Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd is using an attempted murder case in Jacksonville, Florida, to attack protections for the transgender community. On her Facebook page, Mefferd links to a New York Daily News article about how “a Florida man tried to kill a 9-year-old-girl in a Best Buy bathroom,” but was stopped after a customer heard the screams and informed the staff.
Although the suspect is not transgender and Jacksonville does not have a policy on sexual orientation and gender identity protections, Mefferd claims that the case is evidence that transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances, or, as she calls them, “bathroom bills,” are “horrible pieces of legislation that need to be defeated.”
UPDATE: Robertson's CBN yanked our video off YouTube, but you can still watch it here on Daily Motion. It was also taken down by Vimeo:
UPDATE II: A third party (we wonder who!) flagged the Dailymotion video for "infringing upon [their] intellectual property rights." It is now available on Flickr.com.
UPDATE III: YouTube has restored the video in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson told co-host Terry Meeuwsen that gay men in cities like San Francisco attempt to spread HIV/AIDS to others by cutting them with a special ring when shaking hands. However, one could not hear Robertson make the remarks on the episode his Christian Broadcasting Network posted online, as the company once again appears to have edited Robertson’s comments after they aired.
While responding to a question from a woman who wondered if it was wrong for the church not to inform her that a man she was driving to worship services is “dying of AIDS,” Robertson admitted that he “used to think it was transmitted by saliva and other things, now they say it may be sexual contact.”
“What to say if you’re driving an elderly man whose got AIDS? Don’t have sex with them,” Robertson said, “unless there’s a cut or some bodily fluid transmission, I think you’re not going to catch it.”
But Robertson didn’t stop there.
“There are laws now, I think the homosexual community has put these draconian laws on the books that prohibit people from discussing this particular affliction, you can tell somebody you had a heart attack, you can tell them they’ve got high blood pressure, but you can’t tell anybody you’ve got AIDS,” he continued.
Despite Meeuwsen’s best attempts to steer the conversation away from Robertson’s anti-gay paranoia, Robertson insisted that gay people use special rings to transmit the virus.
“You know what they do in San Francisco, some in the gay community there they want to get people so if they got the stuff they’ll have a ring, you shake hands, and the ring’s got a little thing where you cut your finger,” Robertson said. “Really. It’s that kind of vicious stuff, which would be the equivalent of murder.”
At the 39:00 mark, you can see that CBN clearly edited out Robertson’s comments.
UPDATE: CBN has also removed the YouTube video of the exchange.
UPDATE II: Robertson issued a non-apology to The Atlantic, saying that he "regret[s] that my remarks had been misunderstood, but this often happens because people do not listen to the context of remarks which are being said."
Of course, unlike CBN, we provided the entire exchange:
I was asked by a viewer whether she had a right to leave her church because she had been asked to transport an elderly man who had AIDS and about whose condition she had not been informed. My advice was that the risk of contagion in those circumstances was quite low and that she should continue to attend the church and not worry about the incident.
In my own experience, our organization sponsored a meeting years ago in San Francisco where trained security officers warned me about shaking hands because, in those days, certain AIDS-infected activists were deliberately trying to infect people like me by virtue of rings which would cut fingers and transfer blood.
I regret that my remarks had been misunderstood, but this often happens because people do not listen to the context of remarks which are being said. In no wise [sic] were my remarks meant as an indictment of the homosexual community or, for that fact, to those infected with this dreadful disease.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) filled in for Tony Perkins on the Family Research Council's Washington Watch radio program yesterday where he interviewed ultraconservative activist Alan Keyes. He reminisced about voting for Keyes for president and different gatherings they both addressed, a conversation which naturally progressed into a discussion of how elitist forces threaten to cull the world’s population and turn everyone into slaves.
The former presidential candidate said efforts to prevent “global warming, which has been proven to be wrong,” are part of a plan to “cut back the population of the world.” Keyes also made a reference to Bill Gates, who has been attacked by conspiracy theorists for explaining that vaccinations and increased healthcare access slow down population growth.
Keyes told Gohmert that elites are bent on “culling the population” and “actually believe that we’re a blight on the face of the planet, we human beings, and we should therefore be put on a path toward our own semi-extinction. I often try to get people to see that if you think about it, if we actually get back to the levels they’re talking about, it would just be these elitists and the people needed to service them. That’s all that will be left in the world.”
“That’s right, that’s a scary thought,” Gohmert replied.
Gohmert cited a Wall Street Journal article, “America’s Baby Bust,” to claim that abortion is harming America’s future: “It’s not the fertility rate -- women, I think, I haven’t seen any evidence that they are less fertile -- it’s that we are producing less live children.” He maintained that the abortion rate among African Americans “borders on abomination, it’s just horrendous.”
Keyes blamed America’s economic problems on the breakdown of the family, which he of course tied to gay marriage.
“We’re saying that the institution of marriage is no longer to be understood of the context of [parental] responsibilities, that’s what this whole homosexual marriage debate is about,” Keyes said. “We’re going down a road where everything is all about hedonism, pleasure, self-satisfaction and self-contentment; meanwhile we’re suffering devastating economic effects.”
Larry Klayman thinks that the Obama presidency is no different, if not worse, than the Nazi occupation of countries like France, and that anti-Obama activists may need to form “a government in exile.”
The Judicial Watch founder, who has fantasized about a coup to oust Obama, writes in his column yesterday that Obama’s opponents may need to take a page from Charles de Gaulle during World War II and establish an alternative government since “our nation in 2013 has indeed been seized by modern-day Nazis, whose methods of enslaving us are far less transparent and potentially equally effective as those of Adolf Hitler.”
Surely the Obama administration and the NSA have to be held legally accountable and so too do those Republicans and other Democrats who have gone along with this outrage. A thorough investigation needs to be undertaken into this gross abuse of the rights of privacy of We the People.
And, that is the reason that Freedom Watch has filed class-action lawsuits against Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and the cell phone and Internet providers who, like Nazi Germany's industrialists, collaborated in this fascist scheme to obviously coerce and blackmail their perceived adversaries into submission.
The nation is now in the hands of despots of all political stripes and, as I have said many times before in these columns, our current state of affairs, while regrettably not yet apparent to the majority of citizens, is much worse than it was in the years leading up to the first American revolution. King George III did not have the technological capability to spy on all who inhabited the colonies. Today, we live in a world where our Founding Fathers would have had their communications intercepted and then been rounded up and imprisoned and executed, before they even had a chance to debate and sign the Declaration of Independence at Constitution Hall in Philadelphia. Couple this with the Obama administration's access to drones, its stockpiling of guns and ammunition and its obvious plans to one day confiscate our guns and thus our means of self defense, and you have a totalitarian state on the present or near horizon.
Yes, the time has come for the American people to rise up and legally rid the nation of Obama and his Democrat and Republican collaborators. As a prelude to this, perhaps we need a government in exile, much like Charles de Gaulle implemented when the Nazis seized control of his country during World War II. Like Vichy France, our nation in 2013 has indeed been seized by modern-day Nazis, whose methods of enslaving us are far less transparent and potentially equally effective as those of Adolf Hitler.
While Bob Woodson of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprises, a speaker at today’s event, lamented that low-income African Americans are being ignored in today’s politics, he blamed their plight on gay people, immigrants, women and environmentalists. Perhaps he has forgotten that many African Americans are gay, immigrants and environmentalists, and at least a half are women!
After quoting columnist Courtland Milloy, who has written that the poor are facing a “nightmare,” Woodson lamented that “everybody has come in front of them on the bus. Gays, immigrants, women, environmentalists, we never hear any talk about the conditions confronting poor blacks and poor people in general.”
He then recounted a story about how one black man was happy that the Ku Klux Klan would be demonstrating in a poor neighborhood because they could “get rid of these drug dealers.”
Doyle, of Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation and a new ex-gay group Voice of the Voiceless, accused Chambers of “throwing some ex-gay leaders under the bus” and acting in an “inappropriate” manner.
He even wrote a passive aggressive letter that he wants Exodus to “offer to the ex-gay community” as an apology for its “ignorance,” “narcissism,” and refusal to accept “cutting-edge therapeutic techniques that were developed to help individuals heal the wounds that lead to [same-sex attraction].”
“Please forgive Alan Chambers for leaking confidential e-mails of our former colleagues to a homosexual activist website who used it against them. That was really bad!”
Following the bizarre letter, Doyle predicted that Exodus “will continue to walk in blindness” and “lead others into similar confusion.”
In preparation for their closure in late July, the leadership of Exodus embarked on a global apology tour. First, with their President Alan Chambers’ appearance on “Our America” with Lisa Ling to say he’s sorry to several participants who felt they were harmed by the work of Exodus. Next, with several visits to churches and Christian universities across the United States. And most recently, before officially closing their doors, their Vice President offered yet another apology to gays, while at the same time, throwing some ex-gay leaders under the bus.
While I believe the apologies are sincere are well-meaning, some of these statements, specifically their condemnation of the work of ex-gay leaders, both within and outside the Exodus International umbrella, are inappropriate and ill-advised. In short, while attempting to right some wrongs for members of the gay community they hurt, the Exodus leadership is “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” when it comes to ex-gays.
It’s really troubling to see these daggers thrown at the ex-gay community without a proper response. So rather than simply point out the errors in the Exodus leadership, I am going to propose an apology that the now extinct Exodus International Board of Directors should offer to the ex-gay community.
Dear Ex-Gay Community,
We are sorry that the leadership of Exodus International didn’t seek out professional psychotherapy to understand the roots of our homosexual feelings. Instead, we merely repressed our urges and hoped that God would take them away if we prayed hard enough.
We also deeply regret that we didn’t pursue advanced degrees in counseling or psychology so we could truly help others who were struggling with unwanted SSA resolve their issues and experience real change.
Now that we look back at our leadership, relying on clichés, slogans, and simplistic answers to complex sexual orientation issues was not the way to go. Rather than embrace cutting-edge therapeutic techniques that were developed to help individuals heal the wounds that lead to SSA, we are deeply saddened that we attacked our allies in the psychological community, most of who are also people of faith. Out of fear and ignorance, we failed to embrace solutions that could bring about real and lasting change.
We would like to ask for forgiveness for making statements, pronouncement, and judgments on behalf of dozens of Exodus member-ministries across the USA, instead of seeking their feedback and making decisions based on a consensus. In essence, our Board of Directors behaved as an oligarchy instead of a democracy. When the members we ruled over didn’t like our direction, instead of humbly listening to them, we promptly dismissed them, arrogantly condemned them, and swiftly exiled them.
Finally, we are sorry that once we realized we were unable to effectively lead, we did not appoint more qualified individuals to take over Exodus International. Instead, our narcissism allowed us to mistakenly believe that if we couldn’t help individuals who experience SSA pursue heterosexuality, than no one could or should.
How foolish of us to believe that our member ministries would stand aside and allow us to destroy their work and reputations. We are sorry that our bad leadership has fragmented the ex-gay community and caused over half of our member ministries to leave and form the Restored Hope Network. We also regret that this has created a great financial difficulty for our organization and caused many of us unemployment.
Exodus International Board of Directors
PS: Please forgive Alan Chambers for leaking confidential e-mails of our former colleagues to a homosexual activist website who used it against them. That was really bad!
In summary, because the ex-gay community will never receive this apology from the leadership of Exodus International, I will summarize as to what you can expect from them moving forward.
They will continue to struggle with their own homosexual feelings. They will continue to walk in blindness over the causes and meaning of their SSA, and therefore, lead others into similar confusion. Lastly, they will continue to (try to) be buddies with homosexual activists while rejecting the truth that ex-gay ministries offer. How very sad that the largest and most influential ex-gay ministry has resorted to a popularity club for their narcissistic leaders.
Daniel Hernandez Jr., the former intern credited with helping to save Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ life when she was shot in 2011 and now an elected member of a Tucson-area school board, is facing a nasty recall election in which anonymous opponents are attacking him for being openly gay and for his advocacy on behalf of gun violence prevention.
But the tactics being used against Hernandez are unusual. A source in the district sends us two flyers that Hernandez’s opponents are reportedly handing out to parents dropping their children off at schools in the district. Right Wing Watch repeatedly tried to contact Marcos Castro, the manager of the effort to recall Hernandez and brother in law of school board president Louie Gonzalez, to discover whether the flyers came from his campaign, but Castro refused to take our calls. [UPDATE: Castro tells us that he himself got one of the flyers left at his house but he has "no knowledge" of where they came from.]
The first attacks Hernandez for being openly gay, imploring, “Put a REAL Man on the Sunnyside Board...Daniel Hernandez is LGBT...We need someone who will support Sports and cares about our kids. We don’t need someone who hates our values.”
The second flyer attacks Hernandez’s work on behalf of gun violence prevention in the wake of the Giffords shooting, claiming (punctuation and spelling are a direct quote), “Daniel Hernandez cares about only one things taking your guns away”:
Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America seemsconvinced that the Obama administration will launch some sort of anti-Christian, anti-whiterace war any day now, and told talk show host Stan Solomon that the Department of Homeland Security considers the American people to be “the enemy.”
After Solomon brought up a 2009 FBI memo about a surge in activity among “white supremacy extremist and militia/sovereign-citizen extremist groups,” and the FBI mentioned that it would work with the Defense Department to share information “related only to veterans who draw the attention of Defense Department officials for joining white-supremacist or other extremist groups.”
Of course, this led Pratt to attack outgoing DHS head Janet Napolitano, accusing her of pursuing people who have a “limited government philosophy, that are pro-Second Amendment, that are pro-life, that are pro-traditional marriage.” The influential gun lobbyist seems to be referring to a right-wingconspiracytheory that DHS is targeting conservatives.
Solomon ranted that Obama administration officials “don’t care about terrorists, they encourage terrorists and frankly they are terrorists,” to which Pratt agreed.
Pratt: Napolitano was telling us, telling specifically police agencies across the country to be on the lookout for those that could be terrorists, that would include people who have some sort of limited government philosophy, that are pro-Second Amendment, that are pro-life, that are pro-traditional marriage, those are the places where the terrorist pool is located, that’s where they will be coming from. We should’ve realized then that what she was actually saying is that the enemy of the Obama government is the American people.
Solomon: Bingo. That’s exactly it. They weren’t looking for terrorists, they don’t care about terrorists, they encourage terrorists and frankly they are terrorists.
Steve Sailer, columnist for the white nationalist site VDARE and inspiration to conservative leaders including Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly, commemorates the anniversary of the March on Washington this week by suggesting that President Obama use the occasion to “declare victory in the long war on Jim Crow and white racism.”
But Sailer doesn’t do a great job backing up his point, as he launches straight into another suggestion for the president: eliminate the “racial divisiveness” of the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday by moving it to August…unless it is “the current (unspoken) thinking that holding the MLK holiday in dead cold winter keeps blacks from making trouble.”
I've long offered two suggestions, one that Obama would never take up (although deep down, during his most depressed episodes, he might have to admit it makes sense), the other of which he might adopt. After all, my second proposal is at least more relevant to the current occasion than shortening law school is.
Why not use that propitious occasion to declare victory in the long war on Jim Crow and white racism and announce you are bringing the federal troops home?
The second is to use the celebration over MLK's famous speech on August 28, 1963 to call for permanently commemorating the event by moving the currently not very popular MLK holiday from the frigid middle of January to late August:
Fortunately, one simple change in the holiday could end this racial divisiveness and unite workers of all colors in demanding a paid holiday honoring King.
Or is the current (unspoken) thinking that holding the MLK holiday in dead cold winter keeps blacks from making trouble? Maybe. But my vague impression is that late spring or early summer is the rowdiest time of the year, while late summer is mellower, more lazy and hazy than crazy. Somebody should study the subject using data.
Pat Robertson’s 700 Club today featured the story of Debra Gauthier, a Nevada police officer who “bought the lie” about homosexuality until she became a Christian and renounced her identity as a lesbian. Gauthier explained that she regretted her “choice” to be a lesbian because “there was a lot of inner turmoil going on, there was something about that that is not right, it’s not natural.”
Gauthier writes in her book, Bright Lights, Dark Places, that she became attracted to men after attending an Exodus International conference. Gauthier claims that while living “the homosexual lifestyle” she made a “covenant with Satan” during a same-sex wedding ceremony and also dated a “practicing witch,” until she “saw the demon in her” during an intimate moment:
Our ceremony was led by a gay male priest and a women priestess. We lit candles and performed cultic rituals, and I sensed the darkness around us. I had no idea that I had just entered into covenant with Satan and opened my life up to the demonic realm.
In my pursuit of spirituality, I became more aware of the demonic realm and began to struggle with fear. I found myself blinded by my own darkness as I opened my soul up more and more to Satan, who masquerades as an angel of light.
As I got deeper into spiritualism, a gift of discerning spirits was activated in me. At the time I was dating Diana, a practicing witch whom I had met at a New Age conference. Diana introduced me to demon worship and a new level of darkness. One evening as she began to seduce me, my spiritual eyes were opened, and I saw the demon in her sneering back at me. It horrified me! I jumped up, quickly got dressed, and ran out of there. This was the beginning of the blinders coming off my eyes and the exposure of the present dark kingdom of which I was very much a part.
This is, of course, far from the first ex-gay segment featured on the 700 Club.
Pat Robertson today, while discussing the shooting of an Australian baseball player in Oklahoma by three teenagers, two of them black and one white, accused President Obama of inciting anti-white violence. The 700 Club host said, “We are having a tremendous amount of this black-on-white violence and I have a feeling that instead of bringing racial harmony, having an African-American president has exacerbated the problem.”
“He seems to be wanting to bring division among people instead of bringing them together; he is one of the most divisive leaders this country has ever had,” Robertson continued. “It just seems he wants to rub the edges raw every chance he gets.” Robertson argued that Obama is trying to divide people by race and class: “There’s always something there to stir up controversy.”
Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly, one ofthemostvocalopponents of immigration reform, took her case to the sympathetic audience at the Talk To Solomon Show last week. Schlafly told host Stan Solomon that President Obama’s drive “to put another thirty million people on our health care system ties in with Obama’s plan for amnesty, to bring them in by the millions and load them onto the taxpayer.”
Solomon explained that the result would be communism: “This is the design, communism is equal but awful, everyone has the same but no one has everything. Everyone has the same but no one has anything. That’s Obama’s plan.”
“That’s his plan,” Schlafly replied.
Earlier this year, Schlafly similarly alleged that immigration reform efforts were crafted by “socialist-minded people” who “want to destroy our system.”
While Peter LaBarbera insists that gay rights advocates intend to end freedom of speech, the Americans For Truth About Homosexuality leader is a big fan of Russia’s new law which criminalizes speech it considers “homosexual propaganda.” LaBarbera told VCY America’s Jim Schneider yesterday on Crosstalk that the law is simply a measure to protect Russian children from the “excesses of American homosexual activism.”
After defending the “propaganda” ban, LaBarbera said he is staunchly against any efforts to offer asylum to gay Russians who seek to leave the country, saying that there are too many gay activists in the US already:
We don’t want homosexual activists from across the world, we have enough in the United States as it is. This is just very shocking, what’s happened is America has become the decadent nation which is trying to export homosexuality across the world and some countries are saying no, we don’t want this perversion being celebrated in our country.
David Usher of the Center for Marriage Policy is out with a new column, “Our last chance to save traditional marriage,” lamenting that the Defense of Marriage Act wasn’t properly defended at the Supreme Court because it was “never argued that gay marriage is unequal and unconstitutional.”
Usher argues that if same-sex marriage is legal then women will marry other women and have children with men “by pretending they are using birth control when they are not.” “Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages,” Usher writes, adding that women will also turn to the state for welfare benefits. Good heterosexual couples will be left “economically-disadvantaged” because they will be taxed to support the lesbian couples’ Big Government goodies.
But that’s not all: Usher then explains that gay men will have it the worst of all as they will be tricked into having sex with lesbians through “reproductive entrapment,” fathering their kids, and then paying child support to support them: “Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting ‘fathers’ by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved” to lesbian unions.
“Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been ‘redlined’ out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage,” Usher writes. “This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage.”
The ridiculous argument continues, warning that “discrimination against men” will operate “similarly to pre-civil-rights racism.”
Since gay men and lesbian women will be having a bunch of kids, “schools will be aggressively promoting lifestyles that kill or disable children and infect innocent women and babies with HIV,” not to mention an increase in violent crime.
Oh, and also gay marriage will bring about the end of America: “To dismantle marriage – the most important equal rights institution framed by the Founding Fathers – is to dismantle the Constitution, freedom, and the United States of America.”
U.S. Supreme court declared DOMA unconstitutional because defenders of heterosexual marriage never argued that gay marriage is unequal and unconstitutional. The Left screamed "equality" in every court in the nation. We never responded on the merits, were unable to state harm, and suffered an entirely preventable loss.
Why heterosexual marriage is exclusively constitutional
Heterosexual marriage is the only constitutional form of marriage because it is the only possible arrangement that automatically confers equal social, economic, and parental rights to all married men and women regardless of one's ability to naturally bear a child. Same-sex marriage immediately bifurcates these rights, destroying equality between men and women.
Class 1: Mother-mother marriages: The class of marriages having most advantageous rights is marriages between two women. When two women marry, it is a three-way contract among two women and the government. Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.
This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household. They are sexually liberated with boyfriends often cohabiting with them to provide additional undeclared income and human resources without worrying about what happens when they break up with their boyfriends.
Class 2: Heterosexual marriages. The second class of marriages is traditional marriages between men and women. Children of these marriages are almost always borne of the marriage and supported by husband and wife without governmental involvement. In these marriages, men and women have natural parental and economic rights, standing in society, and equal "gender power" before the law. Traditional marriages will be economically-disadvantaged compared to mother-mother marriages because they cannot draw large incomes from the welfare state and they will be taxed to support other marriages. They are treated in discriminatory fashion having to subsidize Class-1 and perhaps Class-3 entitlements (including ObamaCare) in their taxes.
Class 3: Male-Male marriages. Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting "fathers" by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages. The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).
Same-sex marriage is a multi-dimensional violation of 14th Amendment protections against sex discrimination. The 5th Amendment protection for life, liberty, and property without due process of law is structurally violated in cases of reproductive deception by women, regardless of marital status of the men involved.
Harm: The harm of same-sex marriage is substantial. All the problems of marriage-absence will be imported into the institution of bi-maternal marriage. Children raised in father-absence have between 400% and 1800% higher rates of problems such as illegitimacy, suicide, ADHD, incarceration and are far less likely to finish high school or succeed in the work force. When men are structurally excluded from marriage, the problem of violent de-socialized males will compound over time.
Medical science has documented the fact that homosexual behavior is a great health and social risk to everyone. There is no evidence that gay marriage reduces the extremely high rates of promiscuity commonly practiced by homosexuals and bisexuals. The Supreme Court ruling guarantees that schools will be aggressively promoting lifestyles that kill or disable children and infect innocent women and babies with HIV.
Illegitimacy and non-marriage are informal activities not warranting the constitutional protections and affirmations of marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a substitute for, or equivalent to heterosexual marriage because of the documented costs it will impose on the nation, businesses, and the taxpayers. It would be unconstitutional to broadly empower the welfare state to affirmatively "buy out" the institution of heterosexual marriage in the name of "gay equality."
If same-sex marriage is forced on America, it is an irreversible change at law. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us that illegitimacy would grow quickly and have profound adverse impact on marriage, budgets, crime, and the Nation. My prediction of harm is nothing more than a straight-line extension of Moynihan's prescient analysis, proven to be fully correct by fifty years of history. If legalized, economic advantage will still drive women's marital decisions, but many will choose to marry another woman (and the welfare state) instead of becoming a struggling single mother. Advantage alone will drive a much more aggressive and insidious welfare state that cannot be reigned in because same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected activity that by way of precedent cannot be withdrawn at a later date. This is far more dangerous than ObamaCare, abortion, capital punishment, or excessive gun regulations – which are reversible by legislatures and the courts.
Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been "redlined" out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage. This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage. This is one reason that the welfare state has been called a "plantation" by an increasingly large cohort of politicians and activists.
Progressives hope to establish an irreversible system of choice-based sex discrimination against men operating similarly to pre-civil-rights racism, when discrimination against blacks was commonplace with respect to property, political, and voting rights. Individuals cannot "choose" to red-line blacks out of the housing market. Individuals cannot "choose" an arrangement impressing blacks to support them with nothing in return. This is precisely what gay marriage will do to all men of all races.
Severability of economic rights and lack of class-action status: Many same-sex cases beyond United States v. Windsor involve unmarried same-sex cohabitants living in economic "civil unions." Windsor and these other non-class-action cases were carefully selected and framed to keep children and parental rights excised to ensure that welfare state and parental rights considerations could not poison the litigation. The recent decision in Windsor is a broadside evisceration of the economic function of the institution of marriage, and a propellant encouraging women to dump their husbands in favor of same-sex marriages. The lack of class-action scrutiny combined with the absence of review of child/parental rights and welfare-state impacts suggests these cases are too myopic and incomplete to warrant a Supreme Court finding justifying either review, much less broad application economically destroying heterosexual marriage in Supra.
The fundamental purpose of heterosexual marriage: Heterosexual marriage harnesses two very different sexes to form one human race working cooperatively to naturally build nations, economy, and raise children. It guarantees equal social, economic, parental, and political rights to all citizens regardless of sex. The Constitution does not support any idea that bifurcates and redirects the natural rights of men and women depending solely on the natural ability of a person to bear a child. To dismantle marriage – the most important equal rights institution framed by the Founding Fathers – is to dismantle the Constitution, freedom, and the United States of America.
Kansas secretary of state and national voter suppression advocate Kris Kobach has been struggling in recent months to implement a new “proof of citizenship” voter registration requirement that he pushed into law. But now he has a new plan: sue the federal government to make it harder to register to vote with a federal form in his state.
Like a similar Arizona law that was recently struck down by the Supreme Court, Kansas’ law requires those registering to vote to produce documented proof of citizenship beyond the sworn oath required on federal voter registration forms. This has produced an administrative nightmare in Kansas, throwing the voting status of at least 15,000 people who registered with the federal form into limbo.
Kobach’s first plan to fix this was to force the thousands of Kansans who had registered with the federal form to cast provisional ballots in the next election, which would then only count if they showed up later at an elections office armed with a birth certificate or other citizenship document. The state board of elections rejected the plan, which one Republican state senator called “disingenuous at best.”
Kobach then got creative, suggesting that Kansas create two classes of voters, with those who register with the federal form only allowed to vote in federal elections. Voting rights advocates balked.
Now, Kobach has a new plan. Along with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, Kobach is suing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to require the federal government to add extra “proof of citizenship” requirements to federal voter registration forms in the two states. Andy Marso at the Topeka Capital-Journal sums up the scheme:
Facing the possibility of legal action over 15,000-plus suspended voter registrations, Secretary of State Kris Kobach struck back by announcing Wednesday his own suit against a federal election commission.
Kobach said at a news conference that he and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, both Republicans, have filed a complaint against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission asking that federal voter registration forms issued to residents of their states include state-specific proof of citizenship requirements like the ones on state forms largely responsible for putting thousands of Kansas registrations on hold.
Kobach said the court case is "the first of its kind."
Kansas voters will be best served when the EAC amends the Kansas-specific instructions on the Federal Form to include submitting concrete evidence of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote," Kobach said.
Kobach said the lawsuit would partially preempt a suit being prepared but he American Civil Liberties Union over the suspended registrations.
“It does block many of the arguments the ACLU might wish to raise,” Kobach said.
Kobach and the ACLU have disagreed on much when it comes to voting laws, but both he and Bonney said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., invited a lawsuit.
"This lawsuit is pursuant to Scalia's invitation," Kobach said.
Liberty Counsel’s Harry Mihet appeared this week on VCY America’s flagship radio program Crosstalk to discuss with host Jim Schneider the New Jersey law barring the practice of ex-gay therapy on minors. Mihet’s group has filed a lawsuit to block the law, and he told Schneider that the law is really an attack on Christianity.
Mihet quoted Romans 1:32 about people who gave “hearty approval” to those who are “worthy of death,” saying that “we live in Romans 1:32 times and Gov. Chris Christie perfectly encapsulated the substance of this verse.” He argued that by signing the ban on ex-gay therapy for minors, “Chris Christie has essentially declared war” on the “message of the Gospel.”
The Liberty Counsel attorney also suggested that Chris Christie may face divine retribution for defying God: “The Bible says ‘God will not be mocked’ and I believe that and I believe there are consequences for this type of open rebellion of shaking your fist to the almighty God.”
Mihet agreed with a caller who said homosexuality is a “choice” and a “tendency that needs to be overcome,” adding that “there are thousands and thousands of people who used to be a slave to the homosexual lifestyle but who have been able to come out.” He said that he meets ex-gays “all the time” and “sees the passion with which they speak.”
“It defies all truth and logic and common sense to say that it is something that cannot be changed,” Mihet maintained.
Mihet and Schneider even agreed with a caller who alleged that gay people are possessed by demons who work as Satan minions in the Bohemian Grove.
Caller: I don’t think this is true for all homosexuals by any means but I think a lot of them have actually become demonized, especially those in high places like people in relative leadership in our government. I know a lot of them go to the Bohemian Grove where they do like a casting the care ceremony before Moloch and there’s a lot of sexual perversion there. I think a lot of these people have actually become demonized and they are working for their father who is Satan to promote the one world government.
Schneider: Thank you for your thoughts here today. We have seen situations when people rose up and doing things in opposition to Christ that we saw Jesus respond, ‘you are of your father the devil.’ Certainly we know that these are works of darkness but I so appreciate the verse you shared from Corinthians that reminds us ‘such were some of you.’
Mihet: That’s right. I think the power of the darkness in our time cannot be underestimated, I would caution to say not just with the sin of homosexuality but with any other sin that is elevated and perverted and put ahead of the word of God. We have to cling on to the word of God and the promise that it offers healing and forgiveness for every sin and every lifestyle.
The Washington Times editorial board baselessly claims this week that “many liberals who not so long ago derided anyone who questioned President Obama’s American birth as a ‘birther’ are asking similar questions now about Mr. Cruz’s eligibility.” The paper fails to name any prominent liberals who have actually made this argument.
In yesterday’s editorial, subtitled “Now a new version of ‘birtherism’ settles on the left,” the Times echoes Sean Hannity’s attack on imaginary liberal questioners of the Canadian-born Cruz’s eligibility.
Of course, the whole story is ironic since the birther movement centers around a conspiracy theory — backed by a majority of Republicans — that Obama was born abroad, probably in Kenya, and is therefore not eligible to be president even though his mother was an American citizen. Since Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father, birthers are now quickly trying to backtrack.
The Washington Times editorial defending Cruz is especially ironic since one of the conservative newspaper’s top columnists, Jeffrey Kuhner, wrote a 2011 column arguing that Obama was not born in the US and is consequently an illegitimate president:
If Mr. Obama was not born in America, then it would serve as the final damning indictment of the establishment media’s complicity with the Democratic Party. Not only would it bring the Obama presidency down, but the entire liberal power structure as well.
Moreover, it would spark a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is absolutely clear that to be president one has to be a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, every major initiative implemented during the Obama administration - the health care overhaul, the massive stimulus package, the government takeovers of the auto companies, big banks and insurance firms, the sweeping anti-carbon regulations, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, the nearly unprecedented expansion of state power, the new START Treaty - would be invalid and possibly illegal. It would drive a stake through the heart of Mr. Obama’s regime, triggering impeachment and his removal from office. This is why liberals ferociously insist that the birth issue must be buried at almost any cost.
The birth issue is slowly casting a shadow over Mr. Obama’s presidency; it threatens to undermine public confidence in his legal and moral authority to govern. Several states are pushing to pass laws compelling future presidential candidates - including Mr. Obama - to fully disclose all documents proving their natural born citizenship status. This desire for greater political transparency and accountability is healthy.
It is time Mr. Obama came clean. At a minimum, if he does not reveal his birth certificate, he cannot - and should not - be allowed to run for a second term.
Bryan Fischer is incensed at the New Mexico Supreme Court’s unanimous decision that a wedding photography business violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing its services to a same-sex couple. The American Family Association spokesman called on the business, and others, to file countersuits and “fight fire with fire” by alleging that preventing them from discriminating against customers is religious discrimination.
“Essentially what this court has done and what the Obama administration has done with this abortifacient mandate is that they have turned Christians into Dred Scott,” Fischer claimed, arguing that the New Mexico court “said that Christians have no rights which this court is bound to respect. So to me this looks like Jim Crow is alive and well, we’ve got Jim Crow laws right back in operation, Christians are the new blacks.”
As the Atlantic’s Molly Ball reported yesterday, the anti-immigrant movement’s attempts to rile up its supporters in opposition to the Senate’s immigration proposal this summer have been largely an embarrassing bust.
The group had sent out an appeal asking its members to send a message of support to Tennessee Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais, who gained notoriety over the weekend for telling an 11-year-old girl at a town hall meeting that her father should be deported, provoking enthusiastic applause from his tea party supporters.
“We are not sure what went wrong but we asked all of you to take some very simple steps to fight back against Amnesty yesterday but unfortunately only 1,600 of the more than 40,000 on our e-mail lists, plus the more than 130,000 on our social media would take 5 minutes to act!,” ALIPAC president William Gheen writes. “Thus, we are forgoing what we planned to do today to send you this request once more. Please respond to all ALIPAC activism requests.”
Subject: Uh Oh, Illegals Got the Best of Us Yesterday :(
Friends of ALIPAC,
We are not sure what went wrong but we asked all of you to take some very simple steps to fight back against Amnesty yesterday but unfortunately only 1,600 of the more than 40,000 on our e-mail lists, plus the more than 130,000 on our social media would take 5 minutes to act!
The illegal alien supporters racked up over 82,000 views on their copy of this video and pommeled Congressman Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) with angry calls for taking the stance that you and most Americans want him to take!
Thus, we are forgoing what we planned to do today to send you this request once more. Please respond to all ALIPAC activism requests. Taking less than 5 minutes to do this could have a big impact!
Step 2: Call the number for Congressman Scott DesJarlais provided on the top of the video and thank him for standing up against Amnesty for illegal aliens. Tell him you plan to support him for his stance and his courageous actions in this video. DesJarlais has heard from angry illegal alien supporters, now he needs to hear from you!
Step 3: Share this video by forwarding emails, making posts on blogs and forums, and on social media like Facebook and Twitter.
Big thanks to the 1,600 of you who took the actions we requested yesterday seriously. Hopefully, the 95% of you who took no action will respond today!
Tom Minnery , head of Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink, criticized Gov. Chris Christie for signing a bill barring the practice of ex-gay therapy on minors. He told Stuart Shepard that ex-gay therapy is “common and there is a history of them working well, many people have lost their confusion about sexuality as a result of them to the good.”
Minnery also feared the society is making kids think they are gay when they are not, increasing the need for the discredited pseudo-scientific practice: “As society prides itself on putting homosexuality on a pedestal you can see how more and more young people might think they are gay, might think they are lesbian, but what they are probably is just confused and need precisely the kind of help that the governor by signing this law says they cannot have and that’s a tragedy.”
Later, Shepard wondered if Christie, who said he didn’t consider homosexuality to be a sin, urged reporters to ask him “if immorality is okay, are you okay with adultery? Is that what you’re saying, what sins and which ones are out, Gov. Christie?” “Someone ought to ask that question of his wife, what about adultery,” Minnery added.