C4

Linda Harvey Compares Wearing Pro-Gay Rights T-Shirts to Bullying

Mission America’s Linda Harvey has consistently claimed that anti-bullying efforts that include preventing bullying against LGBT and LGBT-perceived students will lead to discrimination against straight, Christian students at the hands of “destructive” and “criminal” activists in the “gaystapo.” Of course, she and her other Religious Right anti-anti-bullying activists have never produced any actual evidence that this was occurring, but since she claims to be an ardent defender of students’ First Amendment rights, we wondered how she would react to a dispute in Celina, Ohio, regarding the rights of students to wear t-shirts supportive of gay rights:

The debate at Celina High School started after two female high school students celebrated the high school's "Twin Day" last week by wearing shirts to school that read "Lesbian 1" and "Lesbian 2" on the back. They were promptly asked to remove the T-shirts, according to students there.

On Tuesday, some 20 students decided to show their support of the girls by wearing their own T-shirts to school. The shirts read: "I support..." with a photo of a rainbow. "Express yourself."

Jimmy Walter, a sophomore at the public high school, says he organized the T-shirts in defense of his older sister, one of the female students who wore the Twin Day shirts. "My sister got yelled at and screamed at [by administrators], and she was basically told she was unwanted at the school because she was gay," he says.



"[Our high] school promotes their pro-life club called the 'Students for Life". They have their own shirts, which have a fetus and promotes pro-life," Warner wrote on Reddit, in a post about the incident that has now gone viral on the social news site. "How is that not considered "political"?

While Harvey has previously argued that students who oppose gay equality should not be “intimidated into self-censoring their First Amendment rights,” naturally, she believes that schools should prohibit pro-gay rights t-shirts…just like they prohibit bullying.

She went on to argue that “if schools allow views on homosexuality to be aired at all, then it always shall be to discourage this behavior and these false identities,” and that schools should make gay students “get the counseling they need.”

We teach our children not to be bystanders if they see someone bullied, likewise responsible grownups should not be bystanders as children are presented harmful, misleading and increasingly corrupting ideas. For instance, should a school allow explicit pro-abortion t-shirts? Absolutely not, because even most liberals know in their heart that abortion is a horrible practice, in fact they do everything they can to keep blinders on about its reality so their consciences don’t have to wrestle with the violence involved. There is objective truth, right and wrong, and sometimes our schools seem to have forgotten that. The same is true about homosexuality, if schools allow views on homosexuality to be aired at all, then it always shall be to discourage this behavior and these false identities. If the truth was being told about this behavior, it would be obvious why it should be discouraged and any teen struggling with these feelings would get the counseling they need.

Larry Pratt: Obamacare Will 'Take Away Your Guns'

The leader of the Religious Right gun group Gun Owners of America is warning that the government, through the health care reform law and a new service program, is going after everyday Americans. Larry Pratt, the organization’s executive director who has ties to white supremacists, appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk to float a number of conspiracies. Pratt alleged that the left is to blame for the Benghazi attack because of its “profound dislike of self-defense” and refusal to “believe in self-defense either personally or as a matter of national self-defense.”

Later, he also spoke to a caller about the latest right-wing conspiracy that FEMA Corps, a program dedicated to training “young volunteers to physically and psychologically handle the demands of working in hazardous areas,” is actually an armed brigade that may be used to persecute political opponents.

Caller: They have this website, “FEMA Corps First Graduating Class,” somebody found it on ItMakesSenseBlog.com and it was like 231 kids and they’ve got 2,500 armored fighting vehicles ready to go, I was just wondering if you have spotted any of that information yet.

Pratt: Now that is very interesting that FEMA would have armored personnel carriers, that is what it sounds like you are describing, is that helpful in fighting the aftermath of a Hurricane? That’s really amazing. It shows the total disconnect of the federal government from the Constitution.

But Pratt wasn’t done yet, as he went on to say that Obamacare will help the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to “take away your guns.”

There’s a big one that doesn’t get much attention as a gun measure but it is, and that’s Obamacare. Obamacare among its many unconstitutional aspects, I’m sorry Supreme Court, has made privacy something that only applies between consenting adults but not certainly our relationship with the government. It says that all of our medical records are available to be pawed through by bureaucrats somewhere in Washington, looking for a reason to disenfranchise gun owners, to say ‘oh you have a medical diagnosis that means you might be a danger to yourself or others so we’re going to come and knock on the door for the BATF to take away your guns.’

Of course, the law that screens out people such as mentally ill individuals through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to prevent them from purchasing guns was signed by President Bush, and the health care reform law [PDF] explicitly does not allow for a gigantic gun owner database or discrimination against people who own guns:

‘‘(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any information relating to— ‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATABANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.— A premium rate may not be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied, and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance upon—

‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

‘‘(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS.— No individual shall be required to disclose any information under any data collection activity authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act relating to—

‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition; or

‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition.’’

Klayman: 'Obama is as much a Threat to Jews and Christians as is Hamas'

Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman, who has previously claimed that President Obama’s campaign received donations from Iran’s government and was led by “self-hating Jews,” this week writes in WorldNetDaily that “Obama is as much a threat to Jews and Christians as is Hamas because he enables Hamas and those other Islamic groups bent on destroying us.” He writes that Obama won re-election despite his “destructive and anti-Semitic policies” in part due to “the ignorance if not stupidity of the 70 percent of the clueless American Jews who just voted to put him back in the White House for another four horrifying years.” The unintentionally-amusing Klayman concludes that while the “socialist Muslim” Obama is actively helping Islamist groups, he is at the same time a weak leader who is “unengaged” in the current conflict because of his trip to Southeast Asia.

I too felt a sense of assuredness, calm and, of course, pride as I waited in the lounge. My father and others urged me not to travel to Israel during this latest war. What would I have to gain and why should I take the chance, they asked. But, I was going anyway and nothing could keep me away – not just because this latest conflict is nothing new and will likely continue forever, but because I am a proud Jewish Christian and feel that Israel and its survival is synonymous with my American heritage. I am one with my people and will never forsake them. And, I am in Israel also on my professional and personal mission, to do whatever I can – particularly in light of the destructive and anti-Semitic policies and actions of President Barack Hussein Obama (our first and hopefully only “Muslim” president) and the ignorance if not stupidity of the 70 percent of the clueless American Jews who just voted to put him back in the White House for another four horrifying years. In my opinion, Obama is as much a threat to Jews and Christians as is Hamas because he enables Hamas and those other Islamic groups bent on destroying us. Regrettably, Obama’s pro-Arab policies and disdain for Jews, and Israel in particular, have encouraged terrorist organizations such as Hamas to continue and recently step up their strikes and rocket attacks on Israel. Now that Obama has been re-elected, it is even clearer to the Israelis that there is no time to lose in acting alone.



Consistent with the Israeli indifference to Obama, Obama is also “indifferent” to their security during this crisis. Predictably, he is off traveling in the Far East. As usual, he’s unengaged when it comes to the Middle East and America’ support of the Jewish state. So much the better, as his involvement could only make matters worse. Best to leave the socialist Muslim out in left field where he can do less harm to the vital interests of Jews and Christians in the Holy Land. We, as Jews and Christians, can and must take care of ourselves and don’t need or want Obama and his Muslim-sympathizing comrades in his administration to “help.”

LaBarbera: Tammy Baldwin's Election and 'Glee' are Signs that America is 'Falling Apart'

Talk show host Janet Mefferd invited Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality onto her program on Friday to mourn the recent string of electoral victories of openly gay candidates and gay rights measures. While we continued to hear over and over again from conservatives that President Obama’s endorsement of marriage equality greatly undermined his support among minority voters, it turned out that Obama performed just as well—if not better—among minorities. Now, Mefferd and LaBarbera wondered if millions of more white voters would have turned out if only the Romney campaign had promoted his anti-gay stances more vigorously.

Mefferd: Seven million white voters stayed home, everything was about this minority group and we should’ve been more pro-amnesty etcetera, and there was a lot of discussion about how the GOP needs to be for amnesty now, needs to do this and that to reach the particular Latino group or what have you, and in fact you wonder how many of those white voters who stayed home actually would’ve come out if they would’ve had a candidate who had a backbone on issues that are culturally important to them.

LaBarbera: Let’s talk about the homosexual issue Janet, of course Romney barely, I don’t know in the general election, was it raised at all?

Mefferd: No.

LaBarbera said that he will pray that Senator-elect “Tammy Baldwin leaves the lesbian lifestyle as so many women have,” and lashed out at the media’s treatment of officials like Baldwin as historic milestones, wondering if the media would have similar reports on the “first alcoholic” to win an election. He went on to rail against the Huffington Post for “celebrating homosexuality” and claimed that “homosexuality and abortion” are now “the sacraments of liberalism.” “That’s what it’s all about for liberals now and it’s just so sad to see, especially with Obama’s triumph, it’s sad to see that this won in America,” LaBarbera lamented. “America it seems is just falling apart right before our eyes.”

LaBarbera: We’re talking about a sin movement here. Would we be ticking off any other collective group of public representatives who had another sin problem: ‘Say Janet boy did you hear the first alcoholic just got elected in Colorado’? It’s preposterous, the whole movement is preposterous, and we got to retain our thinking as Christians. This is not an achievement. Homosexuality is a problem and the good news is people can overcome it. I hope and pray that one day Tammy Baldwin leaves the lesbian lifestyle as so many women have. The big achievement decades ago was to acknowledge homosexuality as some kind of minority, it’s not really a minority, it’s about behavior and behavior that can be changed. I’m sorry to offend the homosexual lobby but that’s what it is to us. This is not a great achievement and it’s nothing to be proud of.

Mefferd: They are really crowing though. I can’t even count how many stories I saw on the Huffington Post where they were just jumping for joy, how exciting this is. The other issue that came up were these four marriage amendments—

LaBarbera: By the way Janet, that’s the same Huffington Post which I believe in today’s Huffington Post about how Abraham Lincoln might’ve been gay. The Huffington Post is now celebrating homosexuality, they can’t get enough of it, they have a whole section called “Gay Voices” which is all about homosexuality. This has become one of the sacraments of liberalism: homosexuality and abortion, we should add to that maybe promiscuity for heterosexuals. That’s what it’s all about for liberals now and it’s just so sad to see, especially with Obama’s triumph, it’s sad to see that this won in America. America it seems is just falling apart right before our eyes.

Mefferd: I agree.

Later in the show, Mefferd called the gains of the gay rights movement a “rejection of God” while LaBarbera appeared nostalgic for the days when states had anti-sodomy laws on the books. He said that the legalization of same-sex marriage will turn the government into “a promoter of evil” and make homosexuality more “popular,” just as Roe v. Wade supposedly increased the abortion rate (actually, abortion rates are higher in countries where it is illegal).

He even said that the kiss between two gay characters on “Glee” was a sign that America is in “big, big trouble.” “When you saw two teenage boys in a romantic set-up kiss, making out, during primetime TV and it didn’t engender mass outrage among Americans, you know we are pretty far gone,” LaBarbera said.

Mefferd: What we’re really seeing here is the unfolding of the attack against God’s authority and God’s creation, and I think for that reason it’s really a much bigger fight than just what we’re saying , it’s not just even about homosexuality, it’s about a view of God and a rejection of God and how He has created this world to operate.

LaBarbera: The fact is a lot of Americans don’t care about God anymore, they don’t care about what God thinks about this issue or other issues. I think it is much deeper, when government goes from dissuading people from committing a sin, that’s why we had sodomy laws in all the states, anti-sodomy laws, until 1961 I believe, maybe I have that wrong, but the point is we used to discourage sin. Now when you turn it around and government actually promotes sin and ultimately homosexual so-called marriage, that’s the ultimate promotion of what God calls detestable behavior as even noble, there are a lot of repercussions when government changes complete opposite and becomes a promoter of evil and a promoter of sin and that’s what we’re seeing. It’s the same with abortion, look at how many more abortions happened because it became legalized, so many millions of babies would not have been killed had the law not made it popular. I’m afraid we’re going to see that happen with homosexuality as well.

Mefferd: I don’t know if you heard John MacArthur’s great sermon on this but he was talking about how now we have a party in the United States that has the sins of Romans 1 as its party platform. It’s stunning in our lifetimes to see something that egregious going on.

LaBarbera: Yes and the homosexual movement if you look back, it is fascinating how it was marketed. I don’t know if it was last year or the year before with the “Glee” kiss. That showed me that America was in big, big trouble. I think we are probably ten years behind understanding how bad it really is. When you saw two teenage boys in a romantic set-up kiss, making out, during primetime TV and it didn’t engender mass outrage among Americans, you know we are pretty far gone. Nobody wants to talk about what happens when you practice homosexuality, all the higher rates of disease, especially for men who have sex with men, these are statistics you can get by just going to the CDC website, obviously it’s a very dangerous and immoral behavior.

Robertson: 'Miserable' Atheists Trying to 'Steal' Christmas

The “War on Christmas” has arrived and the 700 Club is doing all it can to stoke fears that Christmas may cease to exist. Host Pat Robertson warned that “the Grinch is trying to steal our holiday” as “miserable” atheists “want to steal your holiday away from you” simply because they can’t stand the joy of Christmas. “Atheists don’t like our happiness, they don’t want you to be happy, they want you to be miserable,” he said. “They’re miserable so they want you to be miserable.”

Watch:

Farah: America is about to be 'Destroyed by God'

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah has been beside himself over the President Obama’s election victory, writing that his re-election is proof that the U.S. is “where ancient Israel was before being destroyed by God.” He now claims that “the election, whether it was the result of voter fraud or stupidity or both, suggests America is turning rapidly away from God,” and now “we are in full apostasy boogie.”

Do you want to know where America is today in historical and biblical terms? It’s where ancient Israel was before being destroyed by God.

In Hosea 8, God speaks to the prophet about the precipice on which Israel stands: “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.”

We are in full apostasy boogie.

We have left our Judeo-Christian roots, values and heritage and are pursuing other gods. We think we’re too sophisticated for accountability to God.

God’s laws and judgments are, well, too judgmental for a secular and advanced society like America’s.



Nevertheless, the election, whether it was the result of voter fraud or stupidity or both, suggests America is turning rapidly away from God.



In America we are not only repeating the ancient vows, we are re-enacting the plot. We are indeed setting up kings, without regard to God. We are making princes who He knows not. And we are making idols of material things, so that we may be cut off.

Lord help us.

Gaffney: Obama Displays 'Hostility to the United States'

The Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney dedicated Wednesday’s edition of Secure Freedom Radio to discussing the Benghazi attack and the resignation of Gen. David Petreaus with leaders of the anti-Muslim Right. He spoke first with conservative columnist Diana West, who in October claimed that the Benghazi attack was a “fortunate event” because it brought attention to the Obama administration’s “supporting jihad.”

West – who explored similar ground in a WorldNetDaily column yesterday -- told Gaffney that Petreaus’ extramarital affair was “apiece” with the entire philosophy behind the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, claiming that American troops are now being ordered to “revere the Koran” and “look the other way” at “polygamy, pederasty, abuse of dogs.”

“I’m not surprised to see the men who prosecuted this doctrine, Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Allen, and who else, we don’t even know how many others, showing such immoral leadership and such corruption of their own personal lives,” she said.

West: In a sense, we live in a COIN [counterinsurgency] world, because I think the doctrine that Christopher Stevens and the Bush administration and of course the Obama administration was pushing was this notion, if you do enough to please the Islamic world you can work with them. But in that process, you become part of the submission. You adopt so much of the Islamic worldview that you lose your own. And I think the counterinsurgency doctrine exemplifies this with guns. It’s a matter of appeasing Islamic masters, of satisfying Islamic norms in order, the idea is to win them over to your side. But you no longer have a side once you’ve given over freedom of speech, which the military essentially gave over in ordering men to revere the Koran and never speak ill of it, once you give over the notion of outrage over polygamy, pederasty, abuse of dogs, which the military institutionalizes in forcing our men to look the other way at these behaviors, which are norms in Afghanistan. You have given away yourself, you no longer have yourself, and as these men come home when these attitudes towards corruption – everything in Afghanistan is done with money, you know jizya, the amounts of, your persuading people to do things not because you’re right or according to the law, but because you pay them, these things are going to seep back into our society. And this tolerance of polygamy, pederasty, etc. is going to seep back in. These are dangerous things, we’re no longer ourselves.

West: The notion of protecting the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which is at the heart of COIN, over protecting American forces in the field, I believe is an immoral doctrine. And I’m not surprised to see the men who prosecuted this doctrine, Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Allen, and who else, we don’t even know how many others, showing such immoral leadership and such corruption of their own personal lives. I don’t think it’s far afield, I think it’s all apiece of a larger philosophy.

Gaffney: Symptomatic of a larger problem, one I think that those of us who revere the military and its place in our society as our defenders must take very much to heart.

Elsewhere in the program, Gaffney spoke with author Andy Bostom, who claimed that President Obama has adopted what he sees as the West’s “cultural self-loathing.” Gaffney agreed, adding that “it really speaks to the psychology of this guy… this hostility to the United States.”

Bostom: I think we’re coming to a phase in the West where this sort of cultural self-loathing. Our engagement now in these wars, the way we’ve conducted them, may be the apotheosis of this trend, this completely self-destructive self-loathing. And our president seems to have totally bought into this mentality that somehow, you know, all the ills of the world are due to western attacks, to hegemony and colonial…and this is all the detritus of the colonial empire, and we are a guilty people, we are a guilty civilization, and he is actualizing policies, it seems to me, based on this mindset. And al Qaeda’s a great example. On the one hand, they aren’t even Muslims, according to our president and his advisors, they’re some sort of vague manifestation of extremism that has nothing to do with Islam, that has nothing to do with Muslims, that’s a sui generis phenomenon or something, but we are incalculably wrong in almost everything we do.

Gaffney: That’s such a telling insight, Andy Bostom. It really speaks to the psychology of this guy, and we’ll be speaking momentarily with Dr. Paul Kengor about his sort of upbringing and influences that may have helped shape this hostility to the United States. But to the extent that it really is translating now into fundamentally misunderstanding the danger that’s being posed to us and therefore making absolutely impossible our success in contending with it, it really is a disaster of the first order and something that I pray we will have members of Congress addressing in the course of these hearings starting this week.

Rodriguez: Blacks and Latinos Not Voting with a 'Christian Worldview'; Gay Marriage will Force us to 'Surrender Christianity'

Samuel Rodriguez has appointed himself to be the spokesman for all Hispanic-Americans, telling Republican leaders that Latinos are just itching to vote for Republicans if only they put a greater emphasis on their anti-choice and anti-gay positions while moderating their rhetoric around immigration.

During an interview on BreakPoint, Rodriguez described a meeting with Karl Rove where they predicted that the majority of Latino voters will back Republicans, a political prognostication that has been proven very wrong, and found it completely inconceivable that any Christian would support Democratic candidates over Republicans. He reasoned that the GOP “provoked the Hispanic community to go and vote for a party that does not affirm the values of life and the strengthening of marriage that Hispanics hold as sacred values” by not supporting immigration reform during Bush’s second term. “The Democratic platform does not resonate or reflect the core values of the Hispanic-American community; that’s not anecdotal that is a matter of quantitative fact,” he said.

But as we’ve noted before, a majority of Latinos support a woman’s right to choose and marriage equality.

He went on to say that Latinos (and African Americans) are backing Democrats by wide margins because “we vote our ethnicity” and “vote our cultural heritage rather than our Christian worldview,” contradicting his claim that Latino culture makes them Republicans.

The Democratic platform does not resonate or reflect the core values of the Hispanic-American community, that’s not anecdotal that is a matter of quantitative fact. Every single survey, even the recent Barna survey, reaffirms that finding. The fact of the matter is, the disconnect exists because of the rhetoric. Forty-four percent of Hispanics supported George W. Bush in 2004, forty-four percent. Karl Rove and I sat down and we predicted in 2006 that in 2008 fifty-two percent of Hispanics would go GOP, and for at least a generation that number would continue to go up. Then came immigration reform, and at the end of the day that sort of ‘we don’t know whether this party really wants us’ provoked the Hispanic community to go and vote for a party that does not affirm the values of life and the strengthening of marriage that Hispanics hold as sacred values.



I have to say this to ethnic communities: putting President Obama aside, the African American and the Latino community, we suffer from what I call vertical myopia. That is to say that many of us go to the voting booth and we vote our ethnicity, rather than our Christian worldview. I find that to be a problem, as a believer, as a follower of Christ, as a born again Christian, I find it to be a significant problem biblically and theologically, when we vote our cultural heritage rather than our Christian worldview.

Rodriguez also claimed that Obama’s second term will bring about a “greater erosion of our religious liberties” and even charged that under the Obama administration, “Christians that stand up for biblical marriage will be continued to be labeled with a de facto sort of federal endorsement as bigoted and homophobic” if they do not “surrender Christianity on the altar of political expediency.”

 

I think we’re going to see greater erosion of our religious liberties. I think we’re going to see those Christians that stand up for biblical marriage will be continued to be labeled with a de facto sort of federal endorsement as bigoted and homophobic. I think the war on the biblical doctrine of marriage will continue to increase. At the end of the day, it’s going to prompt the Christian community to say: is this the generation that will surrender Christianity on the altar of political expediency or will we activate or engage in a prophetic posture?

This is How Judicial Nominations are Supposed to Work

President Obama will end his second term with more vacancies on the federal courts than there were when he started. Today there are 99 vacancies on the federal circuit and district courts, 33 of which are for courts that are so busy that they’ve been officially designated “judicial emergencies.” This glut of vacancies is in large part due to Senate Republicans’ persistent obstruction of the president’s nominees – even the ones from their own states who they purportedly support. During President Obama’s first term, judicial nominees have had to wait on average three times as long after committee approval for a vote from the full Senate as did nominees in President George W. Bush’s first term.

But some vacancies are due to a less well-known but all too common delay at the very start of the nominations process.

Before he makes a nomination to the federal judiciary, President Obama asks senators from the state where the vacancy has occurred to present him with recommendations. It’s a way to identify nominees from any given state and to ensure home-state, often bipartisan, support for nominees. The problem is, senators from both parties have too often dragged their feet in recommending acceptable nominees, leading to often years-long vacancies in the federal courts.

These vacancies exist despite the fact that most federal judges give months, sometimes even a full year of notice before retiring or taking senior status (semi-retirement) so that a replacement can be found.

This week, senators from Colorado and New Mexico showed how the process is meant to work – and how it would work, if all senators followed their lead.

In Colorado, district court judge Wiley Daniel announced last winter that he would be leaving his seat in January 2013. Colorado senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet set up a bipartisan commission to find qualified nominees for the seat in a timely manner. They then recommended a set of finalists to the White House, which in turn nominated Raymond P. Moore on Tuesday, before the seat he would fill becomes vacant. Of the 18 future vacancies currently listed by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Colorado is one of only two states with a nominee.

In New Mexico, Judge Bruce Black announced in June that he would be leaving the court in October, just a few short months. So New Mexico’s senators, Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman, announced their bipartisan commission that very day, leading to the president’s nomination yesterday of Kenneth John Gonzales to fill the vacancy.

There is no excuse for seats on the federal courts to be left open for years, as caseloads multiply and litigants face delays. The senators from Colorado and New Mexico showed how the front end of the judicial nominations process can be efficient and fair.

PFAW

PFAW: 6th Circuit Voting Rights Decision a Reminder to Progressives of Importance of Courts

Washington, DC – People For the American Way today said it was “disappointed” by a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted to move forward with a last-minute elections rule change that could leave thousands of Ohio provisional ballots uncounted. The unanimous three-judge panel, consisting of one George H.W. Bush and two George W. Bush nominees, overturned the ruling of District Court judge Algenon Marbley. Marbley had blasted Husted for making a last-minute rule change for the counting of ballots that could disenfranchise thousands of Ohioans.

“We are deeply disappointed by the Sixth Circuit’s decision,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “One of the most sacred rights in our democracy is the right to cast a vote that counts. Many Ohioans waited in line for hours on November 6 to cast a ballot. That right should never be allowed to be taken away by capricious rulings of elections officials. How many Ohioans will take pride that they voted, never realizing that a partisan election official ordered their ballot to be ignored? Would Husted be able to look citizens in the eye and tell them that their votes weren't counted?"

“Husted and his Republican colleagues across the country have been trying to game the system in every way possible to make it harder for certain Americans to cast ballots,” continued Keegan. “Across the country, they have run up against a strong and independent federal judiciary that has stood up for the rights of citizens. It is disappointing that the Sixth Circuit has broken that trend, ruling against the clear interests of Ohio’s voters. Let this be a reminder to progressives as President Obama begins his second term: the federal judiciary is the most lasting legacy of any president. Let’s work to make sure the next four years sees the confirmation of fair, impartial judges who will stick up for the rights of individual Americans under the Constitution.”

###

James Dobson Gives Away the Game, Admits the National Day of Prayer Task Force Prayed for Obama's Defeat

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, now the host of Family Talk, admitted on his radio program today that the National Day of Prayer Task Force, chaired by his wife Shirley Dobson, were praying for Obama to be defeated on Election Day. Religious Right activists have lambasted Obama with false smears that he had “cancelled” the National Day of Prayer and defended the event as “not politically inclined,” even though it regularly hosted anti-Obama speakers like David Jeremiah and Harry Jackson and both Dobsons are closely tied to the GOP. But during an interview with Concerned Women for America president Penny Nance, Dobson gave away the game and said that his wife and Task Force vice-chair John Bornschein put together an election season prayer effort that they hoped will defeat Obama.

Dobson: Many, many, many Christians were praying and we really need to address that issue first: where was God? Because there were these ’40 Days of Prayer,’ there were several of those that took place, where people fasted and prayed for forty days asking the Lord for His intervention on Election Day. We did a program last week where my wife Shirley came in with her vice-chairman John Bornschein and told how three hundred Gideon prayer warriors came to Washington, went to every single office of the House of Representatives and the Senate and prayed for the occupant, prayed for our representatives, went to the White House, went in a vigil to the Supreme Court, which is now at great risk, and went to the Pentagon. People like that were praying all over this country and the Lord said no.

Nance: He said no.

Later in the interview, Dobson lamented that we “we lost this election” because God “said no” and warned we are now living in a “time of judgment.” Nance even raised doubts about Obama’s Christian faith as she said that God can still “use this President” just as He has “used people who were not believers and were not followers of the Lord or followers of the God throughout the Bible to do his work.”

Dobson: Because we lost this election does not mean that the Lord has turned His back on us. I think this is a time of judgment but those of us who are trying to serve Him and defend the things that He has taught, may yet see Him act. He said no this time but who knows what will happen in the future. Nobody knows.

Nance: Nothing is too big for God. God can use this President just like He can anyone else, and He has throughout history used people who were not believers and were not followers of the Lord or followers of the God throughout the Bible to do his work, so we will pray to that end and trust the Lord knows what He’s doing, but I’m already looking ahead to 2014.

So next time the Dobsons complain that Obama isn’t caving to their demand he participates in their event, maybe they can give up the act that they are non-partisan.

Swanson: Democrats Plan to Grow Government by Ensuring 'Everybody is Committing Homosexual Acts and They're High on Drugs'

Pastor Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio this week said that Democrats are deviously working to “strip back” government control over marijuana and homosexuality “in order to maximize the immorality of the people” and “increase the size of government.” The “Democratic vision in a nutshell,” according to Swanson, is “to make sure everybody is committing homosexual acts and they’re high on drugs, and then they vote for Democrats to increase the size of government and provide pretend security for the people high on drugs.”

Democrats in general—in general—are for anything that’s immoral and anything that involves more government. As it turns out occasionally you have to strip back a little more government control in order for people to become more immoral. You follow me there? I mean if you’re a Democrat, you’re going to have to strip back a little control of things like marijuana and homosexuality in order to maximize the immorality of the people. But in the process, what do you do with the size of government, Dave you’re a good Democrat. In the process what are you doing with the size of government? You’re growing and growing and growing and growing it. So the idea, friends, is to make sure everybody is committing homosexual acts and they’re high on drugs, and then they vote for Democrats to increase the size of government and provide pretend security for the people high on drugs. That’s the Democratic vision in a nutshell…somebody write that down I think that’s worth putting on a poster somewhere. That’s what Democrats do and they do it well.

Swanson continued his tirade by declaring that since Americans are “not voting for pro-life candidates,” they are “pro-abortion” and “just love to kill kids.” He further proclaimed that “what women really care about is the ability to kill their children.”

People are not voting for the pro-life candidates, in fact Dave I think this last election season was the most pro-abortion season I’ve ever seen…I saw a number, I heard a number of commercials that were talking about how wonderful it was for women to choose to abort or kill their children, this was something that was sold hook line and sinker in just about every other commercial that I heard relating to the race, the 2012 races. I think that’s destructive that Americans are pro-abortion, Americans like to kill their kids.

A First Swing at Fixing the Broken Election System

If you were casting a ballot in South Carolina last Tuesday, your wait to vote may have been four hours. In Florida, it might have been seven. If you were voting in Hawaii, you may have gone to one of the nineteen polling places that ran out of paper ballots. President Barack Obama noted in his victory speech that many Americans waited in long lines and, as he stated, “we have to fix that.”

Just nine days after Election Day, Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) has taken a first swing at that fix. Coons proposed a bill yesterday that would reform many of the country’s election procedures. His proposed legislation, the Louis L. Redding Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely (FAST) Voting Act of 2012, would provide federal grants to states that make voting faster and more accessible. The bill includes provisions for same-day registration, early voting, and reducing how long voters must wait at poorly-performing voting facilities.

As Sen. Coons noted in a statement: “Long lines are a form of voter disenfranchisement, a polling place running out of ballots is a form of voter suppression, and making it harder for citizens to vote is a violation of voters’ civil rights.” And these problems at the polls tend to disproportionately affect African American and Latino voters.

The Washington Post points out that it is less a matter of fixing a voting system but more an issue of fixing thousands of voting systems. They note that with Congress, states, and local officials all playing roles, there is no single entity that oversees voting in the country. This may complicate the process of developing solutions.

Nevertheless, it is welcome news that national leaders are focusing on this issue. It was inspiring to see millions of Americans willing to spend hour after hour on line to vote, many of them likely knowing that the lines were an intentional result of plans to prevent them from voting. Every single voter on Election Day should be confident that their ballot will be cast in a timely manner and that their voice will be heard. Anything less is undemocratic -- and unacceptable.

PFAW

Linda Harvey Doubts Christian Faith of African Americans who Supported Obama

Mission America head Linda Harvey is stunned that President Obama received an overwhelming percentage of the African American vote, and is now arguing that African American Christians cannot support Obama while believing in “the Lord’s vision of life and truth.” She says that black voters chose not to “choose candidates based on the content of his or her character” or “open their eyes” about Obama and instead were “swayed by race,” even though he has “insulted our Lord, our values and our faith.”

Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character? Is it safe to conclude that ninety-three percent of African Americans are now in favor of homosexuality as marriage, late-term and sex-selection abortions, and they love the idea of limiting opportunity be penalizing success in this country? Do all this ninety-three percent agree that people of faith should be forced to pay for other people’s abortion-causing drugs? These are drugs that kill unborn babies. This is a human rights issue of the first magnitude and I am guessing there are plenty of black women and men who would have a problem with this if they chose to open their eyes about these policies aggressively supported by Obama and his administration, and now America has signed on for four more years of this. I even think there are college girls whose hearts would break if they faced this truth.

But no, here’s how this happens: Obama is a guy people want to believe, some people are swayed by race, giving him the benefit of the doubt; some find it impossible to accept the jaw-dropping reality about his actions though. He has insulted our Lord, our values and our faith in ways too numerous to mention. But folks decide which camp they want to be in: the cool camp, the one with the hip president who likes big government programs and nods at sexual sin, even if great harm comes to children as a result. No, for some people, first they choose their camp and then they try to figure out ways to justify it. We are drowning in our greed, financially, sexually, and in so many ways. It’s time for us to all get serious and be courageous. We must pray for these leaders but let’s never forget which camp we belong in, it’s the one with the Lord’s vision of life and truth.

'From Gingrich to Santorum to Perry to Bachmann, I Think Any of Them Could Have Won'

Former Council for National Policy executive director Steve Baldwin spoke to his fellow Romney critic Steve Deace this week, where they complained that conservative leaders didn’t heed their warnings about nominating Romney, and are now mourning that “America’s culture, America’s economy [and] America’s Christian history” were dealt a potentially fatal blow after Obama’s re-election.

Deace: Some of us spent the better part of our lives in the last year and a half telling everybody who mattered in this movement that we know, that this is what was going to happen if we nominate this guy. We risked friendships, relationships, radio affiliates, business relationships, trying to avoid the conversation you and I are having right now, and yet unfortunately most of these people for reasons—I don’t really care what they are anymore—they just didn’t want to listen, they just didn’t want to list to it. That’s what’s frustrating.

Baldwin: I’ve been warning people for ten years about this man and the more I warned the more people thought I was crazy. Now here we are, the worst loss I’ve seen in terms of impact on America’s culture, America’s economy, America’s Christian history. This loss is going to do so much damage to us, this was one of those campaigns that we have to get right and we didn’t get it right.

Baldwin later claimed that Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann all “could have won” in November. He also described a conference call he participated in with other conservatives about how leaders of the Religious Right, Tea Party and Ron Paul supporters need to unite for the 2016 election so the GOP doesn’t nominate a candidate like Romney.

Baldwin: With $1 billion, with maybe twice as much money as John McCain had, he got 2.5 million votes less, it would be difficult to perform worse than Romney, you would have to really try hard to do as bad as Romney did.

Deace: Do you think that any of the Republicans, any of the other alternatives to Romney in this primary, do you believe that any of them would have won this election, and if so—whom and why?

Baldwin: Oh yeah, I actually think every major candidate, from Gingrich to Santorum to Perry to Bachmann, I think any of them could have won. All they had to was tell the truth about Obama’s economy, his foreign policy, his attack on our culture, just tell the truth. Romney never told anyone anything about this guy.



Baldwin: I had a long discussion with a number of conservative leaders on a conference call today and there was some agreement here that there needs to be some high level discussions that go on between the three major conservative branches of the Republican party, and they may not even like that term ‘Republican party.’ I’m talking about the Christian Right—the social conservatives—, the Tea Party conservatives, and of course there’s overlap here, and the Ron Paul conservatives, and all three groups have overlaps. But there are people respected as leaders within all three of those entities that I feel need to get together and have some discussion about how we can sing the same song sheet in the future and try to unite because there was a problem here, we conservatives were split up so many ways that Romney took advantage of that and strode right on in and clinched the primary, we can’t do that anymore.

WND Warns of 'Martial Law' during Obama's Second Term

After warning that conservatives will face “prosecution under civil-rights statutes” after Obama won re-election and preserved his “totalitarian infrastructure”, WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush now writes that Obama is planning on “fomenting widespread civil unrest” so he can “implement martial law or something resembling it.”

He accuses members of the “tyrannical” Obama administration of “treason” and says that they are using the incident in Benghazi to “scapegoat a few generals in order to protect Obama and his toadies from their crimes, while dramatically compromising the military, a key objective to wielding complete power. It sort of helps when you think of it in terms of how Marxists have subjugated governments in the past.”

But there are almost countless more innocuous examples that, in the aggregate, have served to desensitize us to the truly odious ones. As a result, there was ambiguity among American voters between electing a morally upright man as president, versus a sitting president whose administration practically flaunts its criminality. There is evidence of widespread fraud having taken place in the recent general election – but who is inclined to pursue this, now that the wolves are guarding the henhouse?

The Boy Scouts of America, who have developed moral refinement and honor among young men for more than 100 years, have been demonized because they do not embrace sexual deviance. Human life has become cheap, while a random insect or tree frog can cripple an entire industry and the livelihood of thousands. Those who observe millennia of Judeo-Christian moral doctrine rather than Marxist-imbued apostasy are becoming persona non grata. God Himself, by virtue of what He asks of his creation, has become “evil,” while that which His ancient Enemy promotes has become “virtue.” I could continue this list ad nauseum.

And everything bad is good again …

I’ve said for a long time, fomenting widespread civil unrest has been part of President Obama’s game plan from Day 1. This, I have asserted, he will do in order to implement martial law or something resembling it, at least initially. Once this has been done, like so many government constructions, it becomes an entanglement from which it is damnably difficult, if not impossible, to extricate ourselves.

Financial markets reacted negatively to the outcome of the election, as have thousands of employers now facing the specter of having to comply with Obamacare. Citizens across almost all 50 states have petitioned for secession. Certain malignant devices of the United Nations that will detrimentally impact Americans’ liberties are being eagerly considered by the Obama administration. This sort of thing, as well as the president’s stealth executive orders, can be expected to continue unabated.

Public concern with such pablum as randy middle-aged generals and desperate housewives, rather than what amounts to treason among members of the Executive Branch with regard to Benghazi-gate, makes it clear that this regime’s tactics are working. In fact, I’ll have to admit that the administration is playing this brilliantly: They scapegoat a few generals in order to protect Obama and his toadies from their crimes, while dramatically compromising the military, a key objective to wielding complete power.

It sort of helps when you think of it in terms of how Marxists have subjugated governments in the past.

What better way to coalesce the aforementioned complete power than by enacting so many oppressive policies within a short period of time, and amidst charges of misfeasance and fraud, that Americans who do have a sense of what America represents finally determine they’ve had enough? All the while, the press maintains the deception that Obama is just Joe President trying to do the right thing amidst radical factions reacting to circumstances brought about by George W. Bush in the first place. Thus, Obama’s actions, no matter how tyrannical, will be validated.

Frank Gaffney and Jerry Boykin Speculate Wildly about Benghazi and Petraeus' Resignation

Kevin Drum of Mother Jones today wonders how the right-wing speculation of a Benghazi cover-up makes even “a lick of sense,” and so he may want to hear what conspiracy theorists and conservative activists Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy and Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council have to say. The two were leading authors of the 2010 “Team B II Report: Sharia: the Threat to America” [PDF], about how the implementation of Sharia law in the U.S. due to high-level Islamist infiltration is imminent, if not already occurring, and are now pushing claims that the Benghazi incident was all part of a pro-Sharia scheme to limit free speech in the U.S. and even aid terrorists.

Gaffney argued in the Washington Times that the initial reaction to the Benghazi attack proves that the State Department is “committed to the Shariah blasphemy agenda” and in an interview with Sandy Rios of the American Family Association, he maintained that the Obama administration wanted to cover up “secret arm shipments” to Al Qaeda. Of course he began his inflammatory remarks by stating, “I don’t know the truth just yet.”

I don’t know the truth just yet but I will tell you this, I believe what Chris Stevens was doing there was known to be an exceedingly dangerous thing to do and that he did so without adequate regard for the safety of either himself or the people with him. And he did it I think for a compelling reason, and that is that they were trying to figure out how to do damage-limitation on the cover being blown on secret arms shipments that he was facilitating to the so-called opposition in Syria which includes we know, Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, Boykin told Lee Webb of Christian Broadcasting Network’s NewsWatch, who asked if David Petraeus was “actually blackmailed” by the Obama administration, that Petraeus was “held hostage” by the administration and resigned as the head of the CIA because “he reached a point where he was unwilling to continue spouting the party line [on Benghazi] to the American public and continuing to breach his own integrity.”

Does Boykin know this for sure? Nope. Like Gaffney, Boykin preceded his wild speculation by noting, “I certainly don’t have any insider information” about the scandal surrounding Petraeus, who while speaking to CNN said that “this has nothing to do with Benghazi.”

Boykin also alleged that the government was “trying to cover up” a scheme in Benghazi to “funnel weapons and material to Syrian rebels”…before adding, “now, I don’t know that that’s the case.”

William Murray: Social Security Launched the 'War on the Traditional Family' and Increased the rate of Homosexuality

William Murray’s anti-Obama campaign through his Government Is Not God PAC failed to defeat the President, and so he took to WorldNetDaily today to blame Obama’s victory on “millions of votes from people who have little command of the English language” and the government providing “school lunch for millions of kids.” He said that the real problem in America all goes back to Social Security, which he claims “has harmed both the family and social fabric” and launched “the war on the traditional family.”

By dramatically reducing poverty among seniors, Murray argues that Social Security and Medicare allowed young people to “financially abandon their parents” and have “more money to spend on everything from booze to cars to Chinese-made clothes.” He goes on to claim that Social Security’s devastating impact on morality increased rates of drug use and has meant that “more children are born out of wedlock” and that “more young men destroy their lives in homosexuality.”

Social Security is the “third rail” of politics. It is a tremendously popular program not only with seniors but with their children as well. Social Security provides a safety net for the elderly but also reduces the burden on younger Americans to care for elderly parents. Unfortunately, Social Security has become an excuse for many children to financially abandon their parents. This has harmed both the family and social fabric.

The war on the traditional family began with President Franklin Roosevelt’s Social Security and other programs. One of the main reasons for marriages staying together was maintaining homes and wealth for old age. With the promise of government retirement money, many marriages could be walked away from for some very frivolous reasons. The divorce rates climbed as Social Security and other government benefits increased.

With many elders taken care of by the government, younger Americans could spend their money on themselves. Social Security and other benefits provided by government encouraged people to borrow and spend rather than to save. With a promise of government payouts to come in the future, the savings rate in the nation dropped to zero.

In the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” started providing “poor children” and “single mothers” with government benefits. A second front was opened up against the traditional family. Now the government paid women with children not to marry. With the advent of Medicare for the aging and SCHIP to provide medical care for children in homes with incomes of up to four times the level of poverty, younger adults had even more money to spend on everything from booze to cars to Chinese-made clothes. The more adults were freed from the financial responsibilities of family life by government, the more families began to deteriorate.



When government rather than the family becomes the main provider, people see fewer practical reasons for morality. More adults live together without benefit of marriage. More children are born out of wedlock. More young men destroy their lives in homosexuality. Drug use destroys the will to work and the will to live. And government finances it all, but at a cost to the future. Benefit payments are so high that basic government services are not affordable.

Is That Bryan Fischer or Mitt Romney?

Earlier this week, PFAW’s Right Wing Watch caught this rant by American Family spokesman and all-purpose bigot Bryan Fischer, who declared on his radio program that American Latinos voted Democratic in record numbers this year because “they want big government goodies.”

 Hispanics are not Democrats, don’t vote Democrat, because of immigration. That’s not the main reason why they vote for Democrats. It doesn’t have anything to do with lax immigration policy. It has to do with the fact that they are socialists by nature. They come from Mexico, which is a socialist country. They want big government intervention. They want big government goodies. It’s primarily about that.

Now, they want open borders, make no mistake, because they’ve got family and friends that they want to come up and be able to benefit from the plunder of the wealth of the United States just as they have been willing to do. Republicans can pander all they want to Hispanics, to immigrants, and it will not work. There is no way on Earth you’re going to get them to leave the Democratic party, it’s one reason we’ve got to clamp down on immigration.

Fischer’s racist diatribe echoes generations of right-wing innuendo about “handouts” for minorities. It also, as it happens, lines up pretty closely with the worldview of 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. In a call with donors today, Romney blamed his presidential loss on the “gifts” President Obama offered to African Americans, Latinos, women and young people. What “gifts” did he mean? Universal health care, contraception coverage, college loans and the DREAM Act.

The New York Times reported on the call:

A week after losing the presidential election to President Obama, Mitt Romney blamed his overwhelming electoral loss on what he said were big “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies — including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.

In a conference call on Wednesday afternoon with his national finance committee, Mr. Romney said that the president had followed the “old playbook” of wooing specific interest groups — “especially the African-American community, the Hispanic community and young people,” Mr. Romney explained — with targeted gifts and initiatives.

“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

….

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

Sure, Bryan Fischer is more willing than Mitt Romney to say outright racist things. But the content of what they’re saying is pretty much the same. Bill O’Reilly put it even more clearly when he opined that “traditional America” was being lost to people of color who “want stuff.”

I have to guess this is not going to be the way for Republicans to win back non-white voters, women and young people, all of whom have been fleeing their party in droves.

PFAW

Bozell: Obama must Yield to House Republicans because 'We Have a Larger Vote than he Received'

Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show to discuss the demands he made alongside other conservative activists, including Marjorie Dannenfelser, Alfred Regnery, Richard Viguerie, Jeff Bell and Jenny Beth Martin, for Republican leaders in Congress to step down after their election defeats. According to Bozell and others, the GOP suffered humiliating losses because the party wasn’t conservative enough. He told Mefferd that figures calling on House Speaker John Boehner to compromise with President Obama are really asking Republicans to “surrender our principles” and that Obama should be the one who should succumb to the Republican position. “Why isn’t he compromising with us?” Bozell asked, “We have a larger vote than he received.”

Listen:

We have to surrender our principles, what they’re saying is: John Boehner, surrender that which got you elected, that which brought you to Washington, the beliefs of the people who voted you in, surrender them. No, why not say, wait a minute, we’re the ‘people’s House,’ we are on par with the President of the United States according to the Constitution, why isn’t he compromising with us? We have a larger vote than he received. He has no mandate on this, he got eight million votes less than he got last time.

Unfortunately for Bozell, President Obama received over 62,608,181 votes while just 53,402,643 votes were cast for Republican House candidates. In fact, Democratic House candidates garnered 53,952,240 votes, about a half a million more votes than their Republican counterparts, who heavily benefited from gerrymandering.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious