C4

LaBarbera Warns of Plan to 'Homosexualize the Scouts' Through 'Boy-On-Boy-Homosexual Promotion'

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is outraged by a proposal that would end the Boy Scouts of America's ban on gay members under the age of 18, warning in an interview on VCY America’s Crosstalk that such a “treacherous” compromise will inevitably “homosexualize the scouts.”

He warned that “boy-on-boy homosexual promotion” is “dangerous” and that no parent would want their son to have friends who talk about their “openly gay lifestyle” since “the sorts of things that are espoused in homosexuality are not morally straight.”

The Boy Scouts have really made a treacherous move and I think some pro-family leaders, some conservatives and some Christians have said ‘okay I’m already done with the Scouts.’ They are so appalled that the Scouts would move in this direction after they had already won, remember the Boy Scouts won in the Supreme Court, they won their constitutional right to live by their own standard, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. This would just lead to another court challenge that would make the scouts totally pro-homosexual because once you make the compromise and say that you can have scout kids of course the homosexual lawyers will challenge the adults, it will completely homosexualize the scouts, it will lead to more gay activism and I think it will destroy the scouts and their numbers will begin to plummet.



We have to remember that boy-on-boy homosexual promotion is also dangerous. I don’t think any parent wants a boy coming in talking about his openly gay lifestyle. We know from homosexual activism — I’ve been witnessing it for over twenty years — the sorts of things that are espoused in homosexuality are not morally straight. A lot of times you are seeing young people mimicking the sort of immoral things they see in the adult homosexual world. We simply don’t want homosexuality in the scouts in any way.

Later in the program, LaBarbera agreed with a caller who maintained that homosexuality leads to the collapse of society and feared that the Republican Party may soon “sell out God” and support gay rights, adding that such a position will lead to the establishment of a “wholesome” third party.

Caller: We were just recently at “Weekend to Remember” and that statement was made there by a man that had access to a lot of historical data, he searched back through the history of the world and there’s never been a government that has lasted more than three generations from the point of which they advocated and okayed homosexuality.

LaBarbera: We’ve seen this from historians, including secular historian Will Durant who said that America was already in decline and he cited homosexuality and its embrace, and that was way back in the 80s or maybe the 70s. So your caller is absolutely right and it is very sad to see Christian citizens now, including the Republican Party, being forced to choose between their faith and this political correctness. And if the Republican Party thinks the way to get ahead and to get more votes is to sell out God, they are deeply mistaken and I think it will lead to the formation of a more wholesome, pro-family party.

Accuracy In Media Blames Marijuana for Boston Attack

Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid is citing reports that the two Boston marathon bombers may have been drug dealers and that “the younger brother was a pothead” to argue “that dope’s effect on the brain is what may have led him into his brother’s terror activities.”

“He was probably so wasted mentally on drugs that he became easily manipulated by his brother and cannon fodder for the Islamist revolution on American soil,” Kincaid writes, “Marijuana is not the harmless drug the media frequently claim it to be. It is a mind-altering substance that can play a role in creating communist or Islamic terrorists.”

The older brother was a marijuana smuggler, but the younger brother was a pothead and a dealer. The Boston Globe says three people admitted buying drugs from the 19-year-old. “Several fellow students reported he earned at least some cash selling marijuana—at least the portion he didn’t smoke himself,” the paper reported. “There was a permanent stench of marijuana in his room,” said one person.

The dope aspect of the plot helps explain why they seemed to have no getaway plan, although we now learn they wanted to get to New York City to kill more people. Perhaps their minds were too scrambled to get to New York City. On the other hand, despite the reassuring claims from the media that authorities have found no evidence of foreign help, it is apparent that they did somehow master the art of making somewhat sophisticated bombs requiring timing devices. Perhaps other accomplices remain on the loose. We have no way to tell for sure, since the Obama Administration has read the captured brother his rights, making it less likely he will spill all the beans.



On one level, the case seems bizarre. A USA Today story says, “Friends and classmates of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev can’t grasp how the pot-smoking party boy they knew is the same young man now accused of carrying out a terrorist attack.” Left unsaid is the fact that dope’s effect on the brain is what may have led him into his brother’s terror activities. He was probably so wasted mentally on drugs that he became easily manipulated by his brother and cannon fodder for the Islamist revolution on American soil.

What happened in Boston is starting to look like what Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn tried to accomplish with the 1960s generation. Disillusioned young people, brainwashed with illegal mind-altering drugs and armed with weapons, were being taught to hate the American government and the police. Remember that communist terrorist Dohrn had said, “We fight in many ways. Dope is one of our weapons. The laws against marijuana mean that millions of us are outlaws long before we actually split. Guns and grass are united in the youth underground.”

Perhaps if the drug laws were being vigorously enforced in liberal Massachusetts, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could have been picked up by the authorities before joining his brother in the Boston bombing. Perhaps his arrest could have led to his supplier, his own brother. But it looks like drugs were common on campus, and among students, and so everyone just looked the other way. The terrible triple murder case involving marijuana sprinkled on the victims apparently wasn’t very high on the priority list, either.

Now, however, as CNN reports, the killings are being reviewed by a “wider group of eyes,” with an eye on the older brother.

Let us hope the media open their eyes as well, not only to the terrorist threat, but to how dangerous drugs can play a role in violence, murder, and mayhem. Marijuana is not the harmless drug the media frequently claim it to be. It is a mind-altering substance that can play a role in creating communist or Islamic terrorists.

Pamela Geller's Grand Boston Conspiracy Falls Apart

Pamela Geller embraced Glenn Beck’s crumbling conspiracy theory that the government is trying to cover up the alleged role of a Saudi national in the Boston marathon bombing in an interview with Janet Mefferd yesterday.

Mefferd: [Janet Napolitano] says this Saudi national was on a watch list but only while he was being questioned and then he was immediately taken off; does this sound strange to you?

Geller: If we can speak with any accuracy, she’s lying. She’s been lying and changing her story. First she said he wasn’t on the list, then she said it was a different Saudi; then she said he was pinged, while she said he was pinged when he left, she then said his name was spelled wrong and that’s why they didn’t know when he came back to the country. What is really disturbing about all this is that this is our national security, these are our babies and our families that are being put in harm’s way and they’re lying to us, they’re lying to us and they are covering for jihadists. This is what is happening. What is the motive for this? There can be no good motive.



Geller: How many jihadists in waiting are there in this country? That Saudi national that not only Michelle Obama visited, the first person of interest that was detained, who is now being deported in a rush deportation because he has ‘national security violations’ had visited the White House many times.

First, it seems that Geller confused the Saudi national, who is considered a victim and not a suspect, with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the deceased Boston bomber.

Geller also said that the Saudi national is about to be deported, even though The Hill already reported that the rumor is false and based on “another student from Saudi Arabia who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for violating his visa” and “is not believed to have any connection with the bombing.”

After arguing that the Saudi man in the hospital almost certainly had a role in the attack, she said that Michelle Obama visited him in the hospital where he is recovering…because of course the government would let the First Lady visit dangerous terrorists!

The Christian Science Monitor adds that the Saudi national was temporarily put on a watch list it was only so he couldn’t leave the hospital while he was being questioned. His name was then removed from the list after he was cleared by authorities, and he is not subject to deportation.

First off, [Bret] Baier said the wording of the paper was indeed somewhat dire.



But officials told him it was simply an automatic piece of customs paperwork triggered when police went to question the Saudi in the hours after the bombing.

To make sure he did not somehow get on an airplane before they could talk to him, they put him on a no-fly list. That automatically meant he was subject to visa revocation. The other language, including the reference to an “event,” followed from that.

“Also keep in mind, it’s just … a customs and border control document…. It’s not indicative of any investigative information,” said Baier.

After the FBI determined the man had no connection to the Boston crime, it took several days for the bureaucracy to scrub him out of its system. That is why the document existed for a short period of time, and why it shows evidence of officials trying to change it. But anyone searching the system for his name on the Sunday prior to the bombing would have found nothing, reported Baier, because no US government agency was looking for him.



The Homeland Security Secretary replied that the Saudi in question had not been on a watch list prior to the bombings and was never really a person of interest in the case.

“Because he was being interviewed, he was at that point put on a watch list,” Napolitano added. “And then when it was quickly determined he had nothing to do with the bombing, the watch listing status was removed.”

As if all this weren’t complicated enough, a number of news outlets have reported that there is a second Saudi man in Boston, unrelated to the student, who was taken into custody when he showed up at a port to retrieve a package, and a routine check showed he had overstayed his visa.

That’s the Saudi who is subject to deportation. The student who was caught in the bomb blast is not.

Shedding Some Light on Corporate Political Spending

Today People For the American Way joined with 38 ally organizations and individuals in sending a letter to Congress to ask for support of the Shareholder Protection Act.  The Act – sponsored by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) – would, among other measures, require that publicly traded corporations pre-approve their annual political expenditure budgets with shareholders and promptly disclose those expenditures to the public. 

The letter highlights the need for this type of legislation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which “brought a flood of new and secretive money into elections.” Since that decision, corporate officers have been able to spend unlimited amounts of corporate treasury funds to influence elections, often under the veil of ‘dark money’ groups that do not disclose their donors.   In essence, this means that millions of Americans who have invested in corporations are having their money used to engage in partisan politics – without their knowledge.

Unsurprisingly, this post-Citizens United landscape of secret spending  is not popular with the public. The letter notes:

A 2012 survey conducted by Bannon Communications for the Corporate Reform Coalition found that more than 8 in 10 Americans (81%) believe that the secret flow of campaign spending is bad for democracy, and 87 percent agree that prompt disclosure of political spending would help voters, customers and shareholders hold companies accountable for political behavior.

PFAW continues to advocate against corporations being able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.  Legislation requiring shareholder approval for, and public disclosure of, corporate election spending will help end some of the abuses made possible by Citizens United.

The full text of the joint letter is below.
 

April 25, 2013

U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.  20515

United States Senate
Washington, D.C.  20510

RE: Support the Shareholder Protection Act

Dear Member of Congress:

We write to you to encourage your support of the Shareholder Protection Act, sponsored by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ).

Our organizations come from diverse backgrounds, with concerns ranging from constitutional rights to corporate governance to protecting our air and water. We have many different priorities, but we all agree that the unprecedented 2010 Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, requires a strong response.

We are troubled for several reasons by the Supreme Court’s decision to give corporations the right under the First Amendment to spend unlimited funds from their corporate treasuries to support or attack candidates.

In the electoral arena, this decision has brought a flood of new and secretive money into elections, ratcheting up the cost of campaigns and increasing the time and resources needed for fundraising. Spending by outside groups funded largely by corporate interests and intended to influence the 2010 elections was more than four times as high than in 2006, the last mid-term cycle. Outside spending increased another four-fold again in the 2012 election cycle. The sources of much of this new money swamping our elections remains undisclosed, as corporations and other special interests launder their campaign funds through non-profit groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, which are not required to disclose their donors. The ads funded by unaccountable corporate interests fueled massive attacks that compounded the negative tone of campaigns and added to the public cynicism of our elections.

In the legislative arena, the mere threat of unlimited corporate political spending gives corporate lobbyists a large new club to wield when lobbying lawmakers, and makes it harder for legislators to vote their conscience.

In corporate governance, unless a company sets its own internal policies otherwise, there are no rules or procedures established in the United States to ensure that shareholders – those who actually own the wealth of corporations – are informed of, or have the right to approve, decisions on spending their money on politics.

The Shareholder Protection Act provides a framework to rein in some of the damage in this troubling, new political landscape.

Specifically, the Act would:
  • Mandate prior approval by shareholders for an annual political expenditure budget chosen by the management for a publicly held corporation.
  • Require that each specific corporate political expenditure over a certain dollar threshold be approved by the Board of Directors and promptly disclosed to shareholders and the public.
  • Require that institutional investors inform all persons in their investment funds how they voted on corporate political expenditures.
  • Post on the Securities Exchange Commission web page how much each corporation is spending on elections and which candidates or issues they support or oppose.

American business leaders are concerned about the pressure on business to donate to political campaigns, and the influx of large, undisclosed donations to third party political organizations that are not required to disclose their sources of funding. In a Zogby International poll commissioned by the business-led Committee for Economic Development (CED), two-thirds of business leaders polled agreed with the statement: “the lack of transparency and oversight in corporate political activity encourages behavior that puts corporations at legal risk and endangers corporate reputations.”

In addition to business leaders, the general public at large believes in transparency and giving shareholders a voice. A 2012 survey conducted by Bannon Communications for the Corporate Reform Coalition found that more than 8 in 10 Americans (81%) believe that the secret flow of campaign spending is bad for democracy, and 87 percent agree that prompt disclosure of political spending would help voters, customers and shareholders hold companies accountable for political behavior.  Huge majorities of Americans across the political spectrum condemn corporate political spending and support strong reforms. For example, requiring corporations to get shareholder approval before spending money on politics is supported by 73 percent of both Republicans and Democrats, and 71 percent of Independents. About 84 percent of Americans agree that corporate political spending drowns out the voices of average Americans, and 83 percent believe that corporations and corporate CEOs have too much political power and influence.

Responsible corporate governance requires the involvement of informed shareholders and is not a partisan issue. We believe that holding management accountable and ensuring that political spending decisions are made transparently and in pursuit of sound business is important for both the market and for democracy.

We urge you to support the reasoned response that is the Shareholder Protection Act.

Sincerely,

Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law
Center for Media and Democracy
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Citizen Works
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Coffee Party USA
Common Cause
Corporate Accountability International
Corporate Ethics International/Business Ethics Network
Democrats.com
Demos
Free Speech for People
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
Harrington Investments, Inc.
Holy Cross International Justice Office
Illinois Campaign for Political Reform
Krull and Company, Peter W. Krull, President & Founder
League of Conservation Voters
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
National Consumers League
New Progressive Alliance
North Carolina Center for Voter Engagement
NorthStar Asset Management, Inc.
Ohio Citizen Action
People For the American Way
Progressive States Network
Public Campaign
Public Citizen
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Social Equity Group, Ron Freund and Duncan Meaney
Strategic Counsel on Corporate Accountability, Sanford Lewis
Sunlight Foundation
Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG)
United Food and Commercial Workers
West Virginia Citizen Action
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
Zevin Asset Management, LLC

PFAW

Shirley Dobson Angry Obama Won't Attend Her Anti-Obama Prayer Event

A week after President Obama won re-election, James Dobson on Family Talk said that his wife Shirley and her colleague John Bornschein used the National Day of Prayer Task Force to actively pray for Obama’s defeat.

The National Day of Prayer Task Force never did a good job pretending to be nonpartisan, but Dobson’s admission made its far-right bias all too clear.

Of course, with the ‘National Day of Prayer’ scheduled for May 2, we now get to hear Shirley Dobson, who leads the task force, complain during an interview with Janet Parshall yesterday that Obama is not attending.

That’s right, she is angry that Obama isn’t attending a function that her own husband said prayed against his re-election.

She also told Parshall that the Obama administration is leading an “attack” on religious freedom and does not give Christians a seat at the table in the White House.

You know Janet our religious liberties have been under such attack that I think Christians have — I don’t want to use the term ‘have had it’ — but I think their eyes are being opened and they realize that we have to come against this and we have to come out in corporate prayer and different prayer meetings. More than ever I think they want to assemble this year just to make a stand that our country was based on religious freedom and we are not going to give it up easily.



We do have different congressmen, Congressman [Randy] Forbes has been a great ally and Congressman [Robert] Aderholt, they participate themselves and we never have a problem at that observance. This year our honorary chairperson is going to be Greg Laurie and he’s going to be giving the main message, Chaplain Barry Black who is the chaplain of the Senate is going to be participating and Chaplain Wannick from the Pentagon is coming over to participate and of course congressman [Frank] Wolf will stand in for the legislature.

We have somebody for every branch but Janet unfortunately we’ve never had anybody come over from the executive branch. Every year we call the White House, we ask how the President wants to celebrate the National Day of Prayer and we appreciate that he does give a proclamation every year and they’ve been good with proclamations proclaiming a day of prayer in our nation, but the answer comes back ‘well the President has decided to pray silently or pray alone’ or there’s always some excuse. So we’ll say, ‘can somebody from his Cabinet come over and represent the executive branch so we can pray for them and pray for the President,’ and they’ve never sent anybody from the executive branch. We pray for them; we have somebody there that stands in the gab. But it really is so sad that they have all these other special interest groups in the White House but the Christians are not represented.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act to be Reintroduced in Congress

In much of our country, employers can legally fire someone simply because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.  It’s something most Americans don’t realize.  It’s also something most Americans believe is wrong.

Today a bill designed to address that kind of discrimination, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), is expected to be reintroduced in both the House and the Senate. This important civil rights legislation would expand current federal employment protections against discrimination – such as those based on race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability – to include sexual orientation and gender identity.  It is a common-sense measure that would help ensure that employees are judged by their qualifications and work performance rather than their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Yesterday People For the American Way joined with a broad coalition of organizations in asking members of Congress to become cosponsors of ENDA.  As the letter notes,

“Hardworking Americans should not be kept from supporting their families and making a positive contribution to the economic life of our nation because of characteristics that have no bearing whatsoever on their ability to do a job…Only 21 states’ laws prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation, and only 16 also do so based on gender identity, meaning that it is legal to fire members of the LGBT community in 29 and 34 states, respectively. ENDA prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in most workplaces. The time has long since come to end this injustice for LGBT Americans and pass ENDA.”

PFAW

Robertson: Planned Parenthood Inspired Adolf Hitler, Behind 'Genocide' of Black Community

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson said that Margaret Sanger “was the one who set the stage for Adolf Hitler, she didn’t copy him, he copied her.” After running a story about how President Obama postponed his speech at Planned Parenthood in order to attend a memorial service in Texas for victims of the fertilizer plant explosion, Roberston said that the group founded by Sanger is “evil” and targets black people.

“What they said was, they said ‘what we’ve got to do in order to get the black people in America to have abortions, we have to have some noted black leader who will come out for Planned Parenthood and we’ll give him the Margaret Sanger award and therefore he will be our poster boy showing the black people they should have abortions,” Robertson maintained, “it was strictly genocide.”

Watch:

While Sanger was tied to the eugenics movement, the claim that she intended to exterminate black people and use black leaders to hide such a plan is based on a quote taken badly out of context.

As PolitiFact reports, the eugenics movement was widely popular at the time of Sanger’s work, but there is “no evidence that Sanger advocated - privately or publicly - for anything even resembling the ‘genocide’ of blacks, or that she thought blacks are genetically inferior”:

"I have never run into any serious academic reference of Sanger or others wanting to ‘kill black babies,’" Indiana University professor Ruth Engs, a eugenics movement expert, told PolitiFact Georgia in an e-mail.

The Washington Post also “found nothing to confirm these allegations” that Sanger targeted the black community for genocide and noted that even Martin Luther King, Jr. had praised her work.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org debunked the claim when Herman Cain made the same argument as Robertson:

Cain isn’t the first to believe that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) wanted to stop the birth of black babies. Just do an Internet search and see what happens. Sanger made more than her share of controversial comments. But the quote many point to as evidence that Sanger favored something akin to “genocide” of African Americans has been turned on its head.

Sanger, who was arrested several times in her efforts to bring birth control to women in the United States, set up her first clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. In the late 1930s, she sought to bring clinics to black women in the South, in an effort that was called the “Negro Project.” Sanger wrote in 1939 letters to colleague Clarence James Gamble that she believed the project needed a black physician and black minister to gain the trust of the community:

Sanger, 1939: The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Sanger says that a minister could debunk the notion, if it arose, that the clinics aimed to “exterminate the Negro population.” She didn’t say that she wanted to “exterminate” the black population. The Margaret Sanger Papers Project at New York University says that this quote has “gone viral on the Internet,” normally out of context, and it “doesn’t reflect the fact that Sanger recognized elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow south, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”

It goes on to characterize beliefs such as Cain’s as “extremist.” The project says: “No serious scholar and none of the dozens of black leaders who supported Sanger’s work have ever suggested that she tried to reduce the black population or set up black abortion mills, the implication in much of the extremist anti-choice material.”

Senate Confirms Second Woman and First Ever Public Defender to Eighth Circuit

Yesterday, the Senate unanimously confirmed Iowa’s Jane Kelly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Kelly, who currently serves as a federal public defender, becomes “only the second woman, and the first public defender, to serve in the history of the court that was established in 1891,” according to the Iowa City Gazette.

Kelly also makes history by having the quickest confirmation process of any of President Obama’s appeals court nominees so far, according to the Gazette. Kelly waited just 33 days for a confirmation vote, compared to the average 153 day wait for President Obama’s circuit court nominees (as of two weeks ago). Kelly’s quick confirmation, however, would not have been at all noteworthy at this point in George W. Bush administration, when appellate nominees waited an average of just 37 days between committee approval and Senate confirmation.  

Kelly’s speedy confirmation may have something to do with the senators supporting her. Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, who as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has been instrumental in obstructing President Obama’s judicial nominees, seemed to put aside his obstruction habits for a nominee from his own state.
 

PFAW

Erik Rush: 'We Have Far More Human Garbage in This Country Than We Ever Ought to Have Tolerated'

WorldNetDaily columnist Erik Rush, who has called for the mass incarceration of liberals and the murder of all Muslims, writes today that, thanks to liberals, “émigrés from Third World toilets” have come to America and now “we have far more human garbage in this country than we ever ought to have tolerated.” According to Rush, the left has planned “to destabilize America” by promoting “radical Marxism” and “radical Islam” until we are all pushed “into dhimmitude.”

If it hasn’t become evident by now: This race and religion-baiting is a pretext, a component of the left’s design to destabilize America. Americans are being – and in many instances have been – conditioned either to ignore radical Islam, or to sympathize with Islamists. The result can be observed (as I indicated last week in this space) in several European nations, where the citizenry, beleaguered by hordes of radical, disruptive and economically parasitic Muslims, nevertheless vociferously defend them. The unwitting natives remain unaware that it has always been the Islamists’ goal to displace them into dhimmitude.

A person cannot know that President Obama is thick as thieves with radical Islamist factions such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist-affiliated Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and claim surprise that we are now beginning to live out the European nightmare vis-à-vis Islam. Young American fools who rush to the defense of Muslim radicals and their silent “peaceful” brethren obviously don’t recall the innumerable news reports of café bombings that came out of European nations during the 1970s, and the radical Muslim groups that claimed responsibility for each and every one.

The fact is that we have far more human garbage in this country than we ever ought to have tolerated, and this has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion; it has to do with what is in people’s hearts and minds. What we haven’t imported, the left has created. Liberals and radical Marxism in particular have inculcated a sense that we somehow deserve the antipathy of those around the world (and by extension, émigrés from Third World toilets) and so should endure it. The ongoing complaint of Muslims (radical and otherwise) is very much in this vein.

It is proper that Americans scrutinize the ethics of our leaders’ foreign policy; it is part of our civic duty. Would that we had done so more scrupulously in past years, or we might have more readily recognized the scope of our government’s corruption. This boilerplate Vietnam-era Marxist-inspired cynicism, however, has taken us from “my country, right or wrong” to “my country, always wrong,” which is just as immoral a stance as the former.

The enormity of the crimes being perpetrated by our government relative to this subject and countless others is of dizzying proportion, and the degree of brazen deception on the part of the Obama administrations is positively surreal. Thus, the magnitude of the lies that liberal and insufficiently engaged Americans are buying into is greater than any ever foisted upon a nation. That the government and the press are succeeding at this in an age of such ready information is as impressive as it is horrifying.

Perkins Responds to NIH Grant with Transphobic Rant

The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins came across a story in CNSNews yesterday about a $150,000 NIH grant to George Washington University researchers who are studying “voice production and perception” among transgender people. Naturally, Perkins was outraged. In the top story of his daily email, Perkins accuses the NIH of “directing valuable resources away from treating mental illness--to enabling it in the name of political correctness.” Derisively calling transgender people “cross-dressers,” Perkins claims they “will have trouble leading ‘healthy, safe lives’ because of the emotional and physical tolls of their ‘lifestyle.”’

“The President’s priorities are as confused as some people’s gender identities,” he adds.

Taxpayers may be losing their voice in Washington, but transgenders are sure finding theirs! America may not be able to beef up defense, but apparently, it has more than enough money to fund "voice therapy" for cross-dressers. Based on the latest grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the President's priorities are as confused as some people's gender identities.

While the Obama administration claims it's too poor to staff airports or White House tours, it continues to fund projects that should have never been considered in the first place! For the next two years, the NIH is directing valuable resources away from treating mental illness--to enabling it in the name of political correctness. The long term goal of this "voice therapy," researchers explain, "is to inform and provide new directions for transgender voice care, thereby improving the lives of transgendered people who feel their voice is a great obstacle to living as their preferred gender." As part of the $152,000 program, men and women will submit speech samples for 100 listeners who will guess the sex of the speaker.  "Those male-to-female transgenders who pass as a female voice will be placed in a separate group and then compared to those who still sound like men," CNS News explains.

How is this remotely relevant to public health, you ask? Well, as far as NIH is concerned, the study will help end the "discrimination" transgenders face when "their voice does not match their preferred gender presentation." And that, researchers insist, "limits their ability to contribute to society and live healthy, safe lives." No one seems to recognize that transgenders, by their very definition, will have trouble leading "healthy, safe lives" because of the emotional and physical tolls of their "lifestyle." And no amount of taxpayer-funded speech lessons can change that.

(Emphases are mine)

PFAW Celebrates Passage of Marriage Equality Bill in Rhode Island Senate

WASHINGTON – Today the Rhode Island Senate passed a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry, setting the stage for Rhode Island to become the tenth state in the nation with full marriage equality.  A similar bill has already passed the State House and Gov. Lincoln Chafee has expressed his support for marriage equality in the past.

“Today marks an important step forward and a powerful victory for all Rhode Island families,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way. “As Rhode Island moves toward becoming the tenth state to allow same-sex couples to marry, the growing momentum for marriage equality nationwide is undeniable. Lawmakers in Rhode Island have come to see what people all over the country understand – that preventing same-sex couples from getting married brings serious harm to women and men in loving, committed relationships.”


###

CWA's Crouse : Women's Rights Advocates are Waging the 'Real War on Women'

The Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, an Illinois-based conservative group, convened a symposium in Washington earlier this month to discuss topics including “Defending Faith in an Age of Christophobia,” “The Pornography Industry,” and “Economic and Social Costs of Abortion.” 

At a panel titled “The ‘War on Women’: Myth or Reality?,” Concerned Women for America senior fellow Janice Shaw Crouse argued that it is in fact “those who present themselves as champions of women’s rights” who “constitute a very real war on women.” This “war,” Crouse declares, began in the 1960s and has “undermined and torn apart the faith, values and morality that have held together a diverse and multicultural people.”

Why, then, do we even have to ask, ‘Is there a war on women?’ The war began as early as 1960. Since then, our nation has been experiencing a harsh cultural winter. Howling winds of change, insidious myths and outright falsehoods have undermined and torn apart the faith, values and morality that have held together a diverse and multicultural people.

These myths and those attacks, those falsehoods by those who present themselves as champions of women’s rights constitute a very real war on women. It’s a senseless war, promoting casual sex, spreading the myth that women don’t need marriage, and pushing the cultural and public policies that inevitably lead women to be the majority of those in poverty. That war against women has loosened and upended many of the foundation stones of the Judeo-Christian principles.

Guandolo and Wiles: Stop Obama and Al Qaeda from Taking Over America

Disgraced ex-FBI agent John Guandolo returned to TruNews with Rick Wiles to discuss the Boston marathon bombing, which he said should motivate every American to point out and expose the people in their communities who are working for Al Qaeda.

Guandolo warns that Islamic radicals are operating in “every locale across the United States” and must be named and shamed, much like the Ohio professor whom Guandolo falsely accused of backing terrorism. If not, Guandolo claimed, such extremists will infiltrate school boards and the sheriff’s departments and cause America to go over the “tipping point” beyond which we become a nation controlled by Al Qaeda.

He also agreed that Wiles was headed in the right direction after the talk show host claimed that Obama is seeking to impose Sharia law on the US.

Wiles: American Christians are being demonized, the NRA is being demonized, the Tea Party is being demonized, red blooded American citizens are being demonized and at the same time we have people inside the US government who are embracing Islam inside this country. They are being placed in positions of power to dominate the American people.

Guandolo: Yep. So the question is for your viewers, are you going to sit by to you and I chat about this or what are you going to do?

Wiles: This is the problem. What are you going to do? We just had an election and the people just re-elected the Saudi plant.

Guandolo: I bring that up because that’s the question I get the most: what can we do? I’ve had people say, ‘I can’t do anything, I can go every four years and vote but I can’t do anything,’ and I just say: you have a local school board, you have a county sheriff, you have local elected officials, you have state representatives, and every one of them ought to know that this exists because the Brotherhood has organizations in every locale across the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska, where they are out there and they are working very diligently not just at the national level but at the state and local level.

Wiles: But John isn’t there a tipping point where this infiltration becomes so deep and pervasive that there’s a tipping point and suddenly the balance of power is in their favor?

Guandolo: I believe there is and I believe we’re pretty close to it right now.

Wiles: We may have already gone over; I think we’re already into it.

Guandolo: We may have, I actually won’t argue that point. I think that the big unknown or the big variable in this whole equation is the American people; the American people when they energize and come around that corner, when they hit their tipping point and decide to engage and identify the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in their cities, in their towns, in their neighborhoods and they point and they say ‘that guy, that gal, they’re working on the same side as Al Qaeda.’ You should not discern between a Muslim Brother and Al Qaeda, it’s just a different bowl of vanilla ice cream.

Would you want somebody who swears their allegiance to Osama bin Laden and the idea of Al Qaeda, would you want them advising your school board? It doesn’t matter what they’re advising them on. I hear people say, what’s he advising them on? At some point you have to inject sanity in the discussion and so if somebody is advising your school board and they’re a Muslim Brother, they are hostile, they should be treated like they’re from Al Qaeda. You don’t have to say everybody has to be tied to Al Qaeda, this is where we’re missing it, oh these two guys in Boston we can’t find any ties to Al Qaeda, well I can: they are dedicated to Islamic ideology of Sharia and imposing Islamic law.

Wiles: That describes Barack Obama.

Guandolo: That could be, you may be right on that. When it comes to what’s happening here and across the country I think that Americans at their local level have got to get engaged and the Muslim Brotherhood is counting on the fact that we will not.

Faith 2 Action Mocks Gay People Coming Out by Equating Homosexuality with Adultery

Stooping to a new low, Janet Porter’s Faith 2 Action is mocking the process of gay people coming out by releasing a video of a man revealing to his family that he is an adulterer and demanding affirmation.

Naturally, it ends with a clip from Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality comparing homosexuality to alcoholism.

WND: Stop Donating to Colleges! Unless They're Conservative…

Dr. Walter Williams writes today in WorldNetDaily today about his disgust with left-wing “campus cesspools.” He urges donors to stop giving to colleges and universities until they stop promoting “modern day racism” through things like “diversity programs.” Perhaps Williams would prefer that benefactors follow in the footsteps of conservative mega donor John Olin, who sponsors George Mason University’s John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics…Dr. Walter Williams.

Over the past 10 years, I have written columns variously titled “Academic Cesspools,” “Academic Dishonesty,” “The Shame of Higher Education,” “Academic Rot” and “Indoctrination of Our Youth.” Therefore, I was not surprised by David Feith’s April 5 Wall Street Journal article, “The Golf Shot Heard Round the Academic World.” In it, Feith tells of a golf course conversation between Barry Mills, the president of Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine, and philanthropist Thomas Klingenstein. Klingenstein voiced disapproval of campus celebration of diversity and ethnic differences while there’s “not enough celebration of our common American identity.”

Because Klingenstein wouldn’t help finance the college’s diversity craze, Mills insinuated, in remarks to the student body, that Klingenstein is a racist. Mills also told students: “We must be willing to entertain diverse perspectives throughout our community. … Diversity of ideas at all levels of the college is crucial for our credibility and for our educational mission.”



I applaud Klingenstein for not making a contribution to a college agenda that is so common today. Wealthy donors are generous but tend to be lazy and uninformed in their giving. They give large sums of money that winds up supporting college agendas that are contemptuous of donors’ values, such as enlightened racism, anti-capitalism and Marxism. A rough rule of thumb to discover modern-day racism is to search a college’s website to see whether it has vice presidents or deans of diversity and diversity programs. If so, keep your money.



What we see on college campuses represents a dereliction of duty by boards of trustees, which bear the ultimate responsibility. Wealthy donors who care about the fraud of higher education should recognize that there’s nothing like the sound of pocketbooks snapping shut to open the closed minds of college administrators.

Anti-Choice Activist Threatening Abortion Providers Has Link to Personhood USA Leader

Abortion rights opponent David Leach made news this week when he posted a video of himself on YouTube speaking with George Tiller murder Scott Roeder and threatening Kansas abortion providers.

Leach has a long record of promoting violence against clinic workers and has defended Roeder’s murder of Tiller.

As a GOP state senate nominee in 2010, Leach suggested that HIV/AIDS was divine punishment for homosexuality. He was eventually defeated by Democratic incumbent Matt McCoy, but his candidacy did win the support of one leading anti-choice activist: Personhood USA board member Chet Gallagher:

Gallagher served as the field coordinator for Mississippi’s failed personhood campaign, led the Nevada Pro-Life Coalition, which worked with Personhood USA to sponsor that state’s personhood initiative, and worked on Personhood USA’s campaigns to outlaw abortion in Montana and Colorado. He also works for Flip Benham’s Operation Save America.

The Des Moines Register reports today on Leach’s latest call to violence:

Leach posted the comments this month on YouTube. His posting includes a recorded phone conversation he had with another man, whom Leach identifies as abortion opponent Scott Roeder. Roeder is serving a life prison sentence for the 2009 shooting death of the Wichita clinic’s then-owner, Dr. George Tiller.

Leach has previously suggested that other men were justified in killing other abortion providers. He notes in the video that Tiller’s old clinic was recently reopened by a new abortion agency.

“If someone would shoot the new abortionists, like Scott shot George Tiller, … hardly anyone will appreciate it but the babies,” he says. “It will be a blessing to the babies. Everyone else will panic. Of all places to open up a killing office, to reopen the one office in the United States more notorious for decades than any other is an act of defiance against God and the last remaining reverence for human life.”



In the YouTube video, the man Leach identifies as Roeder laughs as Leach talks about the prospect of someone shooting the new leaders of the Wichita clinic. Then the second man wonders aloud about the clinic director’s motives. “To walk in there and reopen a clinic, a murder mill where a man was stopped, it’s almost like putting a target on your back — saying, ‘Well, let’s see if you can shoot me,’ ” he says.

Then the man quotes a fellow activist, who predicted that the abortion industry would end if 100 abortionists were shot. “I think eight have been shot, so we’ve got 92 to go,” the man whom Leach identified as Roeder says. “Maybe (the Wichita clinic director) will be number nine. I don’t really know. I’m not sure about that. But she’s kind of painting a target on her.”

Iowa Republicans Threaten to Cut Salaries of Judges Who Backed Marriage Equality

Iowa Republicans are determined to remove the nine state supreme court justices who ruled unanimously in 2009 to allow same-sex marriage in the state, and they'll try just about anything. In 2010, anti-gay groups funded a successful campaign to oust three justices in retention elections. Then Iowa anti-gay leader Bob Vander Plaats called for the remaining justices to resign. When that didn't work, state Republicans then tried to impeach them. Last year, an effort to remove a fourth justice failed at the ballot box. So now Iowa Republicans are trying a different strategy, proposing to dramatically lower the salaries of the remaining judges who were involved in the marriage equality decision. The Iowa City Gazette reports:

A handful of House conservatives want to reduce the pay of Iowa Supreme Court justices involved in a 2009 decision striking down a ban on same-sex marriages as part of an effort to maintain the balance of power in state government.

“It’s our responsibility to maintain the balance of power” between the three co-equal branches of government, Rep. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, said Tuesday.

The justices “trashed the separation of powers” with their unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision and implementation of same-sex marriage without a change in state law banning any marriages expect between one man and one woman, added Rep. Dwayne Alons, R-Hull.

Their amendment to House File 120, the judicial branch budget bill, would lower the salaries of the four justices on the seven-member court who were part of the unanimous Varnum v. Brein decision to $25,000 – the same as a state legislator.

It’s not meant to be punitive, Alons and Shaw said Tuesday.
“We’re just holding them responsible for their decision, for going beyond their bounds,” Shaw said.

“It’s not the merits of what they said in that decision,” added Alons. He’s trying to stop “an encroaching wave” of judicial activity including decisions on nude dancing and landowner liability – decisions the Legislature also is trying to correct through legislation this session.

The chairman of the state Senate Judiciary Committee tells Gazette “that a plan to pay justices differently based on their role in one case would be unlikely to withstand a court challenge.”

The Filibuster ‘False Equivalence’

Journalist Andrew Cohen, writing for the Brennan Center for Justice, explains how attempts to portray today’s Republican filibusters as routine “tit-for-tat” maneuvers are misleading:

By trying not to be partisan, at least in this area of political coverage, we journalists are in many ways becoming more partisan than we fear. James Fallows, the author and longtime correspondent at The Atlantic, has been preaching for years now about “false equivalence” in reporting about the Senate’s current gridlock. He has called out reporters and editors, producers and television hosts, headline writers and analysts, for their continuing failure to call it like it really is when it comes to these Senate votes. For example, on Wednesday, in the wake of the background check vote, which “passed” the Senate by a vote of 54-46 but effectively “failed” because of the threat of a filibuster, Fallows again explained the concept. He wrote:

Since the Democrats regained majority control of the Senate six years ago, the Republicans under Mitch McConnell have applied filibuster threats (under a variety of names) at a frequency not seen before in American history. Filibusters used to be exceptional. Now they are used as blocking tactics for nearly any significant legislation or nomination. The goal of this strategy, which maximizes minority blocking power in a way not foreseen in the Constitution, has been to make the 60-vote requirement seem routine. As part of the "making it routine" strategy, the minority keeps repeating that it takes 60 votes to "pass" a bill — and this Orwellian language-redefinition comes one step closer to fulfillment each time the press presents 60 votes as the norm for passing a law.

News consumers, in other words, are led to believe that what is happening is just “politics as usual,” tit-for-tat, part of the murky vote-counting calculus that has always been a part of the Senate’s rules. But there is now ample evidence to suggest that this tactic has fundamentally changed the way Congress works. In 2009 alone, the Brennan Center’s Diana Kasdan told me last week, “there was double the number of filibusters that occurred in the entire 20-year period from 1950-1969, when they were used repeatedly and notoriously to block civil rights legislation.”  In other words, today’s abuse of the filibuster is extraordinary. Yet Fallows gives many examples — actual headlines, probably hundreds of them over the years — in which journalists have refused or failed to properly communicate this to their audience. Without adequate context and perspective about what is happening in the Senate, the American people are hampered in how quickly they can force their elected officials to change (or, more accurately, to change their elected officials).

In fact, as we have reported here, today’s GOP has taken Senate obstruction to an extraordinary new level.

PFAW

Louie Gohmert Cites Mark Foley Scandal to Defend Boy Scouts Gay Ban

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) defended the Boy Scouts of America’s ban on gay members today by pointing to the scandal surrounding former Republican congressman Mark Foley, who sent sexually explicit messages to several teenage male congressional pages.

Gohmert, who was filling in for Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on the Washington Watch radio program, accused Rep. Nancy Pelosi of hypocrisy because she condemned Foley’s actions but opposes the Boy Scouts’ ban.

Gohmert later agreed with John Stemberger, the Religious Right activist leading the campaign against gay Boy Scouts, when he said that allowing gays in the Boy Scouts would lead to the end of the program and “if scouting dies, part of the fabric of America dies.”

Gohmert: Back when there was a scandal in the House, I guess there was some left-wing group that had found out and then they sat on it for about a year and then right before the election released this story about one of our members from Florida making inappropriate advances toward eight pages, under age. And I heard Representative from San Francisco, Ms. Pelosi, making this speech on the Floor and the thing that really heartened me was because of the things she said I went to the Floor after her and said I am so gratified to know that Ms. Pelosi will now be helping us in maintaining the current position of the Boy Scouts and help us fight off the effort for Boy Scouts based on the things she has said about what’s happened with the page program. But apparently the things she had to say were only to condemn Republicans in an opportune movement that had nothing to do with being consistent when it came to the Boy Scout program…. Any other thoughts or observations, things you would want to encourage our listeners to do after hearing this broadcast?

Stemberger: Yes we have a simulcast coming up right at FRC studios, Sunday, May 5, it’s Stand with Scouts Sunday. We want to get folks all over the country to stand with scouting, especially folks in the program, it’s going to be an hour long program, we want folks to meet a half hour before and a half hour afterwards to organize because we’re going to have rallies around the country. That’s Sunday night, May 5 from 7-8, we want folks to gather at 6:30 and then the meeting will be over by 8:30. It will be a time to meet folks of other like mind. This is our opportunity. Look, scouting is one of the jewels of American culture; if scouting dies, part of the fabric of America dies.

Gohmert: It does.

Stemberger: Those of us who feel passionate about this, we need to fight to make sure we preserve scouting in America.

Gohmert: Yeah.

Later in the show, Gohmert told a listener named Jimmy, who warned the BSA against approving a proposal that would allow openly gay youth to join the Scouts, that homosexuality violates the Ten Commandments and as a result churches that host scout troops won’t go along with the new policy.

Gohmert blamed state and local governments for pressuring BSA to shift on the issue of gay membership. He said they’re accepting of Satanists but punish BSA simply for holding the same belief that “was contained in so many of the references to the lifestyle back among the Founders.”

Scouting has always had people who figured out they were attracted to people of the same-sex but what is being demanded is to be allowed to openly practice this. Jimmy makes the great point that so many of the scout troops, I don’t know what percentage it is but I know in East Texas so many of the troops are sponsored by churches who believe the Ten Commandments and when it says ‘thou shalt not commit adultery’ that means not having relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman. So this would once again be the government—well, government has helped push pressure, there are some state and local governments that have been preventing scouts from using their parks. You can have all kinds of weird beliefs, Satanic or whatever, and you can use the parks but they have made clear if you are a part of the Boy Scouts of America and believe what was contained in so many of the references to the lifestyle back among the Founders then Heaven help you they don’t want you to have anything to do with their parks.

Bachmann Endorses WND Prayer Event that Likens Homosexuality to Terrorism

Michele Bachmann has heartily endorsed the WorldNetDaily prayer effort to mark the anniversary of the September 11 attacks by praying against terrorism, nuclear war and homosexuality. WND editor and birther leader Joseph Farah claimed today that the day of prayer is needed to stop comprehensive immigration reform, the government’s supposed plans to stockpile weapons to “impose de facto firearms restrictions on citizens” and gay rights advocates who seek to “make the citizenry of Sodom and Gomorrah blush.”

Have you ever had the feeling the nation is on the brink of utter disaster?

Has that feeling ever been stronger than it is right now?

• It turns out that after spending hundreds of billions on foreign wars and nearly an equal amount on a new bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security, Americans are just as vulnerable to Islamic terrorist attacks as they were on 9/11.

• For days that seemed like weeks, the systematically disarmed residents of the Boston and Cambridge area cowered in their homes and hid in their closets in fear of one armed and dangerous terrorist presumed to have been involved in the Boston Marathon bombing.

• Sometimes it seems the war on terrorism is really a war on the people of the United States and, particularly, on their liberty, as DHS and other agencies target entire classifications of law-abiding Americans rather than those who pose the gravest threat.

• Even when the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate narrowly rejects harsh gun-control legislation, the DHS and other government agencies impose de facto firearms restrictions on citizens by buying up billions of rounds of ammunition, thus removing them from the free marketplace where they could be used for citizen self-defense.

• As the economy continues its five-year cycle of sputtering, the government continues unchecked in its policy of insanely unsustainable borrowing and spending.

• North Korea is threatening all-out nuclear war against South Korea as well as intercontinental ballistic missile attacks against the U.S.

• Iran continues to build a nuclear arsenal of its own while periodically threatening Israel and the U.S., which it still regards as “the little Satan” and “the great Satan.”

• The U.S. continues its slide from moral malaise to cultural hedonism that makes the late 1960s look like the 1950s by comparison, as support for “same-sex marriage” grows, the horrors of the “abortion on demand” crusade are revealed in a Philadelphia courtroom sans media coverage and an epidemic of sex abuse against children by schoolteachers, clergy and scoutmasters is not only ignored but results in capitulation by the Boy Scouts of America to the demands of those who would make the citizenry of Sodom and Gomorrah blush.

• Most of the U.S. press, once considered an important watchdog institution against government fraud, waste, abuse and corruption, has become a disinformation factory – out of touch with the values of the people, the principles upon which the country was established and even the rule of law that specifically guards the media’s own freedom.

• As the country becomes more divided culturally and jobs become harder to find for Americans, one of the highest priorities of the ruling elite in Washington is to ensure that tens of millions of illegal aliens already in the country are permitted to stay, while its calls for amnesty and an open border virtually invite more to emigrate, while rolling out the red carpet for terrorist enemies to enter in their wake.

Do I paint an accurate picture, or do I exaggerate?

It all suggests to me something’s got to give – that we are reaching a breaking point for America.

Is there any conceivable way “politics” as usual can save the country from disaster?



I honestly believe it’s our last and only hope for saving America from catastrophe.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious