C4

Tom DeLay: Violence Against Women Act Protects 'Sexual Deviance'

Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is currently out on bail while appealing his three year prison sentence in his corruption case, took the time to join Rick Scarborough on a March 7th Tea Party Unity conference call where he criticized the Violence Against Women Act.

He attacked the law because it “includes homosexuality, transgender; setting up all kinds of different classes of sexual deviance,” and later called it “unconstitutional.”

While they were having a meeting with the Values Action Team, which is reaching out to those values organizations, in the same week they passed the Senate’s Violence Against Women Act that includes homosexuality, transgender; setting up all kinds of different classes of sexual deviance. It’s just absolutely amazing that they did that. They fashioned a rule so it would be easier to pass the Senate bill, which is a wacko leftist bill. We as groups need to understand that that’s happening and reach out to the members of the House and the Senate and tell them enough is enough.



This is how we took over the House for the first time in forty years in 1994’s election is that for five years we spent five years providing alternatives to everything the Democrats were doing: alternative bills, alternative amendments, alternative press releases. We expressed ourselves by always having an alternative. The same here, if there is a Violence Against Women Act there should be a conservative alternative. First and foremost, they should point out the fact the whole act itself is unconstitutional.

DeLay insisted that conservatives need to “rebuild our infrastructure” in order to win elections again, by establishing new groups to “hold the media accountable” and creating “an outside organization that is focused on taking over our schools.”

We are desperate for a media operation to hold the media accountable. We need an outside group, formal group that reflects the left’s Media Matters, that’s a group that takes their message and drives it through the media, we desperately need something like that. We need an outside organization that is focused on taking over our schools. The left has our school systems and our universities and we’re doing nothing to take our schools back.

We need an infrastructure, a conservative infrastructure that fills the voids in politics, that holds the media accountable, that holds our schools accountable, that holds our churches accountable, we have Vision America that is trying to do that and other groups that are trying to do that, we desperately need that infrastructure if we’re going to win this. The other side has an infrastructure, that’s why they’re winning right now and we desperately need to rebuild the conservative movement and rebuild our infrastructure.

Judge Cebull Announces Retirement in Wake of Misconduct Investigation

U.S. District Judge Richard Cebull, who was investigated for misconduct by a judicial committee, will retire May 3rd. This represents a sudden, unexpected, and publicly unexplained change from his decision to continue hearing cases as a senior judge, which went into effect just two weeks ago. In response, People For the American Way president Michael Keegan released the following statement:

“After many months of investigation, Judge Cebull’s actions seem to have finally caught up with him. Cebull apparently hoped to avoid sanction by taking senior status before the misconduct investigation concluded. Fortunately, his gambit to avoid accountability was ultimately unsuccessful.

“Retirement was the only appropriate action for Cebull to take. He used his official email account to send an incredibly disgusting and racist email. When asked why, he said he sent it because he opposes the president.

“Americans expect the courts to be fair, impartial, and open to all. Cebull clearly demonstrated that he does not have the temperament to serve as a federal judge. His retirement, and the thorough investigation by the Ninth Circuit that precipitated it, are encouraging signs of a commitment to fairness and impartiality in the federal judiciary.”

###

Shredding the Constitution in North Carolina

North Carolina legislators introduce a resolution declaring that the state can establish a religion and that federal courts can't declare laws unconstitutional.
PFAW

Birthers Hope Roy Moore Will Be Their Savior

WorldNetDaily must be pleased with this “scoop”: former GOP congressman and third party presidential candidate Virgil Goode has joined Alabama Republican activist Hugh McInnish in filing a lawsuit arguing that President Obama is not eligible to be president.

But the story gets better: the attorney representing them is Larry Klayman.

And the story gets even better: the judge hearing the case is none other than Roy Moore.

Moore, who was recently returned to office as chief justice of Alabama’s state Supreme Court after he was removed from the post in 2003 for refusing to obey a court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument, is no fan of Obama.

WND also notes that Moore has defended birther hero Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who said he won’t follow deployment orders because he deemed any order from Obama to be illegitimate, and the increasingly unstable Klayman has praised Moore’s “integrity and legal acumen.”

Now, 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish are asking the state’s highest court to force Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state’s 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

Attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the Washington, D.C.-watch dog Judicial Watch and now head of Freedom Watch, filed the appeal Tuesday with the Alabama Supreme Court, asking for oral arguments.

“We are hopeful that Chief Justice Moore and the rest of the jurists on the Alabama Supreme Court will follow the law,” Klayman told WND.

Klayman says he and his team “have great respect for Chief Justice Moore and his integrity and legal acumen.”

“He is one courageous and brave man. There are few in this country.”

The case is an appeal of a dismissal by the Montgomery Circuit Court.

In his brief, Klayman says “credible evidence and information from an official source” was presented to Chapman before the election indicating Obama might not have been qualified for Oval Office.

The complaint argues Chapman failed her constitutional duty as secretary of state to verify the eligibility of candidates.

Moore is on the record questioning Obama’s eligibility.

In an interview with WND in 2010, he defended Lt. Col Terrence Lakin’s demand that President Obama prove his eligibility as commander in chief as a condition of obeying deployment orders.

Moore said he had seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a natural-born citizen and much evidence that suggests he is not.

Moore said Lakin “not only has a right to follow his personal convictions under the Constitution, he has a duty.”

“And if the authority running the efforts of the war is not a citizen in violation of the Constitution, the order is unlawful,” he said.

Klayman asserts the secretary of state “has an affirmative duty that stems from her oath of office under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions, to protect the citizens from fraud and other misconduct by candidates.”

As a result of her refusal to investigate the qualifications of candidates for president, Klayman says, “a person believed to be unqualified for that office has been elected.”

The remedy, he said, “is to require each candidate to do what every teenager is required to do to get a learner’s permit.”

“It is to produce a bona fide birth certificate … and the Secretary of State is the official to cause that to happen.”

McInnish is a member of the Madison County Republican Executive Committee and also sits on the state Republican Executive Committee.

Citing the investigation of Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, Klayman says Chapman “gained knowledge from an official source that there was probable cause to believe the Barack Obama had not met a certifying qualification.”

The appeal brief notes McInnish visited the secretary of state’s office Feb. 2, 2012, and spoke with the deputy secretary of state, Emily Thompson, in Chapman’s absence.



Moore told WND in an interview after his election last November that the country must return to a standard in which the rule of law prevails over politics.

He said Obama violated the Constitution when he bombed Libya, because the Constitution stipulates only Congress shall declare war.

“No president has the power to violate constitutional restraints of power,” Moore said.

“The Constitution is the rule of law, and [my job is] to uphold the rule of law.” Government’s job, Moore said, is to secure and protect those rights.

“There is little regard for the Constitution in the courts today, even the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Stemberger: Boy Scouts Will Face 'Physical Abuse' If It Doesn't Ban Kids Who Think 'It's Hip, It's Edgy To Be Gay'

Florida Family Policy Council head and anti-gay activist John Stemberger has created a new group, On My Honor, to oppose the “hyper-sexualization” of the Boy Scouts of America that he fears will take place if the group lifts its ban on gay members.

During an interview with Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd, Stemberger argued that if the BSA lifts the gay ban, the organization will experience a rise in “boy-on-boy” assaults and “emotional, sexual, psychological and physical abuse.”

He told Mefferd that kids these days all want to be gay and will then join the Boy Scouts to molest each other.

“It’s hip, it’s edgy to be gay and so they’re all saying they’re gay—they have no idea,” Stemberger said. “Well if scouting sends the message, ‘we’re open for gays,’ you’re going to have so much nonsense going on between older boys and younger boys.”

Mefferd: Now I know you are raising awareness as well about the dangers that open homosexuality within the scouting organization would present, what do you believe the biggest dangers would be if this policy were reversed and open homosexuality would be permitted in the Boy Scouts?

Stemberger: My personal opinion based upon my experience and talking to leaders all over the country and other scoutmasters, it is not going to be primarily adult gay men. Scouting has a very strict child protection program that requires two-deep leadership, that means that no adult can be alone with any child except with their own child at any time, they are extremely strict with it. So I don’t think the primary threat, although it could potentially be a threat, is going to be adults.

I think it is going to be boy-on-boy. My sister is a middle school teacher in Florida and she said, ‘John, everybody in the whole class is talking about ‘are you gay,’ ‘I’m gay,’ ‘I’m gender confused, what are you?’ It’s just like they don’t even know what they’re talking about. It’s hip, it’s edgy to be gay and so they’re all saying they’re gay—they have no idea. Well if scouting sends the message, ‘we’re open for gays,’ you’re going to have so much nonsense going on between older boys and younger boys, it’s just going to create a myriad of problems that really is going to result in further scandal, further disgrace to the scouts, not to mention just the tragedy of the emotional, sexual, psychological and physical abuse that will occur in the program. If even two children, even one child is going to be molested by another boy in the program, that is enough compelling in my judgment to say no, we are not going to do this, there is no reason for it whatsoever.

According to Stemberger, there really isn’t a ban on gays because you can still join as long as you are in the closet.

Later, Stemberger argued that the BSA should fear the example set by the Girl Scouts, which he claims is “being run by lesbians” and has “been really politicized and sexualized in a way that is inappropriate for children.”

Stemberger: Here’s an important point I want to make: currently there are people in scouting who are probably homosexual, there’s no litmus test, there’s no witch hunt to find out who they are; they’re discreet, they’re appropriate, they’re personal, they’re private, they’re not loud and proud, they’re not out there waving the rainbow flag and trying to make a big deal about it and trying to promote gay marriage and all this business. There’s no application question on what your sexual orientation is when you join scouting, the problem is what they’re allowing is open homosexuality. That’s a very different thing; that is promoting the gay agenda, that is promoting politics and it is just inappropriate. When it comes to children we think that sex and politics should stay out of the Boy Scouts, it should have no place in it whatsoever.



Stemberger: We have about two months to really make sure that this timeless institution is not transformed into something politicized thing like the Girl Scouts have, unfortunately where it is being run by lesbians and promoting Planned Parenthood, it’s just been really politicized and sexualized in a way that is inappropriate for children.

Mefferd: Yes, absolutely right.

Keyes: Gay Marriage Violates the Declaration of Independence

Alan Keyes isn’t done making anti-gay screeds, and this week writes in Renew America that LGBT equality is prohibited…by the Declaration of Independence.

He argues that according to the Declaration of Independence, America’s sovereignty relies on respecting God’s law, including the “rights of the God-endowed natural family.” Consequently, if the US doesn’t submit to divine authority, then the country will forfeit its sovereignty and be no more.

Keyes reasons that if the Supreme Court decides “to promote specious rights intended to supplant ‘the laws of nature and of nature’s God’ invoked in the Declaration of Independence” and “deny and disparage the natural rights of the God-endowed family” by approving of same-sex marriage, it would represent an “assault on the very root and source of our claim to decent liberty.”

Now, proponents of the Defense of Marriage law insist that the present occupant of the White House must simply "obey the law," even if he has reached the conclusion that it violates a constitutional right he is obliged by oath to respect. But their insistence violates the logic that substantiates the Constitution's constraining effect on the use of the U.S. government's powers. In the first instance, each branch has the duty to keep within the boundaries of the Constitution. The issue involved in Obama's refusal to defend DOMA is not, therefore, necessarily about his obligation to "obey the law." It is about whether or not, in this particular instance, his view that the law is unconstitutional is correct.



Because the elitist faction aims to overthrow constitutional government of, by, and for the people, they work to obscure or tacitly deny this fact. They want Americans to accept the notion that those who happen to wield the power of government at any given moment may decide, amongst themselves and without recourse to the people, what is constitutional and what is not. If and when the American people foolishly acquiesce in this oligarchic lie, they will thereby surrender their status as a free people.



As I recently pointed out, we learn the source and nature of these unenumerated rights from another "fundamental law" of the United States – the Declaration of Independence, which ascribes them to the Creator's endowment of all humanity. Most self-evident among them are the rights of the God-endowed natural family "rooted in obligations antecedent to any and all humanly instituted law or government." From this endowment, the people of the United States derive the sovereign authority to establish and maintain their self-government. Unless they are willing to subvert their own sovereignty, they are obliged, in their actions and decisions, to respect the source of authority that validates it.

In the weeks to come, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide to promote specious rights intended to supplant "the laws of nature and of nature's God" invoked in the Declaration of Independence. They may decide, in contravention of the Ninth Amendment, to deny and disparage the natural rights of the God-endowed family. It will then be for us, the people, to decide how to respond to their assault on the very root and source of our claim to decent liberty. If we respect the logic that reasonably, morally, and constitutionally justifies what their decision seeks to destroy, we will be able confidently to appeal, as America's founders did in the Declaration, "to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions." Then, whatever we face, we will have the courage to defend the institution that God made to be the living archetype of all the rest of our belongings.

PFAW: North Carolina Bill to Establish State Religion Threatens Bedrock American Values

Bill makes clear how radical tea party Republican lawmakers are when it comes to pushing their ideology on the rest of us.

Brian Brown: 'Ours Is Actually a Libertarian Argument' To Ban Gay Marriage

Like Rep. Louie Gohmert, Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage also participated in pastor Rick Scarborough’s Tea Party Unity conference calls back in March, where he made the “libertarian” argument against legalizing same-sex marriage.

Brown commended his anti-gay organization for having been able to “motivate a lot of the Tea Party groups” along with “African American and Hispanic folks” around their shared fear that gay marriage will undermine the Constitution and jeopardize “the future of Western civilization.”

After discussing how NOM is “working with leaders like Senator [Marco] Rubio or Ted Cruz,” he warned that marriage equality will grow the size and scope of government. If the state recognizes same-sex unions, Brown claimed, then public officials will “use the power of the state to punish, repress and marginalize” anti-gay activists.

He said that NOM’s opposition to marriage equality rests on the “libertarian argument” that if the state refuses to “recognize the truth that marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman” then “you’re giving the power to the state to call black white and white black, to put a falsehood into the law and a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.”

This is an issue where we can get new blood to support the Constitution, I mean that’s what’s at stake, Constitutionalism. When you have African American and Hispanic folks stepping up and saying that we will stand up for traditional marriage, we can make inroads there. I think the local Tea Party groups that have helped us with marches, helped us in any way they can, they’ve understood that this is about marriage, this is about the future of Western civilization, but this is also about our Constitution and whether judges can willy nilly create law out of thin air and I think that that has helped motivate a lot of the Tea Party groups.



We need leaders and we’re working with leaders like Senator [Marco] Rubio or Ted Cruz, or whoever they may be, who understand what’s at stake and will really lead the party and sort of counter some of these arguments. The second part of this is this false libertarian argument that somehow the state should just get out of marriage altogether. That is not going to happen. There is really one or two outcomes that’s going to happen in this: either we’re going to have the state embrace this new definition of marriage and use the power of the state to punish, repress and marginalize those of us that know that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, or we’re going to have the state recognize the truth about marriage.

Ours is actually a libertarian argument. We’re not arguing that the state create marriage, the state does not create marriage, but the state has to recognize the truth that marriage is by its nature the union of a man and a woman. When it abandons that truth, you’re giving the power to the state to call black white and white black, to put a falsehood into the law and a state that can do that is a state that pretty much can do anything.

Brown also fielded a question from notorious ant-gay activist Brian Camenker of MassResistance, who asked why NOM is not taking “a hard stance” against same-sex relationships and openly calling homosexuality “perverse” and “unnatural.”

Brown said that NOM tries to avoid making those arguments outright simply for tactical reasons as they are trying to sway Justice Anthony Kennedy and “it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.”

However, Brown said that other groups should continue “taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality.”

“Different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing,” Brown explained. “So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.”

Camenker: It’s concerning to a lot of people that the arguments being used in the various court cases concede that homosexual relationships are legitimate and not a perversion or what have you, we just don’t like them, and we wonder if there was more of a hard stance that they are not legitimate, that it is perverse, unnatural and what have you, that we might have some better success in some of the cases.

The second part of the question is I understand that you’re at CPAC, what is it like being virtually the only pro-family, pro-marriage guy there? I’m very disturbed at the way CPAC is being run this year.

Brown: Whenever I’m asked about what I think about homosexuality, I’m very clear, I believe and as a Catholic I believe in the traditional teaching of our church. I think that sex is reserved for marriage, period. As far as the legal arguments go we may differ. I think a lot of the legal arguments have been made in the Prop 8 case especially have been made to speak to [Justice] Kennedy and Kennedy has already found in the Lawrence case, for example, that states can’t ban sodomy. So it’s not likely that a stronger argument about homosexuality is really going to shift Kennedy.

I know some people think we need to focus more on homosexuality. All I’ll say is that when asked I state what I believe and many of the religious supporters that we’ll have at the march clearly will stand up and proclaim biblical truth on marriage, but I’m not sure whether legally that is the best strategy. Also, different groups need to do different things, not all groups have to do the same thing. So folks that are taking a harder line in focusing more on homosexuality, there need to be different groups doing different things.

Bauer: Ben Carson Facing a 'Leftist Lynching'

Yesterday, Gary Bauer told members of his organization the Campaign for Working Families that conservative activist Ben Carson is the victim of a “leftist lynching.”

Bauer said that “the left-wing coalition of socialists and radical secularists” and its “political killing machine” have targeted Carson just as they have attacked “Clarence Thomas, Allen West and other people of color who have defended conservatism.”

He especially took issue with criticism of Carson’s comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, warning that the campaign for marriage equality is “a battering ram to destroy your religious liberty and freedom of speech.”

The Leftist "Lynching" Of Ben Carson Begins

Dr. Ben Carson burst onto the scene after his bold speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February. His remarks were a breath of fresh air for millions of Americans who want to take the country back from the left-wing coalition of socialists and radical secularists. I have known about Dr. Carson for years, and I agree that he seems to have the character many would like to see in our leaders. BUT. . .

It is a vain hope to think that simply having a good heart and a remarkable story of success and achievement will somehow inoculate that individual from the political killing machine that the left has developed in recent years.



MSNBC's Toure Neblett recently said that Dr. Carson is nothing more than the conservative movement's "new black friend" who is "helpful in assuaging their guilt." He also said that Dr. Carson, a neurosurgeon, is "unserious." This is what the left has done to Clarence Thomas, Allen West and other people of color who have defended conservatism.

Now comes the latest attack against Dr. Carson. The left is creating a narrative that he is a bigot. Asked on Sean Hannity's show what he thought about the marriage debate, Dr. Carson responded:

"Well, my thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society, and no group -- be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn't matter what they are -- they don't get to change the definition."

Dr. Carson was immediately excoriated for his remarks, and he quickly apologized if he offended anyone. (Note to Dr. Carson: Don't run for president if you are going to start apologizing for offending liberals. They are offended by your very existence.)

Now students at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine have launched a petition to prevent Dr. Carson from speaking at this year's commencement ceremony because his values are "deeply offensive to a large proportion our student body." (Note to pastors and young Christians: The same-sex marriage debate is not about "fairness for everyone." Wake up! This is a battering ram to destroy your religious liberty and freedom of speech.)



In contrast, liberals see a black conservative doctor with a wonderful personality and incredible achievements and no matter how popular he is, their first instinct is to take him down. That is what the radical left has done to our politics. They have turned it into a "blood sport," and right now it is Dr. Ben Carson being sliced up.

Pratt: 'Angry Liberals Should Not Have Guns'

Larry Pratt, the extremist and conspiratorial leader of Gun Owners of America, last week gave a speech to We the People Tea Party of Northwest Louisiana where he mused that liberals should not be allowed to own guns.

After saying that President Obama held a shotgun “girly like” while skeet shooting, the Shreveport Times reports that Pratt told the group that Democrats like Obama “almost got me convinced to modify my purist Second Amendment position: there are people that shouldn’t have guns, angry liberals should not have guns.”

Watch:

Keyes: Marriage Equality is the 'Archetype of all Crimes Against Humanity'

Alan Keyes once again appeared on Stan Solomon’s talk show, this time to discuss their stringent opposition to marriage equality.

After host, Steve Davis, claimed that just because they “oppose homosexual marriage or homosexual adoptions, it doesn’t mean that we’re homophobes,” Solomon insisted that he is indeed a homophobe.

“Speak for yourself,” Solomon said, “I can’t stand the thought, the idea, the concept of homosexuality.”

“I don’t think I’m showing love for anyone if I encourage them or enable them or stand silently while they do something that’s going to kill them; the average homosexual lives half the adult life of the average heterosexual, fact,” Solomon maintained, as he went on to comparing homosexuality to drug abuse, drunk driving and swimming with sharks.

Keyes, who kicked his daughter out of his house after she came out of the closet, agreed with Solomon’s anti-gay statements.

Later, Keyes attacked Sen. Rob Portman’s for endorsing marriage equality after learning that his son is gay: “If you go down a road that satisfies your personal predilections and relationships and sacrifices the common good of the country, including the elementary institution by which civilization is sustained, then you’re not only derelict in your public duty, you are abandoning your obligation as a human being.”

“Frankly, people throw around words like ‘crime against humanity,’ I think that kind of disregard for the God-endowed natural rights of human being is the archetype of all crimes against humanity,” Keyes concluded, “and I think we have an entire elite faction that is now committed to committing such a crime against the American people.”

Watch:

Ex-Gay Activist to Starbucks: Prepare for Divine Punishment

Religious Right groups have been promoting a boycott against Starbucks ever since the company announced its support for a marriage equality law in its home state of Washington. Now an ex-gay activist is warning the company to prepare for a divine reckoning after Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz rebuffed the head of the Corporate Morality Action Center, which opposes gay rights.

In an interview with the Chrisitan News Network, ex-gay preacher Robert Breaud, who is best known for his hit song “It’s Not OK To Be Gay,” said that Schultz has taken a “Christ-hating position” and is “helping to destroy young people’s lives.”

“God will not bless your business in the long run if you consistently thumb your nose at Him and support things He calls sinful,” Breaud said. An ex-homosexual who now serves as an evangelist states that he has decided to join the boycott against the coffee king Starbucks following recent remarks made by CEO Howard Schultz regarding the company’s support of homosexual “marriage.”

“It’s an unGodly, Christ-hating position,” he said of Schultz’s comments. Robert Breaud of Wisconsin told Christian News Network that he had been involved in the homosexual lifestyle until his 30′s, but has served Christ now for nearly 20 years.

“I basically got my fill of the emptiness of sin,” he said. “I was never happy, never filled, never satisfied with male-to-male relationships.”



He said that if he could sit down with Schultz, he would urge him to do what is right.

“[I would tell him,] if you want God to bless your business, run it in accordance with His law … with His revealed will in Scripture,” Breaud stated. “You’re promoting sin. You’re helping to destroy young people’s lives. … God will not bless your business in the long run if you consistently thumb your nose at Him and support things He calls sinful.”

Breaud urged others to join the boycott as well.

“There’s really no good reason not to join the boycott,” he said. “There’s only excuses.”

“Who do you love more, Christ or your coffee?”

Deace on O'Reilly's Marriage Remarks: 'That Is a Hanging Offense'

Conservative talk show host Steve Deace is not happy with Bill O’Reilly’s seeming reversal on marriage equality, telling Religious Right activist Bob Vander Plaats that O’Reilly is “betraying” his own viewers and is essentially a “charlatan” and a “fraud.”

While discussing the Supreme Court’s handling of the marriage cases with Vander Plaats, who warned that the court could “set off a constitutional crisis,” Deace said that O’Reilly is a traitor to his conservative base: “you stab them in the back, throw them under the bus and use the enemy’s own language against them. To me that’s a hanging offense; that is a hanging offense.”

Vander Plaats: If you usurp the will of the people—we saw it in Iowa, you usurp the will of the people, three justices get removed, there’s a credibility gap with the three justices that continue to serve— if you usurp the vote of the people of California you will set off a constitutional crisis against these United States and it should be a constitutional crisis. People like you and me and others, we’d help do our part to set off a constitutional crisis if that is in fact what they came back with.

Deace: I’ve got a bee in my bonnet big time and it’s Bill O’Reilly at Fox News. I don’t like charlatans, I don’t like frauds; give me Rachel Maddow, at least she’s honest. But when you are trying to profit off of the very people you are betraying and you have tried to condescend them and patronize them for years and then at the moment they probably need you to return the favor of all the money they made you over the last fifteen years the most, you stab them in the back, throw them under the bus and use the enemy’s own language against them. To me that’s a hanging offense; that is a hanging offense.

Deace said there are no good arguments for same-sex marriage, and gay rights activists are just throwing “a hissy-fit.” He even said it is pointless to note that homosexuality is found in other species besides humans since “there’s also the licking of one’s own genitals, the flinging of one’s own feces and the eating of live prey and then puking it up to feed your offspring in nature too.”   

With this issue there are no good arguments for it because the argument essentially boils down to, ‘because I want it.’ It’s essentially a tantrum; it’s policy by desire. ‘Because I want it.’ It’s a child throwing a hissy-fit, tantrum in Wal-Mart because mom bought me the regular sized M&Ms and not the king-sized that I demanded. As Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation pointed out on CNN this week that just drove the reporter into a meltdown, ‘no one is in jail for having consensual homosexual sex with another adult, what you’re trying to do is impose your narrow definition of what this means and therefore what it means for free speech and religious liberty on everybody else.’ So they throw out all these clichés and they are so easy to debunk. One of my favorites is, ‘well there’s homosexuality in nature.’ There’s also the licking of one’s own genitals, the flinging of one’s own feces and the eating of live prey and then puking it up to feed your offspring in nature too.

Robertson: 'Simple' Foreigners More Likely to Experience Miracles than 'Sophisticated' Americans

Today on the 700 Club, a viewer asked host Pat Robertson why miracles such as “people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, lame people walking” seem to “happen with great frequency in Africa, and not here in the USA?” Robertson first responded by joking it is “because those people overseas didn’t go to Ivy League schools.”

But Robertson was actually serious.

“Well, we are so sophisticated, we think we’ve got everything figured out, we know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn’t real, we know about all this stuff,” Robertson lamented, “in many schools, in the most advanced schools, we have been inundated with skepticism and secularism.”

Unlike these too-educated Americans, “overseas they are simple and humble” and are more ready to accept miracles.

Watch:

Peterson: Obama's Mother Taught Him to Be 'Racist' Against White People

Conservative pastor and regular Fox News guest Jesse Lee Peterson of BOND appeared on TruNews with Rick Wiles last week, where Peterson argued that Obama is “racist” against white people because his mother “hated being white.”

After Wiles claimed that Obama’s family “had connections to the New World Order,” Peterson said Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, “hated her color” and raised Obama “not to accept that side of himself.”

Of course, then Wiles insisted that it really has nothing to do with race because Obama “is red inside; he is a Communist, that’s the problem,” and Peterson called the President “evil.”

Wiles: I voted for Alan Keyes years ago and I didn’t see the media going out there and whipping up guilt and telling white people: ‘you people should vote for Alan Keyes, he’s a black man.’ Alan Keyes is a real black man, okay? To be very precise, Barack Obama is not the first black president he is the first mixed-race president. He is fifty percent white and fifty percent black, there is nothing wrong with that and this is a wonderful thing that a mixed-race person was elected. But when I criticize him I just tell people, ‘I’m not criticizing his black half, I’m criticizing his white half.’ He was raised by white people and he was raised by white people who were connected to the New World Order. That man had a silver spoon in his mouth. He was not raised by a goat herder in Kenya, he was raised by his white family and they had connections to the New World Order and nobody wants to talk about this.

Peterson: I don’t think that Obama even identifies with the white aspect of himself. His mother, she hated her color, she hated being white and I’m thinking, I don’t have a whole lot of proof of this, but I do know she hated her color, hated being white. I think he may have been brought up not to accept that side of himself and that adds to him being a racist because he doesn’t really respect white folks.

Wiles: It has nothing to do with the color of his skin, it is because he is red inside; he is a Communist, that’s the problem.

Peterson: It’s all spiritual. I tell people all the time, our battle is a spiritual battle; a warfare between good and evil and Barack Obama is evil.

The two also discussed the best ways to pray for Obama, which apparently means praying that Obama is forced out of office, sent to jail and finds God:

Wiles: I’m obligated to pray for him to get saved but I’m not obligated to pray that he commits evil in this country.

Peterson: I’m obligated to pray him out of there before he destroys this country, that’s what I’m praying for. Let’s say that they’re going to pray for him, what would they pray? Other than, like you said, they pray that he accepts Christ as his Lord and Savior, other than that what are they praying for? He doesn’t even believe in the same God that they’re even praying to.

Wiles: I’m praying that he gets arrested and sent to prison and then a prison ministry reaches him with the Gospel.

Peterson: I’m telling you, sit around and pray while this guy is destroying our country, corrupting the minds of the young, and these guys are just going to sit around and pray?

Peterson also maintained that Obama’s alleged anti-white racism and support for gay rights “has given evil permission to come” and proves he is not a Christian.

Peterson: It is just hard to believe that we have a socialist, a redistribution of wealth, black liberation theology, racist man who hates Israel and hates whites in America back in the White House. He supports abortion at any point, he also supports so-called same-sex marriage and he overturned Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in the military. I believe that because we have this type of person in the White House that he has given evil permission to come forward and that is why we see so many negative things happening in our country because we have a man who approves of all these things.

Wiles: I agree. That is the most important thing that we’re going to talk about, he has given evil permission to run wild in this country, he sanctions it; he is a man of lawlessness.

Peterson: That’s right, he’s not of God. I don’t see any indication where he’s a Christian at all, I’m not sure if he’s a Muslim yet, I can’t say that for sure, but I can definitely say that he is not a Christian.

Huelskamp: Marriage Equality is Unpatriotic and Furthers 'The Destruction of the Family'

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is no stranger to pushing anti-gay rhetoric and policies, and in the Washington Times today attacked marriage equality for being “in defiance of biology, nature and common sense” and allegedly “further[ing] the destruction of the family.”

According to Huelskamp, a Supreme Court ruling that struck down either Proposition 8 or the Defense of Marriage Act would do “irreparable harm to yet another pillar of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture.”

“If that definition is changed by the court, the purpose of marriage devolves to mere recognition of an emotional union,” Huelskamp writes. “In so doing, the children of America will be shortchanged.”

President Obama and I have very different notions of what a family is. For liberals, the family can apparently be everything from “Heather Has Two Mommies” to “Daddy’s Roommate” to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “It Takes a Village.” In the opinion of electoral majorities in Kansas and 40 other states, however, that does not a family make.



The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in two landmark cases concerning homosexual marriage . The Hollingsworth v. Perry case challenges the federal constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative approved by 7 million voters to amend California’s state constitution to define marriage as an institution that involves only one man and one woman. The Windsor v. United States case challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal statute overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 that recognizes traditional marriage for federal purposes and protects states from having homosexual marriage imposed upon them by other states. If at least five Supreme Court justices do not resist the temptation to legislate from the bench, they might overturn Proposition 8 and DOMA. If that happens, the high priests and priestesses of political correctness will have done irreparable harm to yet another pillar of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture — “God, the flag, mom and apple pie.” Activist judges have already expelled faith from the public square (forbidding the Ten Commandments, a cross in remembrance of our military heroes, and Christmas Nativity scenes) and decriminalized burning the Stars and Stripes in public. The First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” initiative and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s sugary-drink ban suggest the days of consuming apple pie might well be numbered.

That leaves motherhood. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the Congressional Resolution that established Mother's Day. Every president since Woodrow Wilson has issued proclamations that pay homage to the significance of motherhood. In 1981, Ronald Reagan wrote: “They shape the character of our people through the love and nurture of their children. It is the strength they give their families that keeps our nation strong.” In 2011, President Obama wrote: “[W]e celebrate the extraordinary importance of mothers in our lives. The bond of love and dedication a mother shares with her children and family is without bounds or conditions.”

In the Hollingsworth case, though, The Justice Department argues that children do not need mothers. The Obama administration makes the incredible assertion that motherhood is superfluous to rebut an argument that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, provides the ideal situation to raise a child. In defiance of biology, nature and common sense, the administration argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers or more is just as good as having one of each.



Redefining marriage to remove parents of both sexes from the equation would further the destruction of the family, the most fundamental building block of society. If that definition is changed by the court, the purpose of marriage devolves to mere recognition of an emotional union. In so doing, the children of America will be shortchanged — and the will of the American people would be once again short-circuited by black robes in Washington.

MRC's Gainor: Media Using 'Full-Blown Fascist Propaganda' to Promote Gay Rights

Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center is very, very, very angry at the media’s coverage of the Supreme Court’s marriage cases. In fact, he is so angry that he is accusing the media of pushing “full-blown fascist propaganda.”

After calling the comedy The New Normal a “propaganda show,” Gainor told the American Family Association’s news service that the media “are going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise.”

Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture for MRC, said from the Post to the big three broadcast networks, the mainstream media is actively lobbying the American public.

“They even talk about the media component, how the media have propagandized our ‘media culture,’ in the words of [NBC news anchor] Brian Williams,” notes Gainor. “So they talk about it and they show Ellen DeGeneres, they show Modern Family clips, they show Will & Grace. They show a very tiny snippet The New Normal, which conveniently is NBC’s propaganda show.”



And Gainor tells American Family News that NBC has been the biggest violator of pushing its own gay agenda, citing its report that he says was “filled with images of TV’s gay icons.”

“That’s their strategy,” he remarks. “They’re going to have almost no voices [from the other side] because they don’t believe that anybody should have a right to think otherwise. It’s beyond bias; it’s actually I would even say beyond censorship. It is full-blown fascist propaganda.”

The MRC spokesman says while the Supreme Court may not be able to come to an agreement, the elite media has determined the issue to already be decided.

Erik Rush: Gay Rights and Common Core Lead to 'Tyranny'

Conservative commentator Erik Rush in a column today writes that the “perpetuation of the homosexual lifestyle” will “destabilize society” and put the U.S. on “the road to tyranny.” Such rhetoric almost seems tame for the vehemently anti-gay writer, but he goes on to make up for it by citing Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze TV’s conspiratorial “reporting” on Common Core standards to claim that “tyranny” is on its way to America.

Out of frustration, apathy, and fear of conflict, I imagine a great many Americans of otherwise sound mind have fallen into the delusion that two homosexuals getting “married” doesn’t hurt them, so why not let them do so. Thus, overall opposition to the advancing phenomenon even among conservatives in America has been fairly lax.

I say “delusion” because manifesting this societal paradigm will in fact hurt them – meaning society at large – because perpetuation of the homosexual lifestyle as represented in our culture does destabilize society. Despite the propaganda and the rhetoric, we know that embracing homosexuality has a dramatically deleterious effect on society. In the main, progressives have courted pusillanimous fools who would “allow” same-sex unions, but ban guns and dodge ball; they are too ignorant and self-righteous to realize that this is the road to tyranny.

It has also been established that this issue has implications far more widespread than “loving people committing to each other.” We already have ample proof in the realm of education of how far radical minds will go to indoctrinate American children into moral relativism and deviance. Imagine what they will do if they perceive they have the countenance and approval of most Americans.



This is why I have argued against the “same-sex marriage” concept. I am well aware that liberals and homophiles will call me a big fat hater with cooties for speaking thus, but I could care less what kind of sex consenting adults have. It’s none of my business – but arresting the progress of an agenda that’s ultimately harmful to all of us is.



Forget Minority Report; such programs as the Common Core curriculum and technology project (recently reported on by columnist Michelle Malkin and TheBlaze TV, and which lays bare the incestuous conspiracies of certain captains of industry and government socialists) are right out of the film THX 1138 in their intrusiveness and tyranny.

Then we have the surreal comportment of our government in the face of staggeringdebt and deficits. While only a handful of Americans really understand the dynamic (despite its simplicity), the stage currently being set by the Federal Reserve will bring about an economic catastrophe unparalleled in modern times. Having witnessed the intentional economic collapse catalyzed by these statists via the Community Reinvestment Act, I see no reason to presume that this is not occurring by design. With its brazen, ever-increasing spending, the Obama administration has telegraphed an intention to add fuel to this fire no matter the circumstances or consequence.

Americans have no doubt found the economic turmoil in Cyprus in recent weeks entertaining, but they remain completely unaware that not only could it happen here, but provisions have been made for precisely this eventuality. Have you wondered how Americans might react when the government begins confiscating our bank accounts to pay its debt?

Kuhner: 'Homosexual Lobby' Pushes 'Fascism,' 'Moral Anarchy' and 'A Culture of Death'

The Washington Times’ stringently anti-gay columnist Jeffrey Kuhner is out with a new piece today warning that gay equality will result in “moral anarchy and social disintegration.” According to Kuhner, “the homosexual lobby” is being advanced by the “modern-day fascists” of the judiciary, who seek to bring about “liberal fascism.”

“Their lifestyles and behaviors inevitably lead to a culture of death,” Kuhner writes. “Homosexual behavior — for example, sodomy — is unnatural and immoral.”

He goes on to write that a gay rights victory at the Supreme Court “will be calamitous for democracy and the family” as it would bring about “social intolerance and secular McCarthyism,” such as hate speech laws, and exacerbate society’s “cultural decay and moral decadence.”

The homosexual lobby is on the verge of a historic victory. The potential consequences will be calamitous for democracy and the family. It will usher in a brave new world marked by cultural decadence and judicial tyranny. Traditional America will be smashed — probably forever.



They are seeking to impose a social revolution from above. Their weapon: the courts. The attempt to roll back Proposition 8 represents a fundamental assault on our democracy. In 2008, the voters of California decided in a free and fair election to retain the historic — and real — definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The referendum passed with nearly 53 percent. Blacks and Hispanics supported it by large majorities. The electorate spoke. Instead of respecting the vote, however, the homosexual lobby has sought to overturn the will of the people. The courts then nullified the election pending the appeal process. It is now in the hands of the high court.

This is a national tragedy — and shame. Democracy is being subordinated to judicial imperialism. The right of self-government is being supplanted by the rule of unelected and unaccountable elites. It is liberal fascism masquerading as judicial review. Wearing black robes does not give judges the justification to repeal an election. Judges are becoming modern-day fascists, unilaterally wielding state power to trample on legislative prerogatives, democratic freedoms and basic social institutions. We are slowly ceding power not to a single dictator, but to a gang of legal oligarchs — ideological leftist activists who are legislating from the bench.

If five Supreme Court justices can reverse Proposition 8, then popular elections will be rendered meaningless. We are sliding toward a post-democratic age. This is the inevitable logic of secular liberalism. Moreover, homosexual marriage has nothing to do with “tolerance” or ending “discrimination.” It is about legitimizing the homosexual lifestyle, compelling society to embrace a radical new morality.

Same-sex marriage is a contradiction, an oxymoron. It is an attempt to redefine reality and human nature. Marriage is the basic institution of society. Its very definition (and essence) is the sacred union between a man and a woman. Its fundamental aim — and the reason for centuries it has held a special status in Western civilization — is to produce, raise and socialize children. It is the social conveyor belt by which one generation is passed on to the next. Destroy the family, and with it goes the glue holding society together.

Homosexuals cannot have children naturally. Their lifestyles and behaviors inevitably lead to a culture of death — the absence of any future human life, the fruits of a marital union. Liberal activists have been trying desperately to suppress a fundamental truth: Homosexual behavior — for example, sodomy — is unnatural and immoral. This is why it has been historically considered a grave sin in Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Even deists, such as Thomas Jefferson, believed sodomy so violated public morality that those who practiced it should be castrated.

Yet, by claiming that marriage is a “civil right,” pro-homosexual activists are hoping to portray same-sex marriage critics as intolerant bigots. In fact, their objective is to import the “hate speech” laws common in Europe. This leads to social intolerance and secular McCarthyism, whereby the Bible is viewed as hate literature for its opposition to homosexuality.



Liberal logic on the issue inevitably paves the way for moral anarchy and social disintegration. If marriage is a civil right, then anyone — including polygamists, bigamists and pedophiles — will demand that they be allowed to form unions. In fact, this is already taking place in Europe, Canada and Brazil, where same-sex marriage has been legalized. The push for homosexual marriage is a symptom of cultural decay and moral decadence. It reveals a civilization unable or unwilling to defend its most vital institutions. This is why many Americans innately know its wrong. It’s why the homosexual lobby has to crush dissenting voices. The cost, however, is the sabotaging of our democracy.

Rios: Public Schools 'Softening Children Up' for Predators

The American Family Association’s Sandy Rios claimed on her radio program yesterday that the gay rights movement is encouraging the “sexualization of our children in public schools” and “softening children up with sexual information way before they’re ready for it in order to prepare them for sexual activity, for predators.”

And even closer to home, Bobby, I think the case could be made, though I’m not sure I’ve made it on this program, that the sexualization of our children in public schools through the radical homosexual movement is really just a cousin to softening children up with sexual information way before they’re ready for it in order to prepare them for sexual activity, for predators. That’s what I think is happening in our public schools.

Rios offered her theory after a conversation with Robert Lopez, a bisexual anti-gay activist, who recalled his recent trip to France to participate in anti-marriage equality protests. Marriage equality, Lopez lamented, is “a dictatorship that is being imposed on the world.”

Those of us in the United States who are very concerned about the same-sex parenting and where that’s going are not alone. I think that there are countries all over Europe and all over the world where people feel increasingly that this is a dictatorship that is being imposed on the world. And I use the word ‘dictatorship’ very consciously because, you know, they tear-gassed children and they tear-gassed politicians who were elected officials behind me while I was at the march in Paris, and it was shameful.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious