Right-wing pundits continue to express shock and disgust — and hurl accusations of Satanism — at the 2014 Grammy Awards. On his radio show yesterday, right-wing talker Erik Rush cited InfoWars, the Alex Jones-led conspiracy theory outlet, to claim that the Grammy ceremony was filled with Satanic and occult themes.
He blamed this on television producer and writer Norman Lear, the founder of People For the American Way, whom he claims is “one of the biggest social propagandists ever” and responsible for putting “freaks” into the spotlight. (If Rush means that Lear put some of the first gay characters on TV, he’s correct!)
In an earlier broadcast, Rush said the awards show made him want to vomit — even though he admitted he didn’t watch it:
When Allen West lost his seat in Congress in 2012, his supporters immediately cried voter fraud based on a claim that one county in his Florida district had reported 141 percent of its registered voters turning out to the polls. The claim was bogus, because the 141 percent figure was misleading.
The actual turnout in the county was 69.56 percent, while the 141 percent figure represented the number of “cards cast.”
Since the ballot was two pages long, every voter cast two cards, hence the initial report that the number of “cards cast” amounted to 141 percent of registered voters.
Even the voter-fraud obsessed group True the Vote notes that in “St. Lucie County, ballots were at least two pages or ‘cards.’ Policy dictates that each card be counted separately, leading to a total of 247,383 ‘votes’, aka cards, cast. Divide the number by half, then exhale.”
So even though this claim of voter fraud has been debunked, a right-wing group is still citing the bogus charge in its opposition to restoring the Voting Rights Act. Speaking with the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow today, Bob Parks of Project 21 used the imaginary 141 percent figure to allege that massive voter fraud is undeniable:
An organization of black conservatives says a new bill provides election fraudsters with opportunity to potentially steal elections by nullifying the votes of law-abiding citizens.
Now the Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2014 – sponsored by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers – would create a new formula; and with it new criteria that could force even more jurisdictions to have to report to federal overseers on all matters related to the electoral process.
Bob Parks, who operates the website Black & Right, is a member of the national advisory council for Project 21.
"Having [a] federal government – especially [one] like this one that has an attorney general who picks and chooses which crimes and which offenses that he wishes to investigate, [and] which laws that they will simply ignore – it's ripe for corruption," he argues.
According to Parks, upwards of 19 states have counties with more than 100-percent voter registration. "You have situations ... I believe it was in the Allen West race in Florida where the voting was 141-percent," he recalls. "You can't tell me there's not a voter fraud problem."
Rep. Louie Gohmert, who recently unveiled his bold plan to tax the poorest Americans by taxing some of their government benefits, criticized President Obama yesterday for acting like “Santa Claus.”
Chatting with Fox News pundit Sean Hannity, whom Gohmert had invited as his guest to the State of the Union address, the Texas Republican said he wore a Santa Claus tie to the speech because “we’re going to be listening to Santa Claus tonight promising whatever anybody wants they can have.”
WorldNetDaily today dedicated an entire story to decoding a tweet sent by conservative pundit Matt Drudge that read simply, “Have an exit plan.” The right-wing outlet spoke to survivalist Marc Slavo to analyze Drudge’s tweet.
Could Drudge be predicting an economic crash? Currency collapse? Terrorist attack? Something bad?!
WND has contacted Drudge to see if he has any further explanation to what he specifically meant with his tweet.
Online blogger Mac Slavo is among those taking note of Drudge’s tweet, saying the warning, while cryptic, may be the result of direct insider information.
“Considering he once nearly brought down the Clinton administration by revealing the president’s indiscretions with a White House intern, one could make the case that if anyone has legitimate sources pouring in from across the world it’s Matt Drudge,” Slavo writes.
“Could his warning be for stock market investors regarding foreknowledge of an imminent collapse of financial markets in the United States, China and Europe?
“Or has Drudge’s access to insiders in key positions given him the ability to connect the dots for an event that may occur in the near future? Few may recall, but just three weeks ahead of the September 11th attacks, Drudge headlined warnings of possible strikes on U.S.-based targets, so there may well be a credible insider source for his most recent warning as well.”
Slavo goes on to note that while Drudge’s latest comments could be referring to anything, “given the types of stories he’s covered in recent years we could make the case that he is referring to worst-case scenarios.
“His exit plan warning may encompass any number of potential scenarios such as a coming shock to financial markets, evacuating major cities in an emergency, preparing for the destruction of our currency, or having a way to get out of the United States in the event of a Soviet-style purge.
“Whatever the case, Matt Drudge understands that his views and comments are followed by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, thus we are confident that he would not publicly issue such a warning unless he has access to credible information that supports his claims. That being said, we urge readers to remain vigilant.”
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.
- Dr. Jim Garrow -
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 Watch during 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 widely considered 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 because it “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.
Tea Party activist Selena Owens, whose Conservative Campaign Committee is trying to air a Super Bowl ad thanking Ted Cruz for shutting down the government over Obamacare, writes in WorldNetDaily today that she was offended by the “blasphemous” Grammy Awards.
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 fewrecent tirades 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.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert rallied a fawning audience at a Tea Party gathering in South Carolina two weeks ago for his proposal for a massive expansion of federal taxes, a plan based on the right-wing myth that too many Americans lack “skin in the game.”
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 written quite a bit about 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.
Perhaps the most memorable candidate at the debate was Bill Connor, an Army veteran and former lieutenant governor candidate, who spent the whole debate waving a pocket copy of the Constitution.
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.
So much for the GOP’s attempt to rebrand itself as the “party of tolerance,” because Republican leaders just can’t seem to help themselves from knocking the gay community. Take Rep. Steve Palazzo’s latest online campaign attacking “GAY Hollywood’s version of matrimony” over the on-air weddings at the Grammy Awards.
American Family Association president Tim Wildmon yesterday joined other anti-gay pundits 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 rights foe 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.