C4

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.

Upcoming 'Black Conservative Summit' to Combat 'Homosexual Agenda'

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) is slated to appear at an upcoming anti-gay summit in St. Charles, Illinois, with African-American conservative activists including Harry Jackson, Star Parker, Ben Kinchlow and Ken Blackwell. Sponsored by groups such as the Heritage Foundation, World Congress of Families, Coalition of African-American Pastors and Illinois Family Institute, the “Black Conservative Summitplans to train activists in how to fight the “homosexual agenda,” legal abortion’s “black genocide” and “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.”

The summit has also invited Herman Cain, Allen West, Ben Carson, Jesse Lee Peterson, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), former Rep. JC Watts and Fred Luter to appear. Its promotional video warns that “social engineering has ushered in the destruction of our roots” and promises new momentum in anti-gay activism in Illinois: “On May 31, a new coalition of Americans stood against the effort to legalize gay marriage in Illinois, and it failed, but the fight for the soul of America did not end there.”

Gun Owners' Pratt Claims DHS Buying Bullets to Prepare for Economic Collapse and Social Unrest

Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt continues to push the completely debunked conspiracy theory that the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling ammunition to, as he put it recently, allow President Obama to raise a private army “equally as powerful as the military.”

In an interview at a recent conference in Oklahoma, Pratt falsely claimed that the DHS “won’t answer” right-wing questions about ammo purchases. “The most benign explanation” for the DHS’s purchases, Pratt said, is that the Obama administration is “destroying the economy” and preparing to respond to the ensuing “social unrest.”

Jennifer Rubin: Obama 'Not a Good Person' for Talking About Racism, Which 'Most Americans Have Never Personally Experienced'

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin and NewsMax radio host Steve Malzberg yesterday spent an entire interview complaining that President Obama focuses too much on race while also ignoring problems in the black community. According to Rubin, racism effectively ended with the repeal of Jim Crow laws and no one experiences racism these days, except for Obama who seeks to use race “as a crutch or a method of stirring up his base.”

She says Obama isn’t letting people “get out of this racial archaeology” so they are “held prisoners forever in a past that most Americans have never personally experienced.”

Rubin explained that Obama’s recent remarks on race prove that he is “the absolute worst.”

“I do not think that this man is a good person,” Rubin said. “He wants to incite people and to rally people for political ends; that is not a good person.”

Watch:

Robertson: Expect Natural Disasters and Divine Wrath over Middle East Peace Talks

Pat Robertson has issued yet another warning against Middle East peace negotiations, this time predicting natural disasters in the US over the country’s role in mediating talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. The televangelist, who called former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke divine retribution for “dividing God’s land,” told 700 Club viewers today that “from a prophetic stands point, every time the United States gets involved in some kind of a pressure on Israel to split their land there’s some natural disaster that happens here in America.”

“There was a very cogent book written about that, just traced one after the other, of traced disasters that come on America,” Robertson continued. “If the United States pressures Israel to try to give up half of Jerusalem, God himself is going to come against this nation. Watch it.”

Activist Toolkit: Confronting ALEC on its 40th Annual Meeting

We hope the following toolkit helps you in your efforts to expose ALEC

David Lane Predicts Car Bombings in LA, DC and Des Moines over Gay Inauguration Prayers

Religious Right organizer David Lane, who recently led an Iowa summit which featured Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Reince Priebus, believes that the US will see car bombings in Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and Des Moines, Iowa…if we’re lucky.

Lane told conservative talk show host Steve Deace that such attacks would occur as part of God’s “process of mercy,” otherwise, God will be finished with the US and the country will “get judgment like Nazi Germany.”

Such car bombings will take place, Lane explained, as a result of abortion rights, the national debt and “homosexuals praying at the Inauguration.”

President Obama’s second inauguration featured an openly gay poet and a pro-equality Episcopalian pastor who said in his benediction that both gay and straight people are created in the image of God.

Deace: What’s the next twenty years going to look like?

Lane: There’s two options, I think. Number one, if we don’t turn back to him. [Eric] Metaxas in his Bonheoffer book said that in 1522, [Martin] Luther translated the Greek to the German, and in 1534 he translated the Hebrew to the German, and he said it caused a cataclysmic explosion in Germany that birthed the Protestant Reformation for four hundred years. In 1933-45, twelve years, I assume, I have no idea, I’m assuming God said, ‘I’m done.’ So here we are, kill 60 million babies, red ink as far as the eye can see, homosexuals praying at the Inauguration. If we get mercy, that’s why we started this by talking about me coming to Christ thirty-five years ago, one of the wildest men who ever lived; I deserved judgment, I got mercy. If America gets mercy, I believe — this doesn’t sound good — I think the process of mercy looks like probably car bombs in Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and Des Moines, Iowa. I think if we get mercy the process is going to be a very painful process. If we get judgment like Nazi Germany, I’m assuming we go to rebel, and God says ‘I’m done.’ So I think that’s where we are, I think we’re at the fork in the road, and if you can believe this I’m actually hopeful.

Ted Cruz Warns Gay Marriage Will Lead to Hate Speech Laws, America on Brink of Collapse

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody on Friday, Ted Cruz rehashed the false right-wing claims that gay rights advocates intend to pass hate speech laws and force pastors to perform same-sex nuptials. Leading Religious Right activists made the same arguments during their campaign against the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act and in debates over state marriage equality bills. Of course, such laws would be unconstitutional and have never been used to silence religious leaders or limit the freedom of speech.

If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step of where it gets enforced. It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages, who speak out and preach biblical truths on marriage, that has been defined elsewhere as hate speech, as inconsistent with the enlightened view of government. I think there is no doubt that the advocates who are driving this effort in the United States want to see us end up in that same place.

Brody also lobbed another hardball at Cruz, asking him if he believes “spiritual revival is needed in this country.”

“Everywhere I go people are afraid for the future of our country; I think we’re at the edge of a precipice,” Cruz said. “If we keep going down this path, we’re risking losing our nation; we’re risking losing the incredible oasis of liberty.”

Watch:

Congress Begins Work on New Voting Rights Act Legislation

The House and Senate held hearings last week to discuss a replacement for the federal preclearance formula of the Voting Rights Act. Without a coverage formula, the Justice Department will no longer be able to enforce the VRA’s Section 5, which requires states and counties with histories of discriminatory voting practices to secure federal approval before changing their voting laws.
PFAW

Jacobs: God Preparing 'A Whole Lot of Shaking' To Punish America for Gay Marriage Decisions

Self-proclaimed prophet Cindy Jacobs delivered an ominous warning to America while speaking with fellow televangelist Jim Bakker, describing a message she received from God that the country will face divine punishment over the Supreme Court’s rulings on marriage equality. “Recently in the United States we’ve had these Supreme Court decisions that are against biblical marriage, and the Lord said to me, ‘duck your head, duck your head.’ I said, ‘oh God, duck my head?’”

Jacobs asserted that God plans to “put a mark upon” believers — “as long as you’re tithing” — and bless them because “there’s a whole lot of shaking getting ready to happen.”

“I prophesied that there was going to be a lot of disasters that were going to come” such as Hurricane Sandy, Jacobs claimed, lamenting that no one listened to her. “I mean I don’t want them to come, it’s not like I’m saying ‘oh great they’re coming,’ but the point is a prophet has to say what is to come, it’s like you’re reporting.”

“We have displeased the Lord and the earth is going to answer,” Jacobs said.

Watch:

Steve King: Undocumented Immigrants Mostly '130-Pound' Drug Runners With 'Calves the Size of Cantaloupes'

Rep. Steve King of Iowa is getting some publicity this week for an interview on Univision in which he refused to apologize for comparing immigrants to dogs. Our friends at the Center for New Community point out that just a few days earlier, King gave an interview to Newsmax in which he claimed that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are “130-pound” drug runners with “calves the size of cantaloupes.”

“For every one who’s a valedictorian, there’s another hundred out there who they weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’ve been hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert,” King said.

He challenged proponents of the bipartisan immigration law to “define the difference between the innocent ones who have deep ties with America and those who have, I’ll say, been undermining our culture and civilization and profiting from criminal acts.”

Ted Cruz's Father Tells Him 'God Has Destined You For Greatness'

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz stumped in Iowa over the weekend, and his father Rafael Cruz was promoting his son’s possibly presidential candidacy to pastors and local Republican leaders during his trip. In fact, he said in an interview with Chrsitian Broadcasting Networks’ David Brody that he told his son: “You know Ted, you have been gifted above any man that I know and God has destined you for greatness.’ And I started making declarations about the Word of God to him every day.”

He goes on to suggest that his son is destined to save freedom in America, and even Brody called Cruz’s political career “a thing of God.”

As we’ve noted, Rafael Cruz is a Religious Right activist himself , and he also revealed to Brody that he was active in the Religious Roundtable.

The Religious Roundtable was founded by Ed McAteer and included leaders like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Phyllis Schlafly and Paul Weyrich. The group also helped launch Ronald Reagan’s bid for president in 1980 and hosted the conference where he quipped, “I know you can’t endorse me, but I endorse you.”

Brody: Talk me about your son and his rise. This must be a thing of God. It's meteoric.

Cruz: Yes, but you know something, it is not something that started a couple of years ago. Let me just go back to when he was maybe four. When he was four I used to read Bible stories to him all the time. And I would declare and proclaim the word of God over him. And I would just say, ‘You know Ted, you have been gifted above any man that I know and God has destined you for greatness’. And I started making declarations about the Word of God to him every day. When he was eight years old I was very active in an organization called the Religious Roundtable.

...

This was a coalition of Christians and Jews who was very instrumental in helping Reagan get elected. I was on the state board of the Religious Roundtable, so when my son Ted was eight years old, all we talked about around the dinner table was politics because I was so involved with the Reagan campaign. So during that time is when I asked him so many times, ‘You know Ted, when I lost my freedom in Cuba I had a place to come to. If we lose our freedoms here where are we going to go? There is no place to go.’

...

Ted enters high school, the Free Enterprise Institute organizes a group of five kids, called them the Constitutional Corroborators, now Ted is reading the The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and each of the five kids memorized the entire US Constitution.

...

So before my son left high school he was passionate about the constitution. He was passionate about freedom and free markets and limited governments. Before he left high school he knew without a shadow of a doubt what his purpose in life was and it was to defend and protect freedom and the Constitution, to fight for free markets and limited government, and it became a passion in his life. So this is not a trajectory of three years, this is a trajectory of 30 years.

Priebus: GOP Not Embracing 'Tolerance,' Just Becoming More Loving

Following their 2012 election debacle, the Republican National Committee and the College Republicans issued reports which urged the party to go through an image makeover without adjusting its political stances. Essentially, they argued, the party should only appear to be changing and becoming more open-minded, empathetic and welcoming.

Speaking with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network posted today, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus confirmed that the party will try to reach out to groups like gays and lesbians by simply appearing to be more respectful without actually changing its views on issues such as marriage equality.

After Brody said conservative evangelical voters are nervous that the GOP thinks “we have to be more tolerant,” Priebus said there is nothing to worry about. “I don’t know if I’ve used the word ‘tolerance,’ I don’t really care for that word myself. I don’t have a problem with it, I just think it has another meaning politically that can go the other direction,” the party chairman said.

“It’s not what you say, I think, it’s sometimes – like our moms used to tell us – it’s how you say it. And I think that’s really the issue. And quite frankly, I think some of that has been overblown.”

Priebus assured Brody that the GOP will continue to represent “things that are very square with our beliefs as Christians” and recognize that “there’s only one sovereign God.”

Watch:

Brody: I want to talk to you about this way forward for the GOP. When you use that word ‘intolerant,’ ‘you know we have to be more tolerant’ in what the RNC put out. Evangelicals start to grab the Excedrin bottles when they hear ‘tolerance’ because they think ‘oh no the GOP is changing and the whole gay marriage situation.’ Why don’t you address this and maybe put evangelicals at ease or can you put them at ease at all here?

Priebus: Well, one hundred percent. I don’t know if I’ve used the word ‘tolerance,’ I don’t really care for that word myself. I don’t have a problem with it, I just think it has another meaning politically that can go the other direction. I happen to believe that our principles are sound. I do believe, and I still will tell you that our party believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. Our party believes that life begins at conception. I think those are foundational issues that aren’t going anywhere but what I have said, which I don’t think should be controversial at all and I would think that Christians and pastors and everyone in between should agree that our principles have to be draped in the concepts of grace, love and respect and that’s not code language, that’s the New Testament, so I don’t think there should be any problem with that thinking within our party. That’s all I’ve said. It’s not what you say, I think, it’s sometimes like our moms used to tell us, it’s how you say it; and I think that’s really the issue and quite frankly I think some of that has been overblown. I’m happy to address it but clearly myself and our party haven’t changed on those principles.



Priebus: Looking at the evidence, what you will see is a party that embraces life, a party that embraces marriage and a chairman that understands that there’s only one sovereign God and that we ultimately aren’t dependent on what happens in politics, that that ultimately matters in our lives is that we’re salt and light in the world and that we’re honoring God in the things that we do every day. I get that. I think our party gets that and there’s never been a movement away from that. So ‘tolerance,’ maybe some people use that word, what I would tell you, when I think about it, I think about grace, I think about love, I think about respect, and I think those are things that are very square with our beliefs as Christians.

Ginni Thomas and Phyllis Schlafly Discuss 'Cultural Marxism,' 'The Left’s Ultimate Agenda'

In an interview posted yesterday at the Daily Caller, Tea Party activist Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, sat down with Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly to discuss the issues of the day.

Discussing bipartisan immigration policy, Schlafly repeated her assertion that modernizing the country’s immigration system would be “suicide for the Republican Party” because new immigrants want “taxpayer goodies” from Democrats.

This led Thomas to ask Schlafly, “How does this immigration bill advance the Left’s ultimate agenda?” Schlafly responded that progressives are using immigration reform to achieve “global government” because “they don’t like the Constitution.”

Later in the interview, Thomas asked Schlafly about the belief of “some” that “cultural Marxists have already won in our country.” Schlafly agreed, saying that the “tremendous decline in marriage” is ruining America. “I grew up during the great Depression,” Schlafly added, “and we didn’t need government to do anything.”

Staver: Justice Kennedy Acted Like Dred Scott Judge In DOMA Ruling

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel continued to level attacks against the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision. On Janet Parshall’s radio show last week, Staver compared Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Windsor, to former Chief Justice Robert B. Taney, infamous for writing the Dred Scott ruling.

The Liberty University Law School dean told Parshall that the court decided wrongly in part because “our history has actually criminalized homosexual behavior” and alleged that Kennedy decided to “label everyone who believes and affirms in the natural created order of marriage between a man and a woman as a bigot and a hater.”

“How dare this court. How dare Justice Kennedy. How dare he actually give those kinds of labels to people,” Staver said. “I think the court crossed the line to illegitimacy by doing so and I think it put itself in the same category as Chief Justice Taney in the 1857 Dred Scott decision in which they said blacks were inferior human beings not entitled to citizenship, as they did in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that said ‘sorry Carrie Buck, Virginia has a right to forcibly sterilize you.’”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious