C4

Emerson Warns of 'Stealth Jihad' Through the Government, Media, Hollywood, Universities and Book Publishers

End Times fanatic Rick Wiles of TruNews on Friday hosted notorious anti-Muslim activist Steven Emerson to discuss how the Muslim Brotherhood is coming to power in the US and around the globe. Emerson alleged that members of Congress, specifically Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) are “in the pocket” of Islamist groups which are using “stealth jihad.”

Emerson: They’re using what I call legal insurgency, it is stealth jihad. What they are doing is legal—

Wiles: I agree, that’s what I’m saying, it’s a mental thing, they are changing the mindset of the American people, it is jihad.

Emerson: They are trying to change the mindset and they’ve already made inroads in Congress, they’ve got certain Senators in Congress like Keith Ellison, Sen. Dick Durbin and others who are in their pocket. I know this, I can prove it.

He also claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood has “penetrated virtually all institutions in the United States, wittingly or unwittingly,” including the federal government, news media, entertainment industry, book publishers and academia, as they back the group’s “ultra-fascist ideology.”

Like fellow anti-Muslim firebrand Kamal Saleem, who has maintained that he discussed plots with professors on how to recruit their students into terrorism, Emerson added that professors teach from a “radical Islamist” perspective.

Emerson: The Muslim Brotherhood has penetrated virtually all institutions in the United States, wittingly or unwittingly: the White House; the Department of Justice; Hollywood; the media; the State Department; the publishing industry.

Wiles: Why carryout terrorist acts if you can just quietly take over the country?

Emerson: That’s exactly what they said.

Wiles: And they are succeeding.

Emerson: Yes they are. They are succeeding—they’ve already been able to succeed in cutting these Faustian deals with the media where the ultra-fascist ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is totally consistent with the ultra-left-wing ideology of the media and it’s reflected on campuses in academia and student groups, it’s reflected in books and it’s also reflected in policies by the U.S. government.



Emerson: What are they teaching in academia today? Who are the professors? What are the student groups promoting? It’s a radical Islamist view of the United States and Israel, it contrives to present western civilizational values as morally equivalent to radical Islamic fundamentalist values, nothing could be further from the truth.

Marriage Equality Opponent Says 'Bigger Problem' Is No-Fault Divorce

Often lost in the debate over marriage equality is the fact that many of its leading opponents aren’t just interested in keeping the status quo on marriage. Instead, they're seeking to reverse what they see as a decline that began with laws granting greater freedom to women within marriages – specifically, the right to no-fault divorce.

In a conversation with radio host Janet Mefferd Friday, anti-gay writer Frank Turek responded to marriage equality supporters who point to divorce rates among straight couples. “You don’t make the car better by slashing another tire on it,” he said. “ You go back and repair the first tire. And I’m the first one to say that the bigger problem right now is no-fault divorce.”

Turek: I would agree with them that heterosexuals have debased it, heterosexuals have slashed one of the tires of marriage. But that’s not an argument for slashing another tire.

Mefferd: Good point, good point.

Turek: You don’t make the car better by slashing another tire on it. You go back and repair the first tire. And I’m the first one to say that the bigger problem right now is no-fault divorce.

Mefferd: Ah, yes.

Turek: But that is not an argument for same-sex marriage, in fact it’s an argument against it. Why? Because it shows you that when you liberalize marriage laws, you actually have a negative effect on society, which is what the no-fault marriage laws have done. So if you’re going to make marriage even more liberal, if you’re going to even further tear down the definition of marriage and make it totally genderless now, you’re going to have even worse results. You’re going to have even more illegitimacy, more kids that aren’t taken care of.

Now, I know the same-sex marriage advocates are going to say, ‘What, so same-sex marriage is going to do to your marriage?’ Well, it’s not going to do anything to my personal marriage, but it’s going to debase the institution of marriage into the future, make it a genderless institution, and that will hurt children and hurt the whole country.

Klayman: 'Rebellion' Necessary to Stop 'Obama's Mission to Enslave the Nation'

In whatever world Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman inhabits, President Obama has “unleashed black helicopters in our major cities to intimidate people and set up committees to determine who in its estimation is a ‘subversive’ and may have to be eliminated.”

Klayman, once again calling for armed rebellion, writes in WorldNetDaily that President Obama is trying to crush an “imminent rebellion by the informed masses” against his “mission to enslave the nation in his brand of Marxist ideology” by “removing the people’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

He dubs Obama a “modern-day disciple” of King George III and laments that he won re-election by “pitting the poor and middle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Latino against Anglo, gay against straight, and Muslim against Jew and Christian.” He concludes that if “all non-violent means” to depose Obama are exhausted, conservatives must follow the example of the Founding Fathers and stage an armed revolt.

The First Despot, King George III, raped the rich colonies with high taxes, ignored their grievances, subverted their legal system and as a final stroke seized and destroyed the colonists’ caches of guns and other means of self-defense when it became apparent that the citizens could stand no more tyranny from the Crown. Even worse, 236 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, triggering the first American Revolution, the modern-day disciple of the king, demagogue President Barack Hussein Obama, has onerously raised taxes, engaged in class warfare, pitting the poor and middle class against the so-called rich, black against white, Latino against Anglo, gay against straight, and Muslim against Jew and Christian, in order to win re-election.

To insure that Obama’s mission to enslave the nation in his brand of Marxist ideology succeeds in the face of imminent rebellion by the informed masses, his government has armed itself to the teeth, unleashed black helicopters in our major cities to intimate the people and set up committees to determine who in its estimation is a “subversive” and may have to be eliminated with drone and other strikes on American citizens on U.S. soil. [See "Obama prepares to kill 2nd American Revolution"]. And, last but not least, to this end, Obama has also issued executive actions as the first step to removing the people’s Second Amendment right to bear arms to defend themselves against “his” government and its evil designs.

With the exception of a few, like Sen. Rand Paul, no one in the Republican opposition has the will or guts to oppose Obama’s dictatorial quest to remove our freedoms and civil liberties and potentially assassinate those American citizens who resist his and the rest of the government establishment’s claim of total “sovereignty” over us.

We the People, initially using all non-violent means, must ourselves rise up! But if in the end it means following the lead of our First Founding Father, Patrick Henry, we reserve our God-given rights to defend ourselves and to restore liberty to our shores.

As in colonial times leading to the birth of a free country, we will never surrender! Instead, must be prepared to use all legally righteous means to restore the country to greatness!

Give us liberty or give us death! God did not forsake our Founding Fathers, and He will not forsake us!

White House Urges Senate to ‘Return to the Prompt Consideration of Judicial Nominees’

Chris Kang, Senior Counsel to the President, notes on the White House blog that today markes the one-year anniversary of the day Third Circuit nominee Patty Shwartz was first approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. That means that Shwartz, an experienced and respected attorney, has been waiting a full year simply for an up-or-down vote from the Senate. The ABA panel that evaluates the qualifications of judicial nominees unanimous gave her its highest possible rating. Not surprisingly for someone of her caliber, she has the strong support of Democrats and Republicans alike, including New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Kang writes that Shwartz’s experience is sadly not unusual in a Senate that’s been hamstrung by an obstructionist Republican minority:

Unfortunately, the delay for Judge Shwartz is not unique. Last week, my colleague wrote about Judge Robert Bacharach, who was recommended to the White House by one of his Republican home state Senators, but waited 263 days for a floor vote before being confirmed 93-0. And on Monday – after 347 days of delay -- the Senate will consider the nomination of Richard Taranto to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Overall, President Obama’s judicial nominees wait an average of 117 days on the Senate floor for a vote -- more than three times longer than President Bush’s judicial nominees, who waited an average of only 34 days. The Senate must promote the administration of justice by returning to the prompt consideration of judicial nominations. It should consider Judge Shwartz’s nomination without further delay, as well as the fifteen district court nominees awaiting votes. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved five district court nominees. There is no reason they – and the others approved before them – should not be confirmed within 34 days.

PFAW

Rios: Female Justices 'Rudely' Interrupting Scalia, 'Speaking Inappropriately'

The topic of discussion on Sandy Rios’ American Family Radio program Wednesday was diversity among federal judicial nominees. The Washington Post published a story over the weekend detailing President Obama’s largely successful effort to appoint more women, people of color and openly LGBT people to federal judgeships. The voice of dissent in the article was that of the Committee for Justice’s Curt Levey, who told the Post that the White House was “lowering their standards” in nominating nonwhite judges. So naturally, Rios invited Levey on as a guest and explained to him why she disapproves of President Obama’s diverse judicial nominations.

In particular, Rios disapproves of Obama’s Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, respectively the third and fourth women ever to sit on the high court. Sotomayor and Kagan, Rios says, have been forgetting their place and behaving “rudely,” “interrupting” and “speaking inappropriately” to, of all people, Justice Antonin Scalia.

While Levey correctly notes that “Scalia can give it out as well as take it,” he agrees with Rios that Sotomayor, the Supreme Court’s first Latina justice, “has occasionally, at least, stepped over the line.” In particular, he says Sotomayor – who he once accused of supporting “violent Puerto Rican terrorists” --  “sort of lost it” during arguments on the Voting Rights Act, when she contradicted Scalia’s stunning assertion that the law represents a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”

In fact, while Scalia’s bombast provoked audible gasps in the hearing room, Sotomayor waited several minutes before calmly asking the attorney challenging the Voting Rights Act, “Do you think that the right to vote is a racial entitlement in Section 5?"

Later, Rios, with an impressive lack of self-awareness, marvels that progressive groups criticized Scalia for his remarks. “Groups on the left,” Levey responds, “shall we say, like to personalize things.”

Rios: I read an article that Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, at least this article was intimating that they are behaving in a – these are my words – sort of rudely on the bench, to Scalia and to others, interrupting, speaking inappropriately. Have you observed that? Do you know what I’m talking about and is that true?

Levey: Um, yeah. I mean, you know, Scalia can give it out as well as take it, but yeah, Sotomayor has gone over the line a number of times. Most recently in the Voting Rights Act case, which was just last week, where, you know, Scalia had the nerve to speak the truth and refer to the Voting Rights Act as “racial preferences,” which of course is what it’s become by guaranteeing that there be minority districts formed, minority congressional districts. And, you know, Sotomayor sort of lost it when Obama [sic] said that, interrupted and you know, basically made fun of Scalia’s comment. So yeah, I think they have the right to be aggressive up there, but Sotomayor has occasionally, at least, stepped over the line.

Rios: And on the Voting Rights Act and Scalia’s comments, you know, there were demonstrators at the Court last week, hundreds of them, demonstrating against Antonin Scalia. I don’t remember that happening. I don’t remember a Supreme Court justice – doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened – but I don’t remember it being a subject of public demonstrations.

Levey: No. Typically they will, you know, they’ll, protestors at the Supreme Court will focus on issues, not justices. But you know, that changed of late. There’s been in the last two years a lot of, you know, progressive groups have gone personally after Scalia and especially Thomas and his wife. But you know, we see that in so much of politics, that groups on the left like to, shall we say, personalize things.

Rios: Yeah, as like in Alinsky, yes, personalize and target, yeah, so we are seeing some very new things and actually pretty dangerous I think.

Earlier in the program, Rios and Levey lamented the fact that President Obama has had more openly LGBT people confirmed to the federal bench than all of his predecessors combined. Echoing right-wing arguments made against Romney advisor Richard Grennell, who was forced to resign last year after less than a month on the job, Rios claimed she didn’t mind that the president was appointing gay people to federal judgeships, but that they are “activists who are trying to change the law.”

Levey: You know, I don’t have any problem with him nominating gay and lesbian nominees. The problem is that they should be gay and lesbian nominees who respect the Constitution. You know, there are…

Rios: I don’t disagree, Curt, just for the record, I don’t disagree with that. It’s the activists, activists who are trying to change the law that I will have trouble sitting on the bench.

Levey: Exactly. He’s not appointing, you know, conservative or even moderate, you know, gay Americans, he’s appointing very radical gay Americans. And, you know, again, it’s not so much any individual nominee as it is the pattern here. Of the 35 or so nominees who are pending now, only six are straight white males, even though about half the legal profession is straight white males. So, do straight white males have some, you know, right to a certain number of seats? Of course not. But if you were doing it in a balanced way without any preference for minorities of various types, then you’d probably wind up with about 17 or 18 of those 35 being straight white males. The fact that there’s only six tells us that there’s a system of preferences going on.

Three Voter Empowerment Bills Introduced in the House

Members of the Task Force on Election Reform introduced three voter empowerment bills at the beginning of the 113th Congress in January. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi created The Task Force to develop electoral reform legislation under the D.A.R.E. initiative (Disclose, Amend, Reform, and Empower).

The objective of the Task Force on Election Reform is to combine the best parts of reform bills into one effective piece of legislation that will help strengthen the voices of average Americans and increase the participation of small-donor contributors in our elections.

The three bills that were introduced are:

The Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 269) was introduced by Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) along with 52 co-sponsors. Among other provisions, the bill matches small-dollar donation 5-to-1 and requires participating candidates to limit contributions to $100. The bill was referred to the House Committee on House Administration on January 15, 2013.

The Grassroots Democracy Act (H.R. 268) was introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) with 36 co-sponsors. The bill matches small contributions 10-1 for candidates who limit contributions to $100 and 5-1 for those that follow the normal contribution limit. The act also provides a $25 tax credit to help voters make small-dollar donations to the participating candidates. The bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Communication and Technology on January 18, 2013.

The Empowering Citizens Act (H.R. 270) was introduced by Rep. David Price (D-NC) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) with 13 co-sponsors. The bill matches the first $250 of a contribution 5-to-1 and cuts the contribution limits in half to $1,250 for participating candidates. The legislation also aims to mitigate the effects of Citizens United, by providing a broader definition of coordination so that super PACs and political non-profits cannot function as arms of candidates’ campaigns. The bill was referred to the Committee on House Administration to the Committee on Ways and Means to decide which committee it belongs in on January, 15 2013.

The members of the Task Force on Election Reform are Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards, Congressman Theodore E. Deutch, Congressman John Larson, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, Congressman James P. McGovern, Congressman Rush D. Holt, Congressman Adam B. Schiff, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Congressman Ed Perlmutter, Congressman John A. Yarmuth, Congressman Kurt Schrader, Congressman George Miller, Congressman David E. Price, Congressman Robert A. Brady, Congresswoman Susan A. Davis, Congressman Raul M. Grijalva, Congressman Keith Ellison, Congressman John P. Sarbanes, and Congressman Rick Nolan.

All members of the Task Force on Election Reform support amending the Constitution to overturn Citizens United and related cases.

PFAW

The NRA vs. Judicial Nominees

Back in December, The New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse wrote a great article explaining how the National Rifle Association has worked in concert with Republican senators to oppose many of President Obama’s federal judicial nominees – usually without anything close to a legitimate reason. The NRA’s “symbiotic relationship with the Republican Party,” Greenhouse wrote, led the group to oppose judicial nominees like Sonia Sotomayor, who had next to no record on the Second Amendment, and the party to chip in when the NRA didn’t like a nominee.

It is that symbiotic relationship that succeeded in sinking the nominations of two highly qualified women to federal courts this week. Both were unquestionably qualified and well-respected in legal circles. The NRA and the Senate GOP went after both for completely unfounded reasons.

Caitlin Halligan was President Obama’s nominee to fill one of four vacancies on the hugely influential Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Never mind that she had broad bipartisan support and sterling credentials. She had once represented a client, the state of New York, in a lawsuit against gun manufacturers. Back when John Roberts was being considered for the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans said that judicial nominees shouldn’t be held responsible for positions they took as lawyers on behalf of clients. But no matter. Senate Republicans twice voted to filibuster her nomination – most recently on Wednesday – never even allowing her an up-or-down vote.

Then today, Nevada District Court nominee Elissa Cadish withdrew her nomination over one year after she had been selected by President Obama. Her story was similar. Filling out a questionnaire in 2008, Cadish stated that under then-current law, the constitutional right to bear arms didn’t apply to individual citizens. She was correct. Two months later in a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court established for the first time that the Second Amendment does contain that right. Cadish made clear that she understood, and would follow, the new Supreme Court precedent.

But no matter. The NRA targeted Cadish and Nevada Sen. Dean Heller used a little-known Senate practice to keep her from ever even getting the chance to explain her views in front of the Judiciary Committee. Under committee procedures used by Chairman Patrick Leahy as a courtesy to his colleagues, a nominee is not granted a hearing unless both of her home-state senators give permission in the form of a “blue slip.” Heller simply refused to sign the blue slip for Cadish, thus single-handedly sinking her nomination.

The flimsiness of the arguments against Cadish and Halligan, and the fact that much of the opposition took place behind the scenes (in the case of Cadish without even a public hearing), betrays the real reason the NRA and the GOP were working to keep these women off the federal bench. They just don’t want President Obama to be nominating federal judges.

 

PFAW

Harvey: 'Sexual Anarchists' Are 'Setting Up Children for Risk and Harm'

Several Religious Right activists have taken to describing LGBT rights advocates as “sexual anarchists” who encourage pedophilia. Today on her radio bulletin, Linda Harvey of Mission America claimed that “sexual anarchists are essentially destroying children’s innocence and modesty” which is effectively “setting up children for risk and harm” and making them more vulnerable for abuse. “No wonder so many children are fearful, insecure and anxious,” Harvey said.

Harvey made these claims after discussing the case of a six-year-old transgender girl in Colorado Springs who is, according to her family, facing discrimination at the local public school.

Apparently, this six-year-old child is just the sort of “sexual anarchist” that children should fear because she may “redefine what the other children understand to be normal, reality-based behavior.”

What about someone getting help for this child? We should have great compassion for him but at the same time we should not enable this delusion or allow it to redefine what the other children understand to be normal, reality-based behavior nor should this determine what others are required to put up with. Children develop a natural sense of modesty as they live infancy which is a protective factor against becoming sexually-active before maturity. It allows them an element of discernment when adults or other children may be about to breach appropriate boundaries and abuse them for instance so they will know to tell other adults they trust. These sexual anarchists are essentially destroying children’s innocence and modesty and those who wrongly believe this constitutes freedom and liberty either have lost sensitivity or are thinking only from a self-centered adult view. What they are doing is setting up children for risk and harm while telling them nothing is wrong, this should not make you uncomfortable. Well no wonder so many children are fearful, insecure and anxious; what they are being told doesn’t make sense to them.

PFAW: GOP and NRA Leadership Keep Two Qualified Women off the Bench

WASHINGTON – Today, Nevada judge Elissa Cadish withdrew her nomination to sit on the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, more than one year after President Obama first nominated her to the position. Despite her sterling qualifications, Cadish was never even granted a hearing before the Judiciary Committee because Nevada Sen. Dean Heller refused to give permission for her nomination to move forward.

Earlier this week, the nomination of D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Caitlin Halligan was blocked by Senate Republicans under similar circumstances. Halligan and Cadish both faced unfounded attacks from the gun lobby’s leadership, Halligan for a position she took on behalf of a client and Cadish for correctly describing the state of Second Amendment law before the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Both have clearly stated that they understand and would follow Supreme Court precedent on gun rights.

“Senate Republicans and the gun lobby have worked hand in hand to keep these two exceptionally qualified women off the federal bench,” said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. “Neither Cadish nor Halligan has displayed character or ethics problems let alone any sort of extreme ideology like that they were accused of. Yet Halligan was never allowed an up-or-down vote from the Senate, and Cadish never even had the opportunity to answer senators’ questions on her record before the Judiciary Committee.”

“The sinking of these two nominees shows just how far the Senate GOP and the gun lobby are willing to go, and how badly they are willing to stretch the facts, in order to keep President Obama’s nominees off the federal bench,” Baker added.

###

Michael Keegan Discusses the GOP’s Reality Problem

Last night, People For the American Way president Michael Keegan joined Rev. Al Sharpton and David Brock of Media Matters to discuss Bill O’Reilly’s most recent delusional outburst and the GOP’s reality problem. Watch:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

PFAW

Why It’s Time to Dump DOMA: Valeria Carranza

This piece is the sixth in a series of guest blog posts on “Why It’s Time to Dump DOMA.” In the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court arguments on the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, we’re asking friends of PFAW to share why dumping DOMA matters to them. Be sure to check back soon for the latest post in the series.

Growing up as a gay woman in a conservative Salvadoran household was like being the protagonist in one of the telenovelas that I used to watch with my Maminena, my grandma. Thankfully, here in Maryland, being gay is no longer an obstacle to marrying the love of my life.

After a hard-fought battle, my girlfriend and I now have the right to say, “I do.”

Unlike most economic development initiatives, tax increases, and transportation projects, our ability to marry was taken to the polls and put to a vote. Marriage for same-sex couples is still treated like an earned privilege rather than a given right. While we won the right to marry in Maryland, thanks to DOMA our marriage would not be recognized under federal law.

My relationship, under this law, does not count. DOMA is a vehicle for discrimination and it hurts our families.
 
When thinking about equality, whether it’s equal protection under federal law, marriage equality or equal protection for our transgender community, two words come to mind: unconditional love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unconditional love. That is what equality means to me: unconditional love for our community, constituents, neighbors, co-workers, schoolmates, friends, family members. Because when you truly love, you don’t let discrimination and injustice take place in your community – or in your country.

The Defense of Marriage Act is just as outdated as the concept of “traditional marriage” being restricted to heterosexuals only. It’s time to dump DOMA – let unconditional love take its place.

Valeria Carranza
Alumna of affiliate People For the American Way Foundation’s Front Line Leaders Academy

 

PFAW

MassResistance: LGBT-Rights Celebration Brought 'Spiritual Darkness' to Massachusetts State House

Last month, MassResistance head Brian Camenker claimed that teachers in LGBT-inclusive schools in Massachusetts will be just like “Nazi concentration camp guards” following the passage of a transgender anti-discrimination law. MassResistance attended a celebration of the transgender equality law and issued a report titled “The State House event from hell.” The group said that the event’s “spiritual darkness took a long time to get over” as “hatred and evil resonated throughout the room,” and went on to warn that the LGBT rights movement is targeting children for recruitment.

Hatred and evil resonated throughout the room

It was their "victory dance" and they wanted to make a point that there's a lot more to come. The room was filled with hardcore transgender and homosexual activists.

Of all the "gay" events at the State House over the years, this was the worst. The sheer hatred in the room against pro-family people was so thick you could feel it, and it seemed to resonate through every speech. The spiritual darkness took a long time to get over. It was reminiscent of the horrible cheering and screaming scene by homosexual activists outside Boston City Hall in 2004 when the first "gay marriages" took place.



The event began with several high-profile speakers, including the Governor, Attorney General, and Speaker of the House, and other politicians, followed by leaders and major figures from various state homosexual and transgender organizations.

The speakers were all very candid about their hostility for pro-family values and their plans to push the homosexual and transgender demands as far as they can. The speeches certainly fired up the activists. But to anyone else, it was eerie and unnerving.



• Children. A big target of this movement is children. They want to "help" children to find their identities.

• Demonizing our side. The people who did not agree with this bill are bigoted and backwards. Or, as Attorney General Martha Coakley "gracefully" put it: "nearsighted."

• Ruthlessness. They are going to be ruthless in enforcing it.

• More to come. This is just the beginning. They intend to use the law to its fullest, and expand it as much as they can. At a minimum, they intend to push through the "public accommodations" sections this session.

• Change America. They now have the power they need to change society, starting here but eventually across America.



As you can see, they are not stopping here. The radical activists have more plans are for you, your children, and all of society. And the high government officials who have contempt and hostility for people with traditional pro-family values are only too eager to carry them out. And they're relishing the fact that they have the power to do it as harshly as they wish.

Cliff Kincaid Wants CPAC to Investigate Why Gays 'Seem Prone to Violence, Terror and Treason'

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media is quite pleased with CPAC’s decision to ban the gay Republican group GOProud, and even thinks that “CPAC should be sponsoring a panel on the dangers of the homosexual movement and why some of its members seem prone to violence, terror, and treason.”

He warns that “there is a homosexual movement that has its roots in Marxism and is characterized by anti-Americanism and hatred of Christian values,” citing Bradley Manning and Floyd Corkins as “two of this movement’s members.” Kincaid goes on to write that homosexuality will lead to communism and the downfall of civilization, arguing that “this monster wants to impose itself on our children in the schools and even the Boy Scouts of America.”

Unsurprisingly, AIM will be giving an award to Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft at CPAC this year.

The term “gay conservative” is being used by some news outlets in connection with the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and whether certain homosexual groups should be invited to appear. There is no such thing as a “gay conservative,” unless the term “conservative” has lost all meaning. But there is a homosexual movement that has its roots in Marxism and is characterized by anti-Americanism and hatred of Christian values.

Two of this movement’s members, Bradley Manning and Floyd Corkins, have recently been in the news. Manning betrayed his country in the WikiLeaks scandal, while Corkins has pleaded guilty to trying to kill conservative officials of the Christian Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Rather than debate whether “gay conservatives” exist or ought to have prominent speaking roles, CPAC should be sponsoring a panel on the dangers of the homosexual movement and why some of its members seem prone to violence, terror, and treason.

Since I started out in Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) in high school, I know something about the conservative movement. It seems clear that the homosexuals are trying to make inroads in the Republican Party through the conservative movement. No one can seriously dispute this. That is partly what the CPAC controversy is all about.

But the fate of a political party is not only what is in jeopardy.

Historian Paul Johnson knows something about why nations fail, and he says one reason is the acceptance of homosexuality.

Johnson’s book, The Quest for God, laments that Western society made a huge mistake by decriminalizing homosexuality and thinking that acceptance of the lifestyle on a basic level would satisfy its practitioners. He wrote, “Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.” It became, he says, a “monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental—and to most of us horrifying—changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior.”

Today, this monster wants to impose itself on our children in the schools and even the Boy Scouts of America.



In his report, “The Marxist Roots of ‘Gay Liberation,’” well-known conservative commentator Robert Knight explains what motivated Marx and his followers: “Families and the moral order stand firmly in the way of any socialist revolution. Families and religion inculcate independence and a strong set of values and personal responsibility.”

Marx’s partner Frederick Engels wrote The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which argued in substantial detail for the abolition of the family. The family was always viewed by the communists as a target because it was a bulwark against state control of the individual and society.

What better way to destroy the family than to undermine the relationship between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife, and eliminate the need for children to have mothers and fathers?

Here, again, the homosexuals deliberately pervert the language, so that two women or two men have now become shacked-up “partners” or even “husband and wife” in “civil unions” or even “marriages.”

Hay’s contribution to communism in America was developing the idea that homosexuals, like the “workers” under capitalism, were being oppressed and had to assert their “rights.”

The donation of gay blood to the nation’s blood supply, despite the health risks, is the next “right” that the male homosexuals now are demanding the government grant to them.

Erik Rush: Obama and Allies 'Merit Being Removed by Force of Arms'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush is out with another unhinged rant, this time arguing that new gun control legislation in Colorado is a “precursor” to the rise of civil unrest and an American version of the Gestapo. Rush maintains that the government seeks to pass new gun laws in order to deliberately spark a violent response, which will justify the use of Gestapo-like tactics and the criminalization of gun ownership.

He contends that Obama administration officials want to confiscate guns because “they know that they are already guilty of prosecutable crimes and are planning many more” and “already merit being removed by force of arms. They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that realization and respond accordingly.”

The Democrat members of the Colorado legislature have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America and the people of the state of Colorado. What occurred in Colorado on that day was nothing short of a disgusting outrage and a chilling precursor of things to come.



It is no secret among conservatives that for the last several years, Colorado has been a chief target of one high-profile progressive billionaire and former Nazi collaborator (George Soros) through his various radical astroturf political organizations. With this aid, and through the aforementioned methods, the White House effectively subverted Colorado’s legislative processes and is ruling by proxy, while maintaining the illusion of legitimate due process.

What concerns me most about the developments in Colorado and other states vis-à-vis firearms laws is that this progression has brought us that much closer to law-enforcement officials showing up at citizens’ homes and demanding their guns. Raised in the same environment as the rest of us, many peace officers won’t realize that they are operating well outside of the law.

And that’s when things will have the potential to get really ugly.

On Jan. 6, 2013, Nathan Haddad, a former Army staff sergeant and decorated combat veteran, was selling some gun magazines when he was arrested for violating a new New York state law prohibiting possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Haddad was charged with five felonies.

The officers who arrested Haddad, and those prosecuting him have shown themselves to be enemies of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. Officials who enforce immoral laws are no better than Hitler’s Gestapo. Where, pray tell, do they plan to draw the line at what unlawful decrees they will and will not uphold?

Very soon, we are likely to hear of an individual who, upon being contacted by law enforcement, winds up in a firefight with them over their enforcement of newly implemented gun-control measures. Law-enforcement officers may be wounded or killed, as might our citizen. If arrested, he or she will be a political prisoner. This will be the final nail in the coffin for legal firearms ownership in America, as the government and the press will capitalize upon this event (and perhaps similar others) to prove once and for all that all gun owners are potential psycho cop killers.

Why does the government (and the Obama administration in particular) want Americans’ firearms? Because they know that they are already guilty of prosecutable crimes and are planning many more. They know that they represent precisely why America’s founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution in the first place, and that they already merit being removed by force of arms. They simply want to disarm Americans before a preponderance of us come to that realization and respond accordingly.

Obama Condemns Filibuster of His DC Circuit Court Nominee

President Obama specifically cites the obstruction of the three remaining Republican members of the "Gang of 14."
PFAW

CWA: Violence Against Women Act Is Part of the War on Women

It was only last year that Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance criticized the term “war on women” as “phony, focus-grouped rhetoric” geared to “raise money and hackles” among Democrats. She predicted that women would turn on Obama and wouldn't vote on issues such as abortion rights or birth control access (unless they are anti-choice). Of course, exit polls showed that Obama carried women voters over Romney 55-44% and that 59% of voters said abortion should be legal either in all or most cases.

So it should come as no surprise that Nance is now using the “war” rhetoric in her latest Washington Times op-ed: “When high-sounding legislation becomes a war against women.” That’s right, she now believes that there is in fact a war on women, but that it comes from supporters of the Violence Against Women Act.

She claims that VAWA “hurts sex-trafficking victims,” even though 93 Senators voted for Sen. Patrick Leahy’s amendment focused on combating the trafficking of women and girls.

The Violence Against Women Act headed to the president’s desk lulls Americans into believing that actual violence was addressed Thursday when, in reality, Congress pushed through a bad bill that hurts sex-trafficking victims, seeks to legalize prostitution for minors and fails to protect the consciences of organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that oppose abortion but want to protect trafficking victims.
Within the Senate version of the act is an amendment by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, that decimates the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, seeks to change the Model State Law to promote the decriminalization of prostitution for minors, and assaults the conscience protections of groups that have a history of hands-on help for these victims.

The Violence Against Women Act also promotes the decriminalization of prostitution of minors for states, which is also dangerous for trafficking victims. Decriminalization provides a perfect opportunity for pimps, traffickers and gangs to exploit minors in the sex industry by telling the minors that it is not illegal and that they will not get arrested. In Germany, Australia and the Netherlands, child prostitution increased after prostitution was legalized. Why would the outcome be any different here if states decriminalize prostitution for minors? Section 1243 seeks to change the Model State Law to promote the decriminalization of prostitution for minors:
It prohibits the charging of a minor for a prostitution offense. This removes all judicial discretion from the process.
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that there were only 895 arrests of minors for prostitution in 2010. In 2011, the number of arrests dropped to 763. Over the past seven years, arrests of minors for prostitution have averaged 1,067 annually.
Decriminalization provides a great recruiting tool for gangs, pimps and traffickers, who can say, “Don’t worry; it’s not illegal.”

The lesson Congress has learned from the “war on women” apparently is that as long as the title of the legislation sounds good, you must vote for it — even if it is bad policy.

Memo: The Filibuster of Caitlin Halligan and the Future of the Courts

Senate Republicans defeated a second attempt to end the filibuster of Caitlin Halligan, President Obama’s nominee to fill one of four vacancies on the 11-seat DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The filibuster of Halligan is important for a number of reasons.

Farah: Same-Sex Marriage is 'One of the Most Radical Ideas Considered Since Child Sacrifice'

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is pleased with CPAC’s decision to ban GOProud, a gay Republican group, but thinks that the event's organizers should go even further and bar any supporter of marriage equality as well. Farah argues that commentator S.E. Cupp, who bowed out of the summit to protest GOProud’s exclusion, shouldn’t have been invited in the first place. According to Farah, no one can be conservative and favor same-sex marriage, which he calls “one of the most radical ideas considered since child sacrifice.”

Hey, S.E.! It has been figured out. CPAC had a civil war over this issue, and your side lost.

What is conservative about advocating for same-sex marriage?

I can’t think of an issue that more clearly defines what a conservative is than this one.

This is not the Libertarian Political Action Conference. It’s not the Liberal Political Action Conference. It’s the Conservative Political Action Conference. What’s wrong with limiting the speakers and the sponsors to conservatives?

Why is S.E. Cupp even invited to speak?

I don’t get it.



The Conservative Political Action Conference is for conservatives – not for people who seek to undermine the Judeo-Christian basis of Western civilization with one of the most radical ideas considered since child sacrifice.

PFAW: Filibuster of Caitlin Halligan 'Destructive' and 'Politically-Motivated'

WASHINGTON – An effort to end the Republican filibuster of DC Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Caitlin Halligan fell short in a 51-41 vote in the Senate today.

Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way, issued the following statement:

“Senate Republicans have once again decided to put their own partisan interests above the will of American voters and the health of our system of justice. Caitlin Halligan is an exceptionally qualified, widely respected and unquestionably mainstream nominee. But a minority of U.S. senators, egged on by conservative activists and a party leadership with their own narrow agendas, have cherry-picked and misrepresented her record in order to keep her off the federal bench.

“Let’s call the filibuster of Halligan what it is: a politically-motivated attempt to keep President Obama’s nominee off the second highest court in the country. Four years into Obama’s presidency, more than one-third of the DC Circuit’s seats are vacant and the president has yet to have a single nominee confirmed to the court. In the meantime, the court continues to be dominated by far-right Republican-appointed judges who have pushed an extreme right-wing agenda on issues including environmental protection, workers’ rights and public health. This is not a coincidence.

“The American people have twice elected President Obama, yet a minority of U.S. senators continues to place a stranglehold on his judicial nominees. This has not only damaged our federal courts, which are facing an ongoing vacancy crisis, but has hurt the credibility of the U.S. Senate. Americans deserve better than this destructive, politically-motivated gridlock.”

###

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious