Toronto Blessing, for your enjoyment:

Ted Cruz Distorts and Ignores Nina Pillard's Actual Record

The far right is distorting what DC Circuit nominee Nina Pillard has written and said.
PFAW

LifeSiteNews: Obama Leading a 'Jim Jones Social Suicide Cult' and Anti-Black 'Genocide'

Steve Jalsevac, the founder of LifeSiteNews (Ken Cuccinelli’s favorite website), wrote a column yesterday wondering why President Obama has “not been booted out of office” and “not been charged” over his handling of the George Zimmerman case, alleging that Obama led a “failed attempted lynching” of Zimmerman as part of a “lib-leftist generated Latino vs African-American race confrontation.”

He argues that Obama has “hatefully undermined the entire social and historical foundations of the nation,” adding that he “cannot comprehend” that many Americans support him and “Obama’s Black baby-killing abortion genocide.”

“It seems to me to be a kind of Jim Jones social suicide cult under the hypnotic control of their cult leader,” he continues. “Obama is clearly leading the nation over a cliff, and yet so many are still following their leader to that cliff - and bringing everyone else along with them.”

The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin controversy gets stranger every day. The evidence of George Zimmerman's innocence against the murder charges laid against him and the subsequent acquittal have proven so straightforward that it is a wonder the president and very many others have still been going on about this failed attempted lynching of the young Latino.

One thing I fear might be generating from this is not a black vs white race war, but rather a very unfortunate, lib-leftist generated Latino vs African-American race confrontation.



As for the Black community, there can be a silver lining to it all, if only Black leaders will heed the background to Martin's story. There is a huge disproportion of social problems and crime among Black youth that can almost always be traced back to the dismal black family situation of far too many black Americans. Part of that has been playing right into Obama's Black baby-killing abortion genocide.



As for the Abortion President, never has there been any president who has so hatefully undermined the entire social and historical foundations of the nation. This case, and much more, makes one wonder why Obama has not only not been booted out of office by now, but why he has not been charged for what seems to some to be numerous cases of criminal abuse of the political power entrusted to him by Black, Latino, White, and all races of American voters.

I also cannot comprehend how Obama still has about a 48 percent approval rating. What can those 48 percent (and up to 60 percent in some areas) possibly be thinking? It boggles the mind.

It seems to me to be a kind of Jim Jones social suicide cult under the hypnotic control of their cult leader. Obama is clearly leading the nation over a cliff, and yet so many are still following their leader to that cliff - and bringing everyone else along with them.

Peterson: Barack and 'Angry Black Female' Michelle Obama Trying 'To Take Power Away From the White Man'

Jesse Lee Peterson is one of the right-wing extremists who helped organize this month’s “DC March for Jobs,” an anti-immigrant rally featuring Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Rep. Mo Brooks and former Rep. Allen West that included the usual mix of racism and hyperbole.

As one of the key figures in the Black American Leadership Alliance, which staged the March for Jobs, Peterson has emerged as one of the nativists’ favorite critics of immigration reform.

In a speech to the conspiratorial, anti-Semitic John Birch Society last year, Peterson expanded on his claims that President Obama is racist and demonic, charging that “Barack Obama hates white Americans” and represents “evil.”

He also took issue with First Lady Michelle Obama: “We have an angry black female in control and if you want to know what an angry black female can do to you, go to the Post Office.”

Later, Peterson claimed the president “wants to take power away from the white man and give it to people who [want] handouts, with socialism mentalities.”

He encouraged the John Birch Society members to push back against Obama’s black “mission” against white people by acting like parents who sometimes have to punish rebellious children: “if you don’t stand up to your kids they will take over your household and they’ll put you out if you allow them to have their way.”

Peterson wasn’t just a speaker at the event. He also said he is a longtime member of the John Birch Society and considers the organization to be like family.

“Whenever I come to speak at the John Birch Society I feel like I am coming home to family,” Peterson said. “I am a proud member of the John Birch Society, I have been a member I’ve forgot how long.”

PFAW Supports House Amendment Against NSA Spying

An amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill would impose much-needed limits on the NSA's unconstitutional surveillance program.
PFAW

Harvey: Children of Gay Parents 'Sense Deep Deception'; Rob Portman Will Back Marriage Amendment Repeal

Linda Harvey yesterday hailed Cleveland Right to Life for adding opposition to marriage equality to its mission statement, which previously focused on issues like abortion rights and stem-cell research. During a radio alert, Harvey said that Cleveland Right to Life leaders recently met with Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) and “made it clear that going forward his support for same-sex marriage will put him at odds with any official endorsement they are willing to give.”

“As part of that meeting, Portman revealed that he would throw his support behind any upcoming effort to overturn our Ohio marriage amendment.”

While Portman announced that he backs marriage equality earlier this year, the Associated Press reported this month that “the senator has indicated he doesn’t want to take a position as a campaign operative.”

Harvey later recounted her experience at a Pride Parade this year to rant against same-sex parents, suggesting that their kids intrinsically know something is wrong and are disturbed by their parents’ relationship: “Children know and sense deep deception and most children will sense something is not right with being proud of homosexuality.”

She found it “heartbreaking to see homosexuals haul their children proudly in front of thousands of people in the recent Columbus Pride Parade,” particularly a family with an “exploitative sign” which read “I love my two dads.”

Harvey hopes listeners tell the kids of same-sex couples that they should urge their parents to become ex-gays: “No one has to pursue a homosexual lifestyle and anyone with sense and genuine love for both the child and for our God and for his plans for us will tell that child the truth: lots of people have left homosexual desires and behavior to live lives consistent with the way God clearly made us.”

VDARE: Latinos Will Back Anti-Immigrant GOP Because They Want to Be White

Steve Sailer, the extremist columnist for the White Nationalist group VDARE, for years has been urging the GOP to give up on outreach to people of color and instead focus on their white supporters. Sailer’s strategy has since been embraced by the likes of Pat BuchananBryan Fischer and Phyllis Schlafly, including her group Eagle Forum.

Sailer writes that eventually, becoming the “White Party” will help Republicans gain support among Latinos and Asians who would rather join the White-GOP than the Democratic “Black Party.”

Just like Rep. Louie Gohmert , Sailer claims that the key to winning Hispanic support is opposing immigration reform.

“If Americans whites started treating themselves with self-respect (e.g., don’t roll over for illegal aliens with fifth-grade educations), the Latinos would more or less fall in line as they tried to be white in an American where whiteness is no longer demonized,” Sailer explains. “Hispanic and Asian voters should be encouraged to understand the central American political reality: they only get to choose between being the junior partners in the White Party or junior partners in the Black Party.”

If Americans whites started treating themselves with self-respect (e.g., don’t roll over for illegal aliens with fifth-grade educations), the Latinos would more or less fall in line as they tried to be white in an American where whiteness is no longer demonized.

Sean Trende told Brookings that the GOP might get up to 20 percent of the black vote someday. To me, that seems both implausible and unwise. The natural sweep of American politics is from blacks on the Left to, say, Mormons on the conservative side. In 2012, for instance, Romney got 3 percent of the black vote and 86 percent of the Mormon vote. (Of course, that gap was exaggerated by the identities of the two candidates last November, but it’s still characteristic).

Instead, my suggestion: rather than devote immense effort to pursuing a tiny number of persuadable black voters, Republicans would be smarter to concede that the Democrats are the natural home of blacks … and that blacks, as historic Americans, deserve to have a major party defer to them!

Indeed, just as Republicans are constantly demonized as the “White Party,” they should praise the Democrats for being the natural "Black Party"—the rightful vehicle for African American political aspirations, since blacks are the moral core of the Democrats.



Hispanic and Asian voters should be encouraged to understand the central American political reality: they only get to choose between being the junior partners in the White Party or junior partners in the Black Party.

When that reality is made clear, white Democratic grandees like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer might be very surprised by what happens to their Rainbow Coalition.

Alabama Government Agency Prays Against Gay Marriage

The Alabama Public Service Commission kicked off a meeting on power rates last week with a prayer against gay marriage and reproductive rights. John Delwin Jordan, who was at the meeting to testify on behalf of the Prattville Tea Party, opened up the meeting in prayer after receiving a laudatory introduction by Twinkle Cavanaugh, the head of the PSC.

After asking attendees if they believed in the power of prayer, Jordan concluded his prayer by lamenting, “We’ve taken you out of our schools; we’ve taken you out of our prayers; we’ve murdered your children; we’ve said it’s OK to have same-sex marriage, God. We have sinned.”

Birmingham News columnist John Archibald writes that the sectarian, political prayer may have helped Cavanaugh frame the debate over the PSC’s pro-corporate bent:

She gets – and Alabama Power gets – exactly what they want. They want the issue lost in passionate belief, an ideological tussle designed to pit tree-huggers against coal miners, conservationists against those concerned with jobs, liberals against conservatives.



Which is the best reason to remember what these hearings are about.

They are about Alabama Power's rate structure. Period. It is a structure – though debated to near incomprehension at these hearings – that is high for residential customers and low for industry. It allows the company to write off an $8 million salary for CEO Charles McCrary as Operations and Maintenance, at a government-regulated monopoly.

It lets the company take a return on equity 30-40 percent higher than the national average, according to testimony today that was not disputed, and allows it to take hundreds of millions in higher profits that could be saved by ratepayers and pumped back into the economy.

Setting The Record Straight: DC Circuit Court Nominee Nina Pillard Is A Fair and Unbiased Candidate

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Cornelia “Nina” T.L. Pillard to the influential Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Pillard is one of President Obama's three nominees to fill vacancies on the court, which is currently operating with nearly one-third of its seats empty.

Pillard is a fair-minded, nationally recognized law professor and experienced appellate lawyer with an extraordinary record of service. She has won historic Supreme Court victories:  she opened one of the last male-only public colleges to women, and protected the Family and Medical Leave Act. She has served two tours as a high-level government lawyer and is currently a distinguished and beloved professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Her expertise in appellate litigation led to her appointment as a co-director of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute, which assists lawyers from around the country in preparing for Supreme Court arguments, without regard to which side they represent. Her record demonstrates her superb character, judgment, and fundamental commitment to upholding the principles of our Constitution and laws.

Right-wing bloggers are already making nasty and untrue attacks on Professor Pillard, but here are the facts:

The National Review Online cited unnamed sources in a blog calling Professor Pillard a “complete ideologue.” In reality, Professor Pillard is a fair-minded, highly accomplished litigator with broad experience and an outstanding reputation for public service. She has litigated major constitutional cases brought or defended by Republican Administrations, and Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents have often written the majority opinions agreeing with Professor Pillard’s legal arguments. And prominent officials in Republican-appointed officials are supporting her nomination.

FACT:  Because of Pillard’s unbiased approach to the law, which has earned her the respect of her colleagues, she was asked to chair an American Bar Association Reading Committee that evaluated Judge Samuel Alito’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. Her committee’s evaluation led to the ABA rating Alito “well qualified."

  • The Reading Committee reviewed all of the legal writings of then-Judge Samuel Alito for purposes of evaluating his nomination to the Supreme Court. Armed with the review by Professor Pillard’s committee, the Standing Committee unanimously gave Judge Alito its highest rating of “Well Qualified.”   

FACT:  Pillard serves on the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the American Arbitration Association, the world’s largest alternative dispute resolution provider. 

  • At the American Arbitration Association, Pillard has worked with corporate general counsels and business leaders to advance the Association’s private arbitration services and mission.  Arbitration is a process favored by many businesses for resolving disputes without the cost and delay of litigation.

FACT:  Pillard has a long track record of fair and unbiased work, including litigating major constitutional cases brought or defended by Republican Administrations. And Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents have often written the majority opinions agreeing with her legal arguments.   

  • Over the past 15 years, Professor Pillard has distinguished herself as a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, where she both teaches and serves as a Co-Director of the Supreme Court Institute, preparing lawyers for argument on a pro bono, first-come basis to all lawyers who seek assistance. Over the past term, the Supreme Court Institute prepared lawyers on one or both sides of every case heard by the Supreme Court. 
  • Professor Pillard argued the Supreme Court case Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs alongside DOJ officials in the George W. Bush administration. Together, their defense of the Family and Medical Leave Act successfully vindicated a state employee’s right to take unpaid leave to care for his ill wife. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion, siding with Professor Pillard’s argument.
  • In United States v. Virginia, a case filed by the George H.W. Bush administration, Professor Pillard wrote the briefs that persuaded the Supreme Court to open the Virginia Military Institute to women, ending one of the last state college male-only admissions policies in the country.
  • In Ornelas v. United States, Professor Pillard argued that reasonable suspicion and probable cause – the defining standards for police searches and seizures – require independent review in appellate courts to clarify and control the legal rules, unify precedent, and afford law enforcement clear guidance as to when searches are appropriate.  In an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court agreed with Professor Pillard’s legal arguments. 
  • In Behrens v. Pelletier, Professor Pillard won a critical victory ensuring that local, state, and federal government officials can defend themselves adequately when sued. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court agreed with the position articulated by Professor Pillard.   

FACT: President George W. Bush’s Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh signed a letter of support for Professor Pillard citing her unbiased approach to the law.

  • Professor Pillard “is exceptionally bright, a patient and unbiased listener, and a lawyer of great judgment and unquestioned integrity. We certainly do not agree on the merits of every issue, but Nina has always been fair, reasonable, and sensible in her judgments. She approaches faculty hiring, teaching and curriculum, and matters of faculty governance on their merits, without any ideological agenda--at times even against the tide of academic popularity to defend and respect different views and different types of people.

The Family Research Council has attacked Professor Pillard, claiming she has radical liberal ideas on abortion, motherhood and abstinence only education.

The FRC wrongly attributed a quote to Professor Pillard which was actually a quote belonging to former Chief Justice Rehnquist.

  •  FRC’s Email stated: “A mother of two, Nina wrote a 2011 paper, "Against the New Maternalism," which argues that by celebrating motherhood, society is creating a "self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination."
  •  In Professor Pillard’s Article, she is quoting the majority opinion in the Hibbs case, written by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist: “Providing men with family leave, the Hibbs court reasoned, would help to change underlying gendered patterns of family care and thereby help to counteract “a self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination” – a cycle that “fostered employers’ stereotypical views about women’s [lack of] commitment to work and their [lesser] value as employees,” as well as “parallel stereotypes” of men’s overriding workplace commitment that routinely obstruct men’s equal access to family benefits that could encourage them to spend more time parenting. The radical implication of Hibbs is that we cannot end sex discrimination outside the home without changing our beliefs about women’s and men’s differential attachments to family care within it, and we cannot change those beliefs without actually shifting the allocation of care work within the family.” (Pillard, Against the New Maternalism, p. 231)
  • Additional reference to the original Rehnquist Quote: “But in a broadly worded opinion, Rehnquist said Tuesday that Congress and the courts could use stronger standards to fight sex discrimination. He detailed the long history of discriminatory leave policies and the rationale for the family leave law, which guarantees employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for family members… Before the law, he wrote, leave policies were grounded in "stereotypes about women's domestic roles" and "parallel stereotypes presuming a lack of domestic responsibilities for men." Those "mutually reinforcing stereotypes," Rehnquist noted, created a "self- fulfilling cycle of discrimination" that forced women to maintain the role of primary family caregiver.” (Court bolsters family leave, Chicago Tribune, 05/03)

The Family Research Council wrongly accuses Professor Pillard of broadly claiming that abstinence only education is unconstitutional, saying, “Pillard is so fiercely opposed to abstinence education that she has said publicly she would declare it unconstitutional.”

  • Nina Pillard: “I do not here take a position on the abstinence message itself, beyond arguing that it must not be embedded with sexual stereotypes or discriminatorily applied to women and not men.” (Pillard, Our Other Reproductive Choices, p. 962)
  • Professor Pillard does not oppose abstinence-only education. Rather, she has written that sex education, whether it advocates abstinence or not, should treat boys and girls equally and avoid sex-role stereotypes, in the interest of promoting equal responsibility on the part of both boys and girls.

The FRC claimed that Professor Pillard has ‘extreme pro-abortion’ views when in fact Professor Pillard’s academic writing on abortion seeks ways to bridge the gap between abortion rights advocates and opponents by finding common ground for ways to reduce reliance on abortion.

  • “All of these visions of sex equality and reproductive rights are ones that can be shared by people whether they view themselves as pro-life or pro-choice. If society were willing to recognize the demands of equality in these three areas, there might well be less need for abortion. Filling out the reproductive rights agenda with measures that make abortion less necessary is one way to seek progress, notwithstanding legal and cultural conflict about abortion itself.”  (Pillard, Our Other Reproductive Choices, p. 990)
  • Professor Pillard’s academic writings show her openness to viewpoints raised by abortion rights opponents: Professor Pillard consulted respected anti-abortion advocate Helen Alvaré in writing her article ‘Other Reproductive Choices’ to ensure her work considered all sides of the public debate on women’s reproductive health. In fact, Professor Alvaré is listed in the article’s acknowledgements.
  • “Feminists for Life (FFL), a nonprofit organization declaring itself in favor of equality for women and against abortion, makes some claims that resonate with those of some pro-choice feminists, and which should be common ground in the reproductive rights battles.” (Pillard, Our Other Reproductive Choices, p. 981)
     

DL Foster: 'Gay Activists and White American Slave Owners Are Two Sides of the Same Coin'

Today, another leader in the ex-gay movement has written a letter of apology for the “hurt and pain” caused by his work at Exodus International. That being said, DL Foster of Ex-Gay Pride Month is out with a new diatribe likening gay rights advocates to slave owners. After comparing himself to Harriet Tubman, this time Foster sees himself as a Frederick Douglass figure who was able to “escape the gay life plantation.”

“Gay activists and white American slave owners are two sides of the same coin, animated by the same spirit,” Foster writes. “Just like the delusional slave owners —depite [sic] their lies, imtimidation [sic], violence, ridicule and unjust laws— ultimately lost, homosexual activists will discover one day they too will lose the war.”

Reading more about Frederick Douglass and the hate he endured from the slave owners simply because he wanted his brothers and sisters to be free, reminded me of what a gay activist said recently about EXhomosexuals. “Ex-gays are as rare as the Dodo bird.”, quipped homosexual Wayne Besen who spends his waking hours attempting to do what slave owners did to Douglass, Tubman and other abolitionists. Besen uses the same strategy of the slave owners: paint the abolitionists as uneducated, unhinged loons fighting a losing battle. Ridicule became their oft used tool when outright intimidation failed to deter those bearing the message of freedom.



If you’ve noticed, gay activists religiously cite the American Psychological Association’s no change doctrine as irreversable [sic] proof that no homosexual can change. If they do, its theorized, such a person will be emotionally damaged even to the point of suicide. Or you will also hear this: “you can change your behavior, but you can’t change your orientation”. These ridiculous assertions have become the basis of passing unjust laws and prohibiting counselors from helping people who want to escape the gay life plantation. So why not just tell blacks gays that change is impossible so they can life a happy life as a slave?

As my friend explained to me, Douglass again proved that it was the slave owners who were fighting a losing battle. Douglass detailed his life as a slave with such finesse, that only a person who was once enslaved on the plantations of racist America could have written it.

Gay activists and white American slave owners are two sides of the same coin, animated by the same spirit. It reminds me of the many times homosexual activists have claimed that I was never gay to begin with. Unable to refute my broad knowledge of the homosexual lifestyle that I lived for 11 years, a Chicago lesbian angrily told me, “You were never a true gay, because true gays cannot change their orientation”. As ludicrous as it sounds, I recognized it as one of those tools they use when they run out of options against EXhomosexuals like myself who are forward and articulate emancipation messengers.



Just like the delusional slave owners —depite [sic] their lies, imtimidation [sic], violence, ridicule and unjust laws— ultimately lost, homosexual activists will discover one day they too will lose the war. Our Liberator has come and we are free.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious