C4

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.

President Obama Continues to Diversify the Federal Bench

Yesterday's slate of judicial nominations makes clear that President Obama's commitment to a diverse federal bench will continue into his second term.
PFAW

PFAW: Colorado Judicial Nomination Shows How Process Should Work

Washington, DC – At a time when there is a record vacancy crisis in the federal courts, Colorado senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet have done something unusual: they have expedited the judicial nomination process so that a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado will transfer hands without a long period of vacancy. If the Senate confirms him promptly, Raymond P. Moore will take the place of Judge Wiley Daniel soon after his seat becomes vacant in January.

People For the American Way praised Sens. Udall and Bennet for their attention to helping the president nominate a qualified jurist for the federal district court in Colorado. “Federal courts across the country are struggling to meet the needs of the American people. In many cases, it is because Senate Republicans are obstructing President Obama’s nominees. But too often, it is simply because senators are dragging their feet in recommending nominees to the president,” said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. “Senators Udall and Bennet have shown how the process can be swift and efficient.”

Federal judges often announce planned departures from the bench many months in advance so that the process for nominating and confirming a replacement can begin early, thus minimizing the amount of time that a seat is vacant. Then, for district courts in particular, the White House seeks recommendations of potential nominees from the state’s senators. In too many states, delay on the part of senators means a significantly delayed nomination, leaving courtroom vacancies unfilled. As a result, most future vacancies become current vacancies with no replacement nominated.

That is not what happened in Colorado. Last winter, district court Judge Wiley Daniel announced that he would be taking senior status beginning in January 2013. Sens. Udall and Bennet promptly put together an 11-member bipartisan advisory commission to help identify highly qualified candidates for the vacancy, which accepted applications during the spring and submitted its recommendations to the senators. The senators then forwarded the finalists to the White House, which conducted its own review, leading to the president’s nomination yesterday of Raymond P. Moore, a longtime federal public defender. 

Yesterday, the wheels have been set in motion for the Senate to begin its consideration of the nomination, before the vacancy even opens up.

“The process that Senators Udall and Bennet set in motion to nominate Moore should not be unusual,” added Baker. “Instead, it should be a model for senators across the country. It is a testament to the commitment of Sens. Bennet and Udall to making sure that no Coloradan is denied their day in court, one that I hope many of their colleagues will emulate.”

###
 

 

Lame Duck - Time to Confirm All the Pending Nominees

Don't believe the latest Republican spin to justify their obstruction of judicial nominations even during the lame duck session.
PFAW

MassResistance: Marriage Equality was Victorious because Religious Right Activists weren't Anti-Gay Enough

Brian Camenker’s group MassResistance is out with its analysis of the Religious Right’s failure in four states to ban same-sex marriage, and has concluded that equality opponents simply weren’t anti-gay enough. They accused the National Organization for Marriage and others of going to “great lengths not to criticize homosexuality” when they should have been working to “persuade the public through advertising that homosexual behavior was perverse, dysfunctional, and unhealthy” and exposing “the destructive nature of homosexual relationships.”

MassResistance explains that such advertisements are necessary because “in America the average person is emotionally and intellectually unequipped to confront the Orwellian and often vicious onslaught of propaganda, disinformation, threats, intimidation [and] confusion” about homosexuality, even comparing the plight of anti-gay activists to those resisting Communism in the Eastern Bloc.

At its root, "gay marriage" is really about the forced acceptance of homosexuality as a normal part of society. But both NOM and the state pro-family groups went to great lengths not to criticize homosexual behavior. They were very fearful of being perceived as "anti-gay" or "homophobic" especially in the liberal press. So they insisted on moderating everyone's messages. In Minnesota, for instance, activists were specifically told, "Don't make this a gay issue."

Those who deviated from this and took a more direct approach were shunned and even publicly criticized by the pro-family establishment. This included some of the vocal black churches in Maryland who wanted to quote the Bible, and activists in Maine and Minnesota who felt compelled to discuss the negative aspects homosexual behavior.

Except for some material posted on websites of the local pro-family groups, there were no attempts at all that we know of to persuade the public through advertising that homosexual behavior was perverse, dysfunctional, and unhealthy. Our side basically conceded that argument completely, and even went to lengths to state that "we're not anti-gay." The homosexual lobby took full advantage of that by aggressively portraying homosexuality as just another facet of normal human behavior.

This tactic is not sustainable, as it soon became clear. It certainly does not effectively counter the emotional strategies put forth by the homosexual lobby. At some point you have to engage in the real battle at hand.



Furthermore, the groups running the campaign opposing gay marriage had an arsenal of weapons about homosexuality, homosexual behavior, and the destructive nature of homosexual relationships that they didn't use because it would not be "politically correct" and would likely anger the liberal media -- and because it wouldn't be seen as "nice." And when they finally were willing to use the very effective issue of schools forcing homosexuality on kids, it was too late.



One thing is painfully clear: At this point in America the average person is emotionally and intellectually unequipped to confront the Orwellian and often vicious onslaught of propaganda, disinformation, threats, intimidation confusion -- and the force of law that often follows -- which engulfs us. That is something we must change.

Pope John Paul II famously observed that a major force that facilitated the collapse of the Soviet Union was the people who were no longer afraid to tell the truth. That's a beginning, along with internalizing the fact that we're in a war and not at a dinner party. And that being reactive instead of being aggressive only slows down our losses. All nonviolent movements understand that.

They also claimed that the push in Maryland to overturn the state’s marriage equality law may have failed due to…you guessed it, voter fraud!

During early voting in Maryland, in many cases the touch-screen machines which created paper ballots did not register the "no" votes on the marriage ballot question; instead it come out blank. One woman told us that she noticed hers came out blank, and she had to go back and re-vote on it. She said that this happened to many others she knew of, and that one person had to go back three times to get his "no" vote properly registered. This is outrageous.

At least one relatively conservative area in Maryland surprisingly voted "yes" for gay marriage. There is suspicion that some kind of voter fraud was behind that. "It was really startling that we lost there," one local activist told us.

We have been informed that pro-family attorneys are getting involved in the continuing counting of absentee ballots in some of the key areas where the vote was close.

PFAW Commends President For Judicial Nominations, Urges the Senate to Act Quickly on Pending Nominees

Washington, DC – People For the American Way commended President Obama for putting forward seven nominees for seats on federal district courts today, and urged the Senate to promptly consider the 19 nominees currently awaiting floor votes.

“By nominating this slate of highly qualified nominees just one week after his reelection, the president has signaled that the federal courts will be a priority in his second term,” said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. “Now it’s the Senate’s turn to show that they’re serious about ending the vacancy crisis in the courts. They can start by voting on the 19 judicial nominees awaiting votes in the lame duck session.”

The Senate could easily confirm all 19 nominees awaiting Senate votes before the end of the lame duck session. In December 2010, the Senate confirmed 19 judges in less than a week. In November 2002, the Senate confirmed 20 judges in less than a week, including 18 on a single day.

During President Obama’s first term, Senate Republicans abused the filibuster to stall votes on even uncontroversial judicial nominees, contributing to a record vacancy crisis in the federal courts. While President Obama has nominated federal judges at a similar pace as President George W. Bush did in his first term, only 78 percent of his nominees have been confirmed, compared to 89 percent of Bush’s nominees. On average, President Obama’s judicial nominees have been forced to wait three times as long between committee approval and a Senate vote as did nominees in President Bush’s first term.

###

Klingenschmitt Warns Gays are 'Stealing' Children and 'Warping their Minds'

Religious Right activist and gay exorcist Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt continued his venomous anti-gay campaign attacking Sen. Al Franken’s Student Non-Discrimination Act on City on a Hill Radio, which he argued would “homosexualize our schools” and “promote sodomy in our public school systems.”

Al Franken should not be in the U.S. Senate but anyway he’s promoting what they call, it’s misnamed, the ‘Safe Schools Bill’ which really is a ‘Sodomite Schools Bill,’ he’s trying to recruit and enforce homosexual education standards upon all fifty states to require that teachers facilitate what they call tolerance of sodomy, of sin, in the public school classroom. They want to teach children, not just in health education classes but as young as kindergarten, as young as first grade, that homosexuality is really not a sin, that it’s okay, that we should be tolerant, and if the teachers don’t teach those lectures they would lose their public school funding. So this is already a bill that’s gaining steam in the United States Senate, I think he has forty-two cosponsors who are U.S. Senators who are trying to homosexualize our schools, and we are demanding, in fact we are petitioning Congress and sending faxes after faxes, to stop the homosexual agenda and kill the Al Franken bill that would promote sodomy in our public school systems.

He warned that the Obama administration will soon allow gay and lesbian service members in relationships to collect “homosexual bonus pay” and “homosexualize base houses” and “have gay pride parades on the flight line” on air force bases. Klingenschmitt went on to maintain that gay couples adopting children are committing “child abuse” and only adopt with the goal of “recruiting them into the homosexual lifestyle.” “That’s why they’re trying to get into our kindergarten books and trying to take over our public schools and homosexualize our public education so that they can recruit children into homosexuality and maintain their pool of available sex partners for their own progeny,” he said, “which is our children that they are stealing and warping their minds.”

Right now as it is homosexual spouses for lack of a better word, what they think are spouses God thinks is an abomination, are not allowed to live in base housing, but you know the Obama administration is going to push for that in these next four years, they’re going to push for homosexual bonus pay. By the end of these four years if the Obama administration has their way and if the Republicans in Congress don’t stand up against this, they are going to homosexualize base houses, they’re going to have gay pride parades on the flight line, who knows what they’re going to be doing on air force bases and places around the world. I’m very concerned of course; adoption of any child by a homosexual couple is child abuse and children need to be protected from that. There have been studies out now that say up to twenty-eight percent of children who are raised by homosexual couples will become homosexual themselves so that’s a recruiting effort, it’s warping the minds of our younger generation, it is directly recruiting them into the homosexual lifestyle. Why? Because if they don’t recruit the children of heterosexual couples, they cannot replenish their population.



The only way they have children is to recruit or in this case adopt the children of heterosexual couples which amounts to child abuse and child recruiting. That’s why they’re trying to get into our kindergarten books and trying to take over our public schools and homosexualize our public education so that they can recruit children into homosexuality and maintain their pool of available sex partners for their own progeny, which is our children that they are stealing and warping their minds.

Chuck Pierce: America Will Fall Apart, East and West Coasts Will Be Ruled by Demons

Just before the election Charisma published a prophecy made by Lou Engle’s co-author James Goll about how in 2008 God revealed to him that Mitt Romney will save America from certain doom. Obviously, Romney lost the election and the “prophetic experiences” Engle cited weren’t exactly accurate. But now, Charisma has posted a different prophecy from another Engle ally, Chuck Pierce, who claims that in 2008 God told him that America would actually fall apart and many areas will be ruled by demonic spirits, particularly on the East Coast (oh, he also claims to have prophesied Hurricane Sandy). Then these demonic liberal regions will be challenged by the godly “apostolic centers” led by Texas and other southern states, which “will arise and be leading contenders of freedom.”

On May 31, 2008, I was preparing to speak at a large gathering at Liberty State Park in New Jersey near Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty. Suddenly, the Lord gave me a vision of our nation. He took me three years into the future and began to let me hear and see what our future would look like. He first showed me my own bloodline and the glory and iniquity of its history. He then showed me three years ahead and the two iniquitous spirits that would try to capture my children and children’s children.

In my book Redeeming the Time, I wrote the following: “On May 31, 2008, the Lord showed me His triumphant reserve. He raised me and showed me the nation of the United States of America. First, He revealed His remnant and where they were positioned. Next, He showed me their strength from state to state to state. He showed me how many were moving over into the enemy’s camp of religion. He showed me how others were aligning around race and gender as opposed to mission call and gifting.

Then He showed me high places. These were altars that had been built by the enemy and positioned strategically throughout the land. I saw how the sacrifices on these altars were empowering and keeping an atmosphere held captive by ruling hosts. Next, the Lord showed me the atmosphere. In this vision, He showed me different layers of the atmosphere in relationship to His presence versus the demonic spiritual rule in that particular area or region. (Some areas have already been taken over, and darkness actually rules those areas.) There were 10 ruling centers already developed within the United States. Then He showed me the communication systems between these centers. I saw how one sacrifice empowered one dimension of an evil presence, and then that presence would communicate to another center as together they networked their plan of control. (I could go into great detail here, but I will wait for another time to do this. As a matter of fact, I believe it would be unwise to share everything I saw. In the next book when we are dealing with worship, perhaps I will share more.)



Next, He showed me how the communication system in the United States was linked with systems internationally and how a new form of global communications was forming in the demonic world. This communication would control financial and legal structures.



I then saw a massive storm hitting the East Coast. This storm would be sent as a sign for this shift that would come on the East coast and water would cover Atlantic City. (I visited this area again in June, 2012, reiterated the word, and the prophetic team mobilized prayer up and down the coasts of New Jersey and Delaware.) The Lord shared that when this city went under water, this would signify the beginning of a necessary infrastructure shift that would begin in the East Coast. This would not only greatly effect New York and New Jersey, but then Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Saint Louis, Charlotte, Atlanta, and Miami Dade County metroplexes. These mega structures would rearrange their governments in a confederation that would not promote Christianity as the first spiritual influence of the land, but embrace other forms of religious alignments that would make handshakes politically to control their regions. After this, the West Coast would begin to shake from San Diego to Seattle.

By 2016 there would have to be a revolution of revelation attached to the apostolic centers. These Centers, or outposts, will be known as contending governmental influences very much like in John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles day. Once again, the Lord’s warning to “beware of the Pharisees and Herodians” will become a reality! The covenant rights of this land will once again be contended for.

However, the battlefields will not be the present battlefields. These contending governments will address the IRS and Electoral College structures. They will address the current ruling power of the Federal Reserve System. They will address the Health Care Structure that presently is meant to take away our freedom to heal and be healed. They will address and propose a New America with redistributed power! Texas will be Central in the redevelopment of this over the next 4 years. Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, and Tennessee will arise and be leading contenders of freedom.

Are we ready for this? We must be if our children's children are to have any opportunity for covenant freedom in this next season. In these next three years, the church will return to its First Love, secure its candlestick, receive incredible compassion and be ready for the war ahead.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious