$1 Million Campaign Aimed at Latino Voters in Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia
Washington, DC – People For the American Way today launched a five-week campaign aimed at exposing Mitt Romney’s dangerous agenda for Latinos, focused in the key swing states of Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia. The first phase of the campaign, which will include over $1 million in TV, radio and direct mail outreach, starts today with a TV ad, “Somos el 47%” (“We are the 47%”), running in all three states.
“Mitt Romney and Republicans continually attack hard-working Latino families,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “Unfortunately for them, Americans are paying attention. At a fundraiser in April, Romney said that losing the Latino vote ‘spells doom for us.’ He was right.”
Ohio, Wisconsin and Virginia have significant and growing Latino populations. The number of Latino eligible voters has grown by 76 percent in the past decade in Virginia, by 47 percent in Ohio and by 23 percent in Wisconsin.
“The Romney agenda is bad news for Latino families, and exposing that agenda could make the difference in this election,” continued Keegan. “Our efforts this summer to highlight what was at stake for Latino voters in the Wisconsin recall elections were instrumental in flipping party control in the state Senate. We are excited to replicate and bolster that effort in three key states in the five weeks before November’s election.”
People For the American Way’s ad, “Somos el 47%,” can be viewed here.
The Southern Baptist Convention’s top ethicist and resident plagiarist Richard Land is offering a completely original idea that he hopes will end the debate over same-sex marriage once and for all! In his column, What Relationships Should Be Called Marriage: A Modest Proposal, Land proposes that gay couples should be barred from marrying but instead be treated the same way as “two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship.”
Marriage has been defined in Western civilization for at least two millennia now as being a sexual relationship between one man and one woman. Christianity has defined it so historically, most often coupling it with life-long permanence and monogamy. As an Evangelical Christian, I certainly embrace that definition.
However, how do we deal with those who would choose to extend some of the legal privileges our society has accorded marriage to same-sex relationships without shattering the definition of marriage or discriminating against people outside the heterosexual definition of marriage? How do we protect society against those who would extend the special status of marriage to homosexual, lesbian or polygamous relationships? How do we protect time-honored titles, like "husband" and "wife," from being attacked as homophobic or sexist terms to be replaced by spouse #1 and spouse #2 or "Mom" and "Dad" from being reduced legally to caregiver #1 and caregiver #2? Such legal assaults on these time-honored family terms seem inevitable if "same-sex" marriage becomes equal with heterosexual marriage.
I propose that as Americans we declare heterosexual marriage as the only relationship in our society that is to be defined by its sexual nature and that it will continue to be defined as a legal relationship between one man and one woman consummated by sexual intercourse.
If two men or two women are living together in a relationship and they want to ask the state legislature in their state to grant some of the special legal privileges accorded marriage to their relationship the state legislature should respond in the following fashion: "We will consider your request, but the sexual nature of your relationship will be irrelevant to our discussions because marriage is the only relationship in our society that is defined by its sexual nature. Why should other people who are living in committed relationships that do not involve sexual activity be discriminated against or left out?"
In other words, the state legislature would not discriminate against two maiden or widowed sisters who were living together or a mother and a devoted son or daughter who were living together in a platonic relationship. Why should such households and relationships be left behind when legal privileges and recognition are being passed out just because they are not in a sexual relationship?
David Horowitz has been promoting his new book Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion on conservative talk radio by attacking Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin as a Muslim Brotherhood agent and arguing that President Obama was only elected because he is black because “part of the racism of our society is [that] if you’re black you can get away with murder.” Horowitz’s interview with Janet Mefferd was no different, as he charged that Abedin “is a Muslim Brotherhood operative and she has been all her life” and that she has been pushing foreign policy favorable to the Muslim Brotherhood. Horowitz even said that Abedin “is worse than Alger Hiss,” the accused Soviet spy.
But it is not just the Obama administration which has been penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, as Horowitz warned that “the Republican Party has also been infiltrated” thanks to conservative luminary Grover Norquist, whom he said is a “practicing Muslim.” Norquist is a reviled figure among anti-Muslim activists like Horowitz, who in 2011 lashed out at Norquist from the podium at CPAC, mainly due to the fact his wife is a Muslim-American and he works with Muslim Republicans like Suhail Kahn.
Horowitz: We have a medieval enemy with twenty-first century technology aimed at us, they’ve infiltrated our government. If you wondered how it’s possible that Obama and Hillary would not know or would pretend what was happening wasn’t happening in the Middle East or how they could turnover Egypt as they have to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the fountainhead of Al Qaeda and all of these terrible Islamic Nazi organizations, the answer is not really hard to find: the chief adviser to the American government on Muslim affairs, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, is a Muslim Brotherhood operative and she has been all her life, and her whole family is. This is worse than Alger Hiss, for those in your audience who are old enough to remember, Alger Hiss is a Soviet agent who was right next to Roosevelt at Yalta.
Mefferd: It’s very true and yet you had these five congressmen, Michele Bachmann and the others, who tried to say the inspectors-general need to look into this, and even Republicans stood up on the floor and said no!
Horowitz: You had Boehner and McCain, and McCain is just bonkers. But the Republican Party has also been infiltrated. Grover Norquist is a Muslim, he is a practicing Muslim.
Later, Horowitz explained that liberals and radical Islamists are working out of their shared “hatred for America” and promoted the ridiculous and debunked conspiracy that Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s book Dreams from My Father.
Mefferd: Why is it that you see so many who are radicals and progressives supporting radical Islam?
Horowitz: Because they share a common enemy: the great Satan, which is us, and the little Satan, which is Israel. It’s very simple, the left for many, many years now, maybe half a century, has had no practical program, they have no idea what they were going to do with the world when they get the power. So what organizes them is their hatred for America. Why would you want to bankrupt America? Why would you want to take its military down? Why would you apologize to our enemies, as our President has done, unless you were a radical and you believe that we’re the great oppressor nation. I know he talks out of two sides of his mouth, he actually makes Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout in the realm of rectitude in what he’s saying, this guy lies so easily. Of course because he’s black he gets a pass on everything. We have reached a very low point in our national evolution. I’m hoping that this book, you know it’s not going to change the world, but those people who are buying and reading “Radicals” will at least understand the mentality behind these people and how influential they are. Bill Ayers is an America-hating terrorist and was Barack Obama’s closest political ally for twenty years and wrote his autobiography.
We know that when Michele Bachmann speaks, even fact-checkers can’t fully cover all of her dubious and debunked claims in just a single article. Now that Bachmann is completely engrossed in promoting her latest conspiracy theory focusing on the supposed Muslim Brotherhood “penetration” of the US government, she took to The Janet Mefferd Show to misrepresent President Obama’s address to the United Nations General Assembly to claim that Obama is not only refusing to defend the freedom of speech but may be even actively backing the curtailment of speech rights in favor of Sharia law.
The congresswoman told Mefferd that Islamic countries may be using “riots and terrorism” to ensure that “Sharia law will dominated over our United States Constitution.” “Our president either doesn’t know what’s happening or he’s playing along with what their goal is,” Bachmann said. “Either option is very dangerous for the free speech rights and the protection and safety of the American people.”
She also failed to mention that when Obama criticized “those who slander the prophet of Islam” it was part of a larger chastisement of religious bigotry, including against desecration of images of Jesus Christ, the destruction of churches and Holocaust denial.
Bachmann: We have just had four Americans killed, including two marines and an ambassador, and our President says to the UN the future does not belong to those who speak against the prophet? We need to remember that the fifty-seven Muslim governments across the world have what they call a ten year plan, it began in 2005 and their goal by 2015 is to criminalize any speech anywhere in the world that speaks against Islam or against the Prophet Mohammad. This is their plan. So their pretext is to find something they can point to and then have riots and terrorism and then force the rest of us to give up our free speech rights so that then that means their law, Sharia law, will dominate over our United States Constitution. That’s really what’s happening. Our president either doesn’t know what’s happening or he’s playing along with what their goal is. Either option is very dangerous for the free speech rights and the protection and safety of the American people.
Bachmann also maintained that Obama was simultaneously fashioning himself to be “‘Emperor of the World,’ telling the world what to do,” while also catering to the wishes of Muslim countries. She said that the President refused to make clear that “under no circumstances will the United States ever subvert the Constitution to Sharia law” and did not “articulate American values” against the coming global Islamic caliphate.
Bachmann: It almost sounds like he’s trying to speak as “‘Emperor of the World,’ telling the world what to do, as opposed to being the President of the United States who should be adamant and say it’s outrageous that these Islamist countries should be calling on the United States to take away the constitutional protections of the American people. This is very important to think that the United States would restrict speech of Americans. Now the president did talk in his remarks about the fact that we do have a constitutional right to free speech but really the only focus of that speech should have been under no circumstances will the United States ever subvert the Constitution to Sharia law. We didn’t get that kind of a forceful statement from our President.
Mefferd: No and that goes back to the day right after the consulate attack I think Mitt Romney did so much better than the President himself and saying we’re Americans, we believe in free speech, this was unacceptable. From Obama, it was sort of a ‘Chris Stevens was a really great guy’ and that was about it.
Bachmann: It was; it was ridiculous. Here we’ve been attacked, these were acts of war, what happened to us in Cairo, what happened to us in Libya, these were acts of war. Again, don’t forget these fifty-seven Muslim governments have a ten year plan: their goal is to criminalize speech against Islam. Why? Because they intend to establish a Caliphate, an Islamic government, across the entire world so that it isn’t just our speech rights that we would give up, we would have to give up all rights eventually and we would have to conform to Sharia law, the Islamic law. As women know, this would be a disaster for women, for freedom, for free speech. We’re not an Islamic nation, people can believe whatever they want to believe here, but we’re not an Islamic nation, we believe in freedom and I only wish our President would articulate American values. That’s one thing we’re getting from Mitt Romney, we are not getting it from Barack Obama. I’ll say it again, I believe he is the most dangerous president we have ever had on foreign policy and for that reason alone he must not have a second term.
Clearly, Bachmann missed the part in Obama’s speech (or all of it) where he forcefully defended the freedom of speech, expression, and religion as American values and unambiguously rejected violent extremism and discrimination against women and minorities.
I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?
And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.
Birther queen Orly Taitz remains isolated in her quest to prove that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is ineligible to be president. In an interview with Vic Eliason on VCY America, Taitz alleges that Barack Obama’s Social Security number is invalid, insists that “we are getting very close to a dictatorship” in the United States today, and expresses disappointment that she has not received support from fellow birthers Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona.
Taitz claimed that Obama’s Social Security number is a “Connecticut number which was issued to another individual,” and states that the number he is using is “not a valid number.” She was stunned that her “persuasive” evidence was rejected by courts in Georgia. Taitz concludes that judges continue to shoot down her allegations against the president not because they are wrong, but because the conspiracy goes all the way to the top. Eliason affirms this belief, asserting that judges are merely “intimidated” by “dealing with a case that is so volatile, [that involves] the highest executive in our country.”
Eliason: I cannot understand at a time when the vetting of a presidential candidate, checking if they are qualified, how all of this can be just brushed aside like a fly on the table and ignored completely when there’s been an awful lot of evidence brought forth.
Taitz: You should ask the judges, people are allowed to write to a judge and ask those questions, I’m the person who brings all this evidence. You know I had a case in Georgia and there I spent a lot of money, I spent $14,000, I brought witnesses, I brought a senior deportation officer from the Department of Homeland Security testifying that Barack Obama’s social security number is invalid, that it’s a Connecticut number which was issued to another individual, we brought E-Verify showing that this number that he’s using that he posted on his tax returns that he put online that it’s not a valid number. We had all the evidence and at the end the judge there ruled that it’s not persuasive enough and to me it’s just hard to believe, how could that not be persuasive enough, when you have a senior deportation officer providing this evidence?
Eliason: Could it be Dr. Taitz that there are judges who are so intimidated dealing with a case that is so volatile, dealing with the highest executive in our country, and then to find — I think maybe there are those that say they are afraid of the truth because if this comes to light and it is verified there is going to be egg all over the face of who knows how many.
Taitz: Yeah, yeah.
Taitz said that her inability to remove Obama from the ballot is further proof that “we are getting very close to a dictatorship” akin to the Soviet Union.
Eliason: Folks the thing that has me bewildered, Dr. Taitz, is if someone is an imposter, someone who is portraying something that they are not, if they were caught flying an airplane and they weren’t a pilot or somebody in a bank that was functioning in a way that they were not qualified, you wouldn’t wait for six months or a year to deal with it, you deal with it immediately, why is it that elections suddenly bring immunity?
Taitz: You know I lived in the Soviet Union which was a dictatorship and now we’re seeing such enormous corruption in the government that we are getting very close to a dictatorship.
Yet even the greatest supporters of the birther movement have failed to back Taitz. Taitz was “disheartened” that Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a leader of the “Cold Case Posse,” did not show up at her trial to testify. Donald Trump has also been unresponsive to Taitz.
Taitz: I have to say that I attempted to subpoena Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and I’m really disheartened by the fact that he did not show up, we tried to subpoena him in Georgia, Mississippi and Indiana and I’m really concerned about the fact that Sheriff Arpaio went around the country, raised several millions of dollars on this issue, did press conferences, but when he is asked when appear in court, either he or Mr. [Mike] Zullo, and I was willing to pay for them to fly here, they are not appearing in court. That’s something hopefully your listeners will address with Mr. Arpaio because if he would’ve been here today there is a very high likelihood that the judge would’ve granted a preliminary injunction.
Taitz: For example, Donald Trump, you know he talks about this quite a lot but I don’t see him, I’ve never heard back, he never donated one cent, just to give you an idea, it is extremely hard for me to put up evidence.
Back in July, the Boston Globe reported that Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly stated he left his job at Bain Capital in 1999, was listed on the company’s tax filings as its CEO through 2002. Romney’s campaign later, and confusingly, stated that he had retired “retroactively” from the firm.
The discrepancy wasn’t just about a footnote in Romney’s resume. It was critical to the whole story Romney had been telling about himself, since he had denied involvement in some of the firms more questionable practices during the three years in question.
Now, the Globe reports, MoveOn.org is asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Romney broke the law when he stated on a 2011 campaign ethics filing that his involvement with Bain ended in 1999:
WASHINGTON — A Democratic group supporting President Obama’s reelection has asked the Department of Justice to investigate whether Republican Mitt Romney violated federal law by stating on a 2011 ethics filing that he was not involved with Bain Capital operations “in any way’’ after 1999.
The Globe, citing numerous Securities and Exchange Commission filings, reported in July that Romney continued to serve as chief executive and chairman of Bain Capital, as well as the principal in a number of Bain-related entities, until as late as 2002.
The organization MoveOn.org Political Action, a liberal group, seized on those discrepancies in a letter dated Thursday to the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section. The group, citing its own review of the public records, contends that Romney may have violated the False Statements Act by lying on his 2011 federal financial disclosure statement.
In the 2011 disclosure, which Romney was required to submit as a presidential candidate, the former Massachusetts governor stated that he “has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way’’ since Feb. 11, 1999. MoveOn.org contends that appears to be false.
“There is substantial evidence that Governor Romney was in fact involved with the operations of Bain Capital after that date,’’ MoveOn.org said in its letter to the Justice Department. In a press release, the group asserts there is “substantial evidence that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony.’’
On CNN’s website today, legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin laments out how small a role the Supreme Court has played in the presidential election so far. He writes:
With a little more than a month to go, it's not too late to ask the candidates to take a stand on their plans for the court. The president has already had two appointments, and he named Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. But what does Obama, a former law professor, think about the court? Does he believe in a "living" Constitution, whose meaning evolves over time? Or does he believe, like Justices Scalia and Thomas, that the meaning of the document was fixed when it was ratified, in the 18th century.
By the same token, what kind of justices would Romney appoint? Who are his judicial role models? Romney has praised Chief Justice John Roberts, but is the candidate still a fan even after the chief voted to uphold the ACA?
No one is asking these questions. But there are few more important things to know about our current and future presidents.
Toobin is absolutely right that the candidates’ plans for the Supreme Court deserve a lot more air time than they’re getting. But he’s wrong to suggest that we know nothing about what President Obama and Governor Romney have in mind for the Court.
President Obama has already picked two Supreme Court justices. Both, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, have been strong moderates, balancing out the retro extremism of Justices Scalia and Thomas. When female Wal-Mart employees wanted to band together to sue their employer for pay discrimination, Sotomayor and Kagan stood on the side of the women’s rights, while Scalia and Thomas twisted the law to side with the corporation. When Justices Thomas and Scalia ruled that a woman harmed by a generic drug couldn’t sue the drug’s manufacturer in state court, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan stood up for the rights of the consumer.
Mitt Romney obviously hasn’t had a chance to pick a Supreme Court justice yet, but he’s given us a pretty good idea of who he would choose if given the opportunity. On his website, Romney promises to “nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” After the Supreme Court’s ruling in the health care reform case, Romney announced he had changed his mind about Roberts, who declined to destroy the law while still writing a stunningly retrogressive opinion redefining the Commerce Clause.
And, of course, Romney sent a clear signal to his conservative base when he tapped Robert Bork to advise him on legal and judicial issues. Bork’s record, and what he signals about Romney’s position on the Supreme Court, is chilling:
Romney’s indicated that he would want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. He’s even attacked the premise of Griswold v. Connecticut, the decision that prohibited states from outlawing birth control by establishing a right to privacy.
Yes, the candidates should be made to answer more questions about their plans for the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. But there’s a lot that we already know.
(For more, check out PFAW’s website RomneyCourt.com.)
We ordinarily wouldn’t really pay attention to Joel Gilbert, a Bob Dylan enthusiast who also dabbles in anti-Obama conspiracy theories, most recently making a film that alleges that the president’s real father is labor activist and communist party organizer Frank Marshall Davis.
But when Bill Armistead, the chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, started promoting Gilbert’s movie, “Dreams from My Real Father,” and when news surfaced that Gilbert was sending thousands of copies of his movie gratis to households in swing states and that conservative groups were holding showings, we thought we should start keeping track of him.
Gilbert has a spiel that he repeats pretty much word for word on media appearances, but once in a while he comes up with something new (for instance when he said that the Aurora movie theater shooting could very well have been an Obama administration inside job).
In an interview with Iowa radio host Steve Deace yesterday, Gilbert asserted that the president is “comfortable around anti-American extremists” – including Michelle Obama. He also elaborated on his theory that Obama is “attempting to turn the entire United States into this one-party system by doubling the food stamp rolls, putting everybody on government healthcare, making illegals legal.”
Obama is comfortable around anti-American extremists, people that are anti-American – Bill Ayers, Michelle Obama, dare I say. These are the people that he feels comfortable with and they’re comfortable with him. Obama’s policies mirror this classic Marxist indoctrination that he received and reinforced his entire life by joining the Midwest Academy, his relationship with Bill Ayers and his family for 25, 30 years, as well as Bernadine Dorn, and this entire rat’s nest of Marxist ideologues that came out of Chicago and transformed their, took their little one-party ideology from Chicago and are attempting to turn the entire United States into this one-party system by doubling the food stamp rolls, putting everybody on government healthcare, making illegals legal. Their intent, it’s all about keeping power and creating a one-party state that they can never have to give up power.
Televangelist James Robison warns in a blog post today that “the belief system controlling the most powerful leader and far too many leaders in America is built on lies,” which have emanated from Satan himself. Robison asserts that Obama and his supporters are trying to usher in a “dictatorially powerful state” and have fallen under a “deadly deception.” He maintains that their belief system derives from “Karl Marx, another demonically deceived individual,” who advocated “a lie birthed in the pit of hell.” The election will determine whether the US climbs out of “the ditch of defeat, debt, depravity, and deception” or turns itself “over to Pharaoh.”
Satan is the father of all lies. God is author of truth. Lies damage, defeat and destroy. Truth illuminates, reveals, heals, and sets captives free. Lies establish a foundation equal to sinking sand, while truth provides the only unshakable foundation.
Present day trends reveal that too many Americans have believed lies. Deception prevails in Washington and at the highest levels of leadership. This has damaged honest communication, corrupted relationships, diminished faith’s effectiveness, and divided the church.
Every national and local election is important. During every election cycle we hear how important that particular one happens to be. Let me state loudly again: the election this November is as critically important as any in my lifetime, and I’ve been a witness to many. This one will determine how much deeper we dig our way into the ditch of defeat, debt, depravity, and deception or whether we affirm our determination to stop the insanity, seek wisdom from above, and begin a steadfast ascent from the pit of hopelessness.
The belief system controlling the most powerful leader and far too many leaders in America is built on lies. I do not question the sincerity of those who have been deceived. I do not question their desire to offer assistance and relief where it is so obviously needed. But I question forcefully and could spend days proclaiming biblical passage after passage totally rebuking their line of reasoning, the proposals, possibilities, and policies being presented as answers. They are not! They are the result of deadly deception.
We hear so many presidents, candidates, and leaders say at the close of their speeches: “God bless America!” Let it be settled once and for all, the only way God is going to bless America is when the American people continually desire to bless God and bless others! We are our brother’s keeper. We must love our neighbors. We cannot turn that over to Pharaoh or some dictatorially powerful state.
Karl Marx, another demonically deceived individual, believed the all-powerful state was the answer and solution to the human dilemma. That was a lie birthed in the pit of hell and carried on the shoulders of deceived people who had turned their back on the wisdom that comes only from above. I don’t care how big a person’s smile is, I don’t care how cheerful they appear to be, I don’t care how often they claim to believe in God, when they point to another source as the solution, they are controlled by lies.
No political party is the answer, but some of our parties have been terribly deceived and those lies must be rejected by the American people. There is no perfect political party. They’ve all got their problems. But you can rest assured, if any party or candidate promotes the federal government as the primary solution; they have been deceived at the highest level. Those who believe in a limited, under-control government have at least acknowledged a very important and necessary truth.
If you think this election is going to solve the American dilemma, then you have bought the enemy’s lies. It is the direction, the necessary correction, yes, the national repentance beginning in the heart of each individual that will determine our nation’s future. We’ve got to correct this perilous course, and we’ve got to do it immediately! Everyone must pray, and everyone must vote with kingdom principles and convictions controlling their thoughts, their desires, prayers, and hopes. And we must be committed to God’s kingdom purpose and that’s to love Him with all our heart and love our neighbors as ourselves, and always refusing to depend on Pharaoh. We have already seen the bondage resulting from such dependency. How much more clearly can God reveal it when He spent the whole Old Testament showing it to us and then the New Testament revealing how we can overcome?
While speaking with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch Weekly, Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway said she told her client Todd Akin to withstand the controversy that emerged following his comments on “legitimate rape” just like David Koresh, the Waco compound cult leader whose standoff with the ATF led to over eighty deaths. Conway told Perkins that she advised Akin to survive efforts to “smoke him out” like Koresh until they “realize the guy’s not coming out of the bunker.” She was speaking with Perkins just as the deadline for Akin to drop out passed, and Republican figures such as Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Jim DeMint, including DeMint’s powerful Senate Conservatives Fund, rallied to Akin’s behalf. Conway said she expects even more Republicans to follow Perkins’ lead in rallying behind Akin.
Perkins: The distance between them is narrowing, Todd Akin has bounced back up, and the evidence of that is pretty clear because now you see other Republicans who abandoned him are now taking a second look at the race and realizing just how important this seat is.
Conway: They are and they’re following your lead Tony. You saw former speaker Gingrich there on Todd’s behalf at a fundraiser on Monday, saying it’s just “conventional idiocy” that’s preventing people from backing Todd, and he predicts that come mid-October everyone will be following yours and his lead back to Missouri, with their money. Of course, former senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Senator Jim DeMint came out just yesterday to support Todd. I believe that the establishment will have to look at this race and they will have to hold their nose because the first days—and I’ve expressed this to Todd as my client for a while now, I’ve expressed it to him directly—the first day or two where it was like the Waco with David Koresh situation where they’re trying to smoke him out with the SWAT teams and the helicopters and the bad Nancy Sinatra records. Then here comes day two and you realize the guy’s not coming out of the bunker. Listen, Todd has shown his principle to the voters.
At a 2011 “pastor’s briefing” with disgraced pseudo-historian David Barton, Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akin (R-MO) recounted an experience of going to jail after protesting against abortion rights. Akin told the audience that he had earlier spoken with “a group of people who had been in jail with me” who were all “involved in the pro-life movement.”
“Don’t tell anybody I’m a jail bird,” Akin said, briefly telling a story about when “a bunch of us sat in front of these doors and the police gave us a ride to the free hotel for a while and you know how it goes.”
At the event with Barton, who has strongly backed his candidacy and has been campaigning with the embattled candidate, Akin was discussing biblical views on when to submit to governmental authority. Akin’s extreme views on abortion rights and rape are already well-known, but he only gave few details about his time as a “jail bird” during what may have been an illegal blockade of a clinic.
Akin: Yesterday I spoke to a group of people who had been in jail with me, you know don’t tell anybody I’m a jail bird, you know, but there were a bunch of us that were years ago involved in the pro-life movement and the question becomes: the Bible says, ‘rescue the innocent that is being led to slaughter,’ so a bunch of us sat in front of these doors and the police gave us a ride to the free hotel for a while and you know how it goes, and the question is, is that biblical or not?
UPDATE: Akin confirmed his arrest at a news conference, as reported by the Associated Press.
Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin said Friday that he had been arrested during an anti-abortion protest about two decades ago but didn't provide details of where or when the event occurred.
In a video circulating widely on the Internet Friday, Akin is seen discussing his involvement in an anti-abortion demonstration and says "you know, don't tell anybody I'm a jail bird." He also says in the video that "a bunch of us sat in front of these doors and the police gave us a ride to the free hotel for a while, and you know how it goes."
Asked at a press conference Friday in Kansas City to confirm the arrest, Akin said: "Yeah, well, certainly. Probably about 25 years ago or so I was involved in some peaceful protests. As I've made very clear I don't apologize for being pro-life. I stand up for the things I believe in."
His campaign promised to provide details of the arrest later Friday.
Mitt Romney took the stage at NBC's Education Nation to double down on his ridiculous past remarks that class size is "irrelevant" and "didn't make a difference." In light of Romney's remarks, American Bridge 21st Century launched ClassSizeMatters.com, featuring a great video and research revealing Romney's disastrous record on education.
Mitt Romney has said that "the effort to reduce classroom size may actually hurt education more than it helps." As governor, he proposed cutting $18 million in funding for class size reduction in Massachusetts. Yet when it came time to choose a school for his children, the Romneys chose an elite private school with an average class size of eleven students.
Mitt Romney wants small class sizes for his family -- but not for yours.
Learn more at http://classsizematters.com/learn-more/
Far-right activist David Horowitz has been out promoting his new book, Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion, and told conservative talk show host Steve Deace yesterday that President Obama, much like professor Cornel West, is taken seriously simply because he is black. During an incoherent rant, Horowitz asserted that Obama “would never be president if he weren’t black” as no one with the same “curious background and radicalism would ever have been nominated, let alone elected president if he weren’t black.” “Part of the racism of our society is if you’re black you can get away with murder,” Horowitz concludes.
Cornel West is just symbolic of the corruption of our culture and not unlike Obama who would never be president if he weren’t black, no white person with his resume and his thoughts and curious background and radicalism would ever have been nominated, let alone elected president if he weren’t black. So Cornel West is an empty suit who has twenty honorary degrees and he’s taught at all these prestigious universities but is basically an airhead, most people who’ve seen him on TV they’ve noticed. Part of the racism of our society is if you’re black you can get away with murder.
Later, Horowitz repeated his smear of Huma Abedin and said that she is a “Muslim Brotherhood operative” and the “chief adviser to the American government right now on Muslim affairs.” Not only is patently it absurd to claim that Abedin is a secret agent for the Brotherhood but she is also not a policymaker.
After attacking Obama as someone who “sympathizes with our enemy” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, Horowitz said that conservatives are much nicer and more open minded than liberals. But he couldn’t even make that audacious claim without attacking Obama: “we don’t set out to destroy the character of people. Obama is a Communist.” Not only is Obama a Communist, Horowitz explained, but so are his advisers David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, whom he says all serve this “evil cause” with religious zeal.
Obama basically sympathizes with our enemy and Hillary Clinton’s chief adviser, the chief adviser to the American government right now on Muslim affairs is Huma Abedin, who is a Muslim Brotherhood operative. The Muslim Brotherhood, for people who don’t know, that’s the organization that created Osama bin Laden, it’s the parent organization of Hamas, and it’s agenda — well they’re already doing it in Egypt — is to turn it into an Islamic, fascist state, meaning that everybody is under Islamic laws, this seventh century law.
People have to stop thinking of them as liberals. Conservatives are liberal people, we believe in two sides to a question, we don’t shut people up, when we have channels on television there is more than one viewpoint, we don’t set out to destroy the character of people. Obama is a Communist. Stanley Kurtz has written a really good book called “Radical-in-Chief” and his entire life has been spent in the same left that I came out of, which is the radical, Marxist left. Only it’s even worse. [David] Axelrod, his family is all—they’re communists. Valerie Jarrett, I mean literally members of the Communist Party. And I know as somebody who came out of the left, you know if you’re involved with an evil cause and you leave it, you denounce it, you tell people, particularly if you’re a political person, you warn people. These people are really dangerous but they haven’t done that, they are still committed to this cause. I think that’s the main thing, people have to suddenly awaken and realize, and that’s one reason I wrote this book “Radicals” because it’s a portrait of this mentality, it’s a very religious mentality.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, Illinois, is warning that the Democratic Party has endorsed “intrinsic evils” and consequently, voters who back Democratic candidates have put their eternal salvation at risk. In the Catholic Times, the official newspaper of the Springfield diocese, Bishop Thomas John Paprocki uses the manufactured controversy about mentioning “God” in the Democratic Platform to argue that the Democrats are hostile to faith, and went on to attack Democrats for endorsing gay rights and opposing the criminalization of abortion. He said those two planks demonstrate that the Democrats “explicitly endorse intrinsic evils,” while noting that he has “read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin.”
Paprocki concludes with a warning that while he is “not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against,” backing the Democratic Party may put your eternal salvation at risk: “a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”
There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding "political" and didn't say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party's official "unequivocal" support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.
Certainly there are "pro-choice" Republicans who support abortion rights and "Log Cabin Republicans" who promote same-sex marriage, and they are equally as wrong as their Democratic counterparts. But these positions do not have the official support of their party.
Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.
Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council yesterday spoke to VCY America’s Crosstalk where he, like FRC president Tony Perkins, again tried to link both the Obama administration and the Southern Poverty Law Center to the tragic office shooting last month. But that wasn’t the only thing Blackwell told host Jim Schneider, as he also warned that all those who oppose the FRC and its mission are trying to form a “totalitarian state” and “destroy the family.”
Blackwell: We at the Family Research Council, we are a conservative Christian organization, we have answered the call, it’s a biblical call, in Psalms 11:3 the question is asked, if the foundation be destroyed what shall the righteous do? As an organization we have advanced these biblical truths, we defended them and as a consequence we have become despised by those who would recreate this country into something that its founders never expected it to be, and that is a big welfare state, a totalitarian state or an authoritarian state. In those models and the state-craft of those national models they’ve had to chase God and faith out of the public square and they’ve had to destroy the family as the basic unit of governance because they replace it with an all-powerful state.
The FRC senior fellow even agreed with a warning that the SPLC may start labeling churches throughout America as hate groups, based on the false claim that opposition to same-sex marriage was the reason the FRC received the designation, and suggested that President Obama and his allies are setting up the conditions for a “totalitarian” regime.
Schneider: If Family Research Council has been labeled as a hate group because of the position that you’ve taken on traditional marriage, that we have known since the beginning of this country, that thirty-some states have certified in their own constitutions, if FRC has been labeled as a hate group, aren’t we just a step away from our individual churches all across this nation being on this same hate list?
Blackwell: Oh absolutely. That’s why I started out by saying if you look at the various models of governance throughout human history we have shown in terms of a democratic Republic driven by constitutional governance that limits the reach and intrusion of government and puts an emphasis on individual liberty and is based on the fact that there is a moral foundation of this country, if you can compare that to totalitarian states, authoritarian states, big welfare states, there are a couple things that have had to happen for these states to consolidate power and use and misuse their power. They’ve had to destroy or weaken the family and they’ve had to run God and faith out of the public square, or at minimum they have had to silence the church. I don’t think it’s a step to far to say that this is a President that has carried out that strategy in the advancement of the reintroduction of the welfare state.
Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty head Ron Crews yesterday in the Washington Times said that the new study which once again proved that the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has had no negative impact on the military since the repeal was certified one year ago is mere “propaganda” that “should be shredded post-haste.” However, Crews does not even attempt to rebut the study or offer any evidence for why the report “has no connection to reality.” He did blame the repeal policy for one incidence of potential harassment and supposed uneasiness among chaplains who disapprove of homosexuality, and also inexplicably considered the performance of same-sex ceremonies on bases as an attack on religious freedom. Crews labeled the repeal a “threat to freedom” and an “assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members” by turning them into guinea pigs for a “radical sexual experiment.”
The American armed forces exist to defend our nation, not to conduct social science lab experiments in which our troops serve as human subjects. Try telling that to this administration. The first anniversary of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Sept. 20, has come and gone. Now, there is mounting evidence that proves our warnings were not idle chatter. The threat to freedom posed by this radical sexual experiment on our military is real: It is grave and it is growing.
Activists inside and outside our government who pushed the repeal have deployed a smoke screen around the fact that once the military was forced to exalt homosexuality in the ranks, the all-too-foreseen consequence reared its ugly head.
Senior military officials have allowed personnel in favor of repeal to speak to media while those who have concerns have been ordered to be silent. Two airmen were publicly harassed in a Post Exchange food court as they were privately discussing their concerns about the impact of repeal. A chaplain was encouraged by military officials to resign his commission unless he could “get in line with the new policy,” demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint. Another chaplain was threatened with early retirement, and then reassigned to be more “closely supervised” because he had expressed concerns with the policy change, again demonstrating no tolerance for that chaplain’s religious viewpoint.
The Navy has allowed sailors openly engaged in homosexual behavior to choose their bunkmates. Imagine in this new age of “tolerance” if a sailor asked to be moved from a close-quarters berthing area because of his concern about another sailor’s sexual appetites. We already know what would happen, because tolerance has never been a two-way street.
Obviously, the recent “study” (aka propaganda) claiming that the repeal went off without a hitch should be shredded post-haste. It has no connection to reality.
This is just the first wave in the first year of the assault on the constitutionally protected freedom of our service members. Remember, the groups that forced their sexual experiment on the armed forces represent the lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgender community. It’s only a matter of time before a man who claims to be transgender demands to be placed with women during training, in the showers and in the barracks. The women in the units will have no recourse, especially if their objection to living, changing, bathing and bunking with a man is based on sincerely held religious beliefs. They would have two choices: Either accept this outrageous imposition silently or be charged with bigotry, hatred, intolerance and every other name the advocates of this agenda can throw at them. Neither choice is acceptable. When “sensitivity training” is in full force, these women just might face discipline and punitive separation merely for speaking up and requesting a reasonable measure of privacy and protection of their religious freedom.
Focus on the Family president Jim Daly hosted conservative pastor Tony Evans to discuss the importance of voting yesterday, which Daly kicked off by claiming that just a single vote brought Texas into the Union, would have stopped Hitler from coming to power, made German a second language in the US and defeated John F. Kennedy. While of course every vote is important, unfortunately, Daly’s list is entirely false and based on urban legends.
Daly made sure to keep the program nominally nonpartisan but did discuss why evangelical voters should prefer a conservative non-Christian candidate over a left-leaning Christian and lamented the supposed tendency of African Americans to only vote only according to race. While it was already clear who Daly and Evans wanted listeners to support, they made their pitch more apparent when the two asserted that the current administration is quashing freedom and attacking Christians. Daly warned that government keeps getting “bigger and bigger and wants to take away more and more of our freedoms” and Evans maintained that there is an attempt “to remove God from government” by increasing its size and weakening freedom.
Daly: Going back to this idea when government gets bigger, our liberties tend to get smaller. The Founding Fathers were uniquely geared to understanding corrupt government and what happens when tyranny occurs. How do we guard against that in this modern day? It seems like nothing new under the sun is occurring and as government in the US gets bigger and bigger and wants to take away more and more of our freedoms, how do we actually respond?
Evans: I think the church of Jesus Christ has to rise up as a unit and say it is unacceptable to remove God from government, it is unhistorical, it is certainly biblio-centrically unacceptable and therefore we’re going to as responsible citizens raise up godly people to run for office; we are going to vote for people who have biblical value system to get into office; we are going to on the various levels of government make our voices heard; we are going to register our people to vote on Sunday after church; we are going to make a comprehensive statement that we are not to be denied as Christians our freedoms in America and we can argue clearly from the Bible on small government. You know 1 Samuel 8, He says if you elect a government of me it will expand, it is going to overtax you and it will take, take, take, take, take, and you will lose the freedom that I intended for you. That’s what is happening in America and that is why God’s people have got to vote for the right government.
Adding a dose of pseudo-history, Daly argued that the Founders established the US government according to the Bible and Evans said that the US is modeled after biblical Israel and the Garden of Eden.
Daly: Tony, as we look at the mandate in the Bible to vote there is so much there and the Founding Fathers again were brilliant in understanding God’s design for things and the Scripture is pretty clear and really the Founding Fathers in creating a Republic based it on their biblical understanding of God’s ordination of government, didn’t they?
Evans: Absolutely, they went right to Exodus 18, how Israel was organized as a representative government, and used that as a pattern for the government of the United States. The principles and the freedom which dominates the uniqueness of the United States is drawn right from Scripture, in fact freedom started with God in the Garden, ‘from every tree of the Garden you may freely eat,’ there was broad freedom, limited regulations and dire consequences, that’s how government is supposed to work, so whenever government gets too big it gets unbiblical.