The GOP’s brazen attempts to politicize the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi are getting even more pathetic, if that’s possible. In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that because ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell’s recent congressional testimony didn’t support her discredited Benghazi conspiracy theories, he must be “taking the fall” for Hillary Clinton and “preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected.”
“[I]f Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA,” Bachmann told the fringe conspiracy website. “That’s what this is all about.”
She suggested that Clinton will in turn appoint Morell to lead the CIA, explaining that is the only reason why Morell didn’t corroborate her conspiracy theory: “The cover story matches the Obama story.”
In an exclusive interview with WND, Bachmann said former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell could be repaid for his efforts by being named head of the CIA if Clinton is elected president.
Bachmann said Morell’s testimony Wednesday before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was the narrative that will be pushed to protect Clinton from any future Benghazi political fallout.
“She couldn’t have a better person to take the fall for her because Morell was involved in rewriting the talking points and was the No. 2 at CIA. So, he can come in authoritatively say, ‘No, that’s not the story. The story is the fake story we tried to push.’”
Bachmann explained to WND that Morell is taking the fall by pointing at underlings and saying he relied on analysts. That way, “he can preserve his status, so, if Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA. That’s what this is all about.”
“They don’t care about Obama now,” she said. “The more important thing is making sure it preserves the way for Hillary, because Democrats can’t afford to be exposed for what they are: failures on foreign policy, defense and intelligence. We have never had a bigger failure than under the Obama administration in any of those areas.”
“So, they’re essentially buying out Morell,” Bachmann said. “The cover story matches the Obama story. And all Morell has to do is point to the wrong view of the underlings and say, ‘Well, I was relying on what they told me. The president was relying on his analysts. Hillary Clinton relied on the analysts.’”
“Now, its [sic] about preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected. And the only way they can do that is absolve her from any responsibility. And so Morell, who is now in Hillary’s think tank, probably being paid very well, is in cold storage for one reason and one reason only, and that’s to take the fall for Hillary Clinton and clean up any dirt from Obama.”
To most observers, the incredibly light sentence received last month by industrial heir Robert Richards after he confessed to raping his infant children is a sign of how differently our justice system treats the very wealthy. But to Matt Barber’s BarbWire, it was evidence of the “slippery slope” set off by gay rights.
“For those pushing to undermine all moral restraints and sexual standards, they now have a new ‘hero’ for their cause,” writes BarbWire senior editor Jeff Allen. “And don’t anyone dare try to tell me that the recent efforts to normalize homosexual deviancy won’t have adverse, wide-ranging repercussions.”
“Letting child molesters off the hook is really all about foisting the agenda of sexual autonomy and anarchy upon America,” he adds.
If the pedophiles of our nation were looking for the symbolic “green light” to engage in their heinous, criminal activities, then they most certainly received it from Judge Jan Jurden, the Delaware Superior Court judge who reprehensibly set a vile sexual predator free to roam the streets.
For those pushing to undermine all moral restraints and sexual standards, they now have a new “hero” for their cause. And don’t anyone dare try to tell me that the recent efforts to normalize homosexual deviancy won’t have adverse, wide-ranging repercussions. In fact, I pin most of the blame for America’s moral free fall squarely on the destructive strategies of the militant homosexual activists.
So, throw him to the wolves, and maybe people will start realizing that child molesters will not be stomached. Unless, of course, as I suspect, letting child molesters off the hook is really all about foisting the agenda of sexual autonomy and anarchy upon America.
All I can say is that the outraged citizens of Delaware and our entire nation need to rise up and put the brakes on this nation’s rapid descent down the slippery slope. And fast!
Within hours of the Supreme Court issuing its decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, People For the American Way organized a rapid response protest, the first of over 140 that are taking place across the country today.
The protest featured key movement leaders from Congress and a wide range of advocacy organizations, all of whom were outraged about the Roberts Court’s disregard for democratic safeguards, like those gutted in McCutcheon v. FEC.
Emceed by People For the American Way’s Diallo Brooks and concluded by People For’s Drew Courtney, the rally featured Senator Bernie Sanders [VT], Representative Keith Ellison [MN-5], and Representative Ted Deutch [FL-19], as well as Jotaka Eaddy of the NAACP, Michael Russo of US PIRG, Steve Cobble of Free Speech For People, Nick Nyhart of Public Campaign, George Kohl of Communication Workers of America, Miles Rappaport of Common Cause, Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth, and Courtney Hight of the Sierra Club.
Speakers highlighted the problem of “big money” dominating the political process, and discussed the range of solutions--from enacting disclosure and public financing laws to amending the Constitution--that are available to solve it.
This post originally appeared on the People For blog.
Chief Justice Roberts caps his opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC by waxing eloquently about the need to ensure that elected officials are responsive to the people. This and other cases have described campaign contributions as a way to promote such responsiveness. But considering that this case is about a non-constituent buying influence in elections across the country, the passage's repeated references to constituents seems strangely out of place:
For the past 40 years, our campaign finance jurisprudence has focused on the need to preserve authority for the Government to combat corruption, without at the same time compromising the political responsiveness at the heart of the democratic process, or allowing the Government to favor some participants in that process over others. As Edmund Burke explained in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol, a representative owes constituents the exercise of his "mature judgment," but judgment informed by "the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents." Constituents have the right to support candidates who share their views and concerns. Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials. (emphasis added, internal citations removed)
Shaun McCutcheon – whose contributions are at issue in this case – told the Court that he wanted to make contributions of $1,776 to each of more than two dozen different congressional candidates (as well as to various party committees) during the 2012 election cycle. It seems unlikely that he could have been a constituent of more than two dozen different members of Congress.
Obviously, people have a First Amendment right to participate in congressional races outside of where they live. But a stirring paragraph about political responsiveness to constituents hardly seems appropriate in a case that is all about political responsiveness to non-constituents.
In a talk in Salt Lake City this weekend, Ryan T. Anderson of the Heritage Foundation claimed that same-sex marriage is “an elite luxury good bought for on the backs of the poor.”
He made the comment while discussing U.S. v. Windsor, in which Edith Windsor argued successfully that she was unjustly forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes after her wife’s death because DOMA prevented the government from recognizing their marriage. Anderson absurdly claimed that the media suppressed the facts of the case, and insisted that the solution to Windsor’s problem was simply to repeal the estate tax.
He continued in the same vein, claiming that free markets, rather than nondiscrimination measures, will protect LGBT people from employment and housing discrimination.
Anderson warned that measures protecting LGBT people from housing and employment discrimination will oppress conservatives: “Too often, the nondiscrimination laws are just used as a way of discriminating against those who hold traditional views about marriage.”
“I think, to a certain extent, if you want to protect housing and employment for any person, encourage free markets,” he continued. “Employers want the best employees, regardless of their sexual attractions. A landlord wants the best tenants, regardless of their sexual attractions. It wouldn’t be, in the long run, for a business, profitable to be discriminating against good employees for no reason whatsoever.”
In fact, 21 percent of LGBT people report having been discriminated against in the workplace, including 47 percent of transgender people. Ample research also shows that the free market has done nothing to prevent LGBT people from facing discrimination in renting and buying homes.
But Anderson wasn’t just concerned with public policy. Later in the talk, an audience member asked about pro-gay “subliminal messaging” in pop culture. “The television show Glee has done just as much to corrupt a young generation about marriage as anything the Supreme Court has done,” he responded.
This post originally appeared on the People For blog.
The Supreme Court's McCutcheon opinion, released this morning, is another 5-4 body blow to our democracy. To justify striking down limits that cap aggregate campaign contributions during a single election cycle, the Roberts Court ignores the way the world really works and makes it far more difficult to justify much-needed protections against those who would purchase our elections and elected officials.
Americans are deeply concerned that control of our elections and our government is being usurped by a tiny sliver of extremely wealthy and powerful individuals (and the corporations they control). That is not the democracy that our Constitution established and protects. The enormous impact of money in politics can destroy a democracy, undermining its foundations by disconnecting elected officials from the people they are supposed to serve and eroding the trust of the people in their system of government.
But the Roberts Court today stressed that campaign contributions can be justified under the First Amendment only if they address "quid pro quo" corruption – i.e. bribery – despite contrary pre-Citizens United holdings with a broader and more realistic vision. A democratic system rotting at its core – a government of, by, and for the wealthy – is not corrupt in their eyes.
If a wealthy person gives millions of dollars to a party (distributed to the party's multiple candidates and PACs across the country), he clearly exercises enormous influence over the laws that get passed. What the voters want becomes far less relevant, because it's the billionaire whose money is vital to getting elected. A government where elected officials allow a few plutocrats to have enormous access and influence over their policies is not an indication of a healthy government of, by, and for the people.
As Justice Breyer write in his McCutcheon dissent:
Today a majority of the Court overrules this holding [Buckley's 1976 upholding of aggregate limits]. It is wrong to do so. Its conclusion rests upon its own, not a record-based, view of the facts. Its legal analysis is faulty: It misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake. It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate's campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), today's decision eviscerates our Nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.
Americans are organizing around the country to restore our democracy in light of Citizens United and other dangerous court opinions. Today's McCutcheon opinion gives us another reason to rally.
Last year, People For the American Way Foundation released an analysis of McCutcheon within the context of the Supreme Court's past rulings on campaign finance.
What does Sweden have in common with the brutally oppressive dictatorship of North Korea? According to Christian Broadcasting Network senior reporter Dale Hurd, a lot! Hurd claims that Swedish critics of Islam and immigration are facing North Korean-style oppression.
“Sweden has been compared to a couple of nations which also tried to build perfect societies, North Korea and the Soviet Union,” Hurd said in a 700 Club report today. He admitted that “if you don’t like how utopia is being built here, you won’t be shot like in North Korea,” but added, “your life could become very unpleasant.”
Yes, receiving an “unpleasant” response to your unpopular political views is just like what happens to dissidents in North Korea, but without the mass killings.
Hurd, who interviewed anti-Muslim writer Ingrid Carlqvist for his report, later described Sweden as having a “Stalinist-style atmosphere” and predicted that it will soon become a “Third World nation.”
700 Club host Pat Robertson said he was shocked by Hurd’s “frightening” report: “To think they can be killed by political correctness shows what can happen here.”
The American Decency Association is joining the anti-gay boycott of Honey Maid graham crackers, led by the American Family Association subsidiary One Million Moms. The groups are upset that the cracker company’s “This Is Wholesome” ad features a same-sex couple with their children, which the ADA’s Steve Huston claims is Satan’s doing.
“With Nabisco, Coca-cola, Chevrolet and the plethora of advertisers out there trying to make homosexuality look normal and wholesome, you’d think that this issue has become a cultural wave that has taken in a very large percentage of the population,” Huston writes.
“It’s not a matter of acceptance; it’s a matter of an evil agenda which is being pushed upon America and around the world. Satan continues to attack God’s design and skew it to his own workings. He continues to take words like ‘wholesome’ and ‘family’ and twist them for his own purposes.”
When I think of graham crackers I think of the camping I may do this summer and the smores I might eat around a campfire. I fondly remember eating a bowl full of soggy graham crackers for breakfast and talking with my mom. They were an easy snack to give my children with a little frosting on them. Yes, I have some wholesome memories of graham crackers, Nabisco graham crackers.
Apparently Nabisco and I have a fondness for different things now. Of course they wanted to sell crackers and I was really just interested in eating them; but now Nabisco wants to change definitions like family and wholesome. Now I am older and more interested in protecting definitions like family and wholesome; I’m interested in being a conscientious consumer, watching where I spend my dollar.
Satan wants us to see sin as normal and not so bad. He delights in taking what God has made “good” and was meant to glorify God and change it, counterfeit it, making it to please Satan himself instead of the Creator God. The fallen one desires men to see themselves as gods, having to answer to no one but themselves.
As Honey Maid explains on their Youtube page,
“Today we celebrate all families. From working moms to two moms;” I can’t help but think how far we have come. Do you realize we’ve been accepting two moms for a long time? Granted, we’ve been accepting two moms in different homes because of divorce; but now Honey Maid and others are putting two moms in a same-sex relationship. They are making two dads to seem normal. Both are wrong; both are unwholesome; both run contrary to the Word of God. Satan whispers, “Did God really say…?” “YES, HE DID!” should be our quick and relentless cry.
With Nabisco, Coca-cola, Chevrolet and the plethora of advertisers out there trying to make homosexuality look normal and wholesome, you’d think that this issue has become a cultural wave that has taken in a very large percentage of the population. THIS IS NOT THE CASE! The fact is that homosexuals account for less than 2% of the population of the United States of America. You can see the numbers of this 2011 study for yourself here.
It’s not a matter of acceptance; it’s a matter of an evil agenda which is being pushed upon America and around the world. Satan continues to attack God’s design and skew it to his own workings. He continues to take words like “wholesome” and “family” and twist them for his own purposes. He takes a symbol of God’s promise (the rainbow) and hijacks it, twisting it to his own design. Satan calls it normal; God calls it sin. We live in a day when “evil” is called “good” and “good” is called “evil.” That which is meant to glorify God (family, the church, etc) is being taken and bent out of shape until it is hardly recognizable.
On yesterday’s edition of Washington Watch, Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin said that America is experiencing an “absolute destruction of our military readiness and our military morale because the leadership in our military has not been willing to stand up to the President” on issues like the 2010 repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
Boykin was talking to host Tony Perkins about a recent BuzzFeed post that said President Obama “was unwilling to compromise with service leaders over DADT during a meeting in 2010.”
Boykin likened generals who supported Obama’s efforts to end the ban on openly gay service members to former general Harold K. Johnson, who regretted not resigning over President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam war.
“I believe we have some people in the Joint Chiefs of Staff today who will live to regret the decisions that they’ve made in terms of supporting the radical policies of this administration,” Boykin said, before arguing that military leaders should have resigned to protest the lifting of the ban on gay service members: “It is a matter of honor, it is a matter of honor in doing what you believe in and standing on principle and not on career, career has to take a second seat to principle and I don’t believe that these guys are operating on principle.”
A leader of voter suppression group True The Vote apparently believes that a significant percentage of Americans want non-citizens to be able to vote in U.S. federal elections.
On yesterday’s True The Vote conference call, which featured Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the Heritage Foundation’s Hans Von Spakovsky, True The Vote executive director Jennifer Wright claimed that over 20 percent of Americans want non-citizens to be given voting rights.
Discussing Kobach’s new law in Kansas, which requires people registering to vote to present a birth certificate or similar documentation of citizenship, Wright warned there is a growing push to let non-citizens vote in national elections: “I wonder about those citizens who think that non-citizens should be able to vote. Because I don’t think anyone would argue that we should be able to vote [or] that I should be able to vote in an election in Mexico even though I live in a border state.”
She cited polls “showing that over 70, 78, 80-plus percent of people throughout the United States agree that you should be a citizen to vote.” She appears to be referring to a recent poll from the conservative Rassmussen, which found that 78 percent of respondents agreed that voters should be required to prove their citizenship before registering. It asked no questions about whether or not non-citizens should be allowed to vote.
Of course, the current federal voter registration form does require proof of citizenship in the form of a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Kansas’ law requires extra proof in the form of a birth certificate or naturalization document, an administrative hurdle that has left the voting rights of tens of thousands of Kansans in limbo .
But in the paranoid universe of True The Vote, people who oppose voter suppression laws actually want foreign nationals to be able to cast votes in American federa; elections, using the federal voter registration form as a “work-around around the proof of citizenship.”
I originally hail from Arizona myself, so I am familiar with how this ruling came down through Arizona and the concerns we had in our state that this federal form would then be a work-around around the proof of citizenship. So to be able to have it now spelled out in black and white, and I think quite confidently it will remain so, is a boon for election integrity.
Because, obviously, the studies are out there showing that over 70, 78, 80-plus percent of people throughout the United States agree that you should be a citizen to vote. I wonder about those citizens who think that non-citizens should be able to vote. Because I don’t think anyone would argue that we should be able to vote, that I should be able to vote in an election in Mexico even though I live in a border state, or whatever arguments we may have.
Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, following a federal court ruling upholding his strict requirement that people registering to vote must present a birth certificate or comparable proof of citizenship, is now hoping to peddle the law to other states. But in a conference call last night hosted by the group True The Vote, which was founded to support voter suppression laws, Kobach inadvertently explained what is so wrong with his policy, which has left 16,000 Kansans with their voter registrations suspended.
Kobach told True The Vote that he hoped that other states with voter ID laws would adopt his stricter version, and said that he had already discussed the possibility with Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann. He also promised to put a generic version of the law on his personal website for activists to present to their own state legislators.
But while defending the law, Kobach made an argument that in fact illustrates what an extraordinary hurdle it may present to some voters.
“We really gave people lots of options” to prove their citizenship, Kobach boasted. He noted that there was even a “special process” for people who don’t have their birth certificate: “We created a process for that person to go before the state elections board and provide affidavit evidence and other evidence to show that they’re a US citizen. And that process has only been used twice.”
Yes, out of 16,000 people who have yet to provide the state with citizenship documentation, just two people without the proper documents have made it through the new bureaucratic hurdles to prove that they are citizens....which Kobach somehow sees as a great victory.
Later in the call, Kobach speculated that voter suppression laws helped increase the turnout in the 2012 elections because the people who are targeted by such laws actually love them. He said that he had talked to a counterpart in a southern state who told him of counties with high minority populations “where election fraud is so ingrained in the experience of voters…so when voter ID came along they had hope.”
“He believes it was the hope of a fairer election among some minority communities that had experienced fraudulent elections that drives the higher turnout,” Kobach said.
In fact, many elections experts say that high turnout among African-American voters in 2012 was driven in part by a backlash to voter suppression laws, not support for them.
WASHINGTON – In response to today’s Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, a campaign finance case with vast implications for our democracy, People For the American Way’s executive vice president Marge Baker released the following statement:
Our nation’s wealthiest people don’t need even more political influence, but that’s what today’s decision hands them. The Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to a government unduly influenced by the rich and powerful.
As with the 2010 Citizens United decision, the consequences for our democracy of today’s deeply misguided decision will be grave, opening the door for wealthy donors to give, in aggregate, millions of dollars in direct contributions in a single election cycle. The Roberts Court has once again proven itself to be ideologically-driven, going out of its way to protect the interests of the most powerful among us at the expense of everyday Americans.
But big threats create big opportunities. From efforts to amend the Constitution to overturn Citizens United and related cases to small donor public financing proposals, a range of mutually reinforcing, pro-democracy reforms are coming together in communities across the country. Despite today’s damaging decision, Americans remain committed to restoring a political system of, by, and for the people.
Last year our affiliate People For the American Way Foundation released an in-depth edit memo outlining the particulars of McCutcheon within the context of the Supreme Court’s past rulings on campaign finance. We also filed an amicus brief in the case.
At noon today, PFAW members will join other area activists in front of the Supreme Court at a rally in reaction to the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. More than 130 other events across the country are also planned for the day of the ruling, including rallies in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, and many more.
Today PFAW is also joining partner advocacy organizations in sending a letter to every member of Congress urging them to cosponsor constitutional amendment resolutions that would restore the authority of Congress and the states to effectively regulate election spending.
PFAW executive vice president Marge Baker and PFAW senior fellow Jamie Raskin are both available for interviews with the press about the McCutcheon case. To arrange an interview, please contact Layne Amerikaner at firstname.lastname@example.org / 202-467-4999.
BarbWire’s Gina Miller thinks gay rights advocates are leading a Satanic movement from Hell that is bent on murdering Christians, but she insists that she doesn’t have a bigoted bone in her body when it comes to gay people.
In fact, Miller writes today that she can’t understand why she gets “maligned as being ‘homophobic’” for simply speaking about “the immoral, unnatural and very unhealthy reality of homosexual behavior” and warning that the “powerful, evil tyrants” of the “anti-American, anti-freedom, Godless Left” have “dumbed down” young people to embrace gay rights.
You see, according to Miller, homophobia doesn’t exist and has no meaning…but if it does, then it describes only those who choose to “step aboard the hijacked-rainbow express” and support equal rights for gays and lesbians.
“It should occur to any thinking man that those of us who speak boldly against this diabolical movement are in reality the opposite of ‘homophobic,’” Miller writes. “I can tell you that if there is anything close to ‘homophobia’ out there, it is found in people who bow in subservience to the perverse demands of the homosexual movement.”
I do not fear homosexuals, irrationally or otherwise. Anyone who speaks unequivocally of the immoral, unnatural and very unhealthy reality of homosexual behavior is invariably maligned as being “homophobic.” Superficially it doesn’t even make sense, but when you look a little deeper, it should occur to any thinking man that those of us who speak boldly against this diabolical movement are in reality the opposite of “homophobic.” If I am unafraid to call a spade a spade, then how can I be accused of being afraid of the spade? It’s nonsense, but homosexual activists don’t let sense impede their wrong-headed assertions and twisted agenda.
While I do not concede the faulty premise of the sham term “homophobia,” I can tell you that if there is anything close to “homophobia” out there, it is found in people who bow in subservience to the perverse demands of the homosexual movement. It is the people who run corporations who fear lawsuits by these activists, and who cast aside the rights and concerns of their employees to accommodate the small percentage of deviants who insist on imposing their degenerate bedroom habits on their coworkers and workplaces.
If “homophobia” were a real thing, it would describe the behavior of politicians and managers and leaders of companies, schools, churches and institutions who abandon their moral convictions and compromise their principles in obeisance to what they inherently know is wrong. Why do they do this? Their “homophobia” (which, in truth, is just cowardice) directs them, because it is out of fear of media attacks, lawsuits, loss of employment, even fear of the disapproval of others, that they step aboard the hijacked-rainbow express. But using the term “homophobia” to describe what is simply cowardice isn’t right, because the fact is that “homophobia” is a phony construct of the radical Left. It is a word weapon with a false meaning.
We have allowed the Left to abuse and distort our language for so long that we may not be able to gain control of the national dialogue. We are also at a disadvantage in that the powers of the air — the media, entertainment, Hollywood, and the rest — are controlled by leftists, so naturally they determine the “memes” and the terms. Neither does it help our cause that the younger generations are being dumbed down to the point that many of them leave school unable to write a coherent paragraph, much less have a strong grasp on the meaning of words and why it matters. But, that’s just the way the anti-American, anti-freedom, Godless Left likes it. Dumb people are as malleable as the “new” term “gender,” and they can easily be made to proudly and stupidly embrace their chains by the powerful, evil tyrants who have a very good grasp on the English language.
After yesterday’s earthshattering exposé on US aid to provide basic sanitation for children in Kenya, WorldNetDaily is out today with yet another report on a Watergate-level scandal, this time exposing how the TNT show “Dallas” is a tool of the Obama administration.
A WND article with a classic “just asking the question” headline, “Is ‘Dallas’ TV Show Taking Orders From Obama?,” suggests that White House officials used a scene on the TV show to promote opposition to fracking.
The Obama administration may be strategically writing its agenda into your favorite television shows.
Now there’s reason to wonder just how many of its policies the Obama administration may have been “nagging” Hollywood to promote.
That’s because the similarities between a recent television episode and one of the latest moves by the administration may be too uncanny to be mere coincidence.
The March 10 episode of TNT’s “Dallas” featured a plot in which the main character, Bobby Ewing, conspires with the Sierra Club to highlight the purported plight of the lesser prairie chicken to stop fracking on the Southfork Ranch.
Seventeen days later, the Obama administration’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it had listed the lesser prairie chicken as a threatened species.
Of course, natural gas production has increased dramatically under the Obama administration, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service has warned [PDF] about threats to the lesser prairie chicken’s population decline for the last 15 years.
The debate about the lesser prairie chicken’s status has been taking place forseveral years … but no, “Dallas” probably just got orders from President Obama himself to include it on the show in order to brainwash unsuspecting viewers. Or maybe not! Just asking the question!
Yesterday, the Media Research Center launched a new affiliate called MRC Latino with support from Rand Paul and the American Principles Project, a Religious Right group. On the day of its launch, MRC Latino came out with a report attacking Univision and Telemundo for allegedly having a liberal bias, suggesting that the networks are “being used as pawns of public relations” by the Obama administration. Politico reports:
The study is part of the launch of MRC’s new Spanish-language media watch group MRC Latino, which is officially launching on Tuesday. Oliver-Méndez and MRC President Brent Bozell said they hope the study and MRC Latino will lead to more conservative voices in Spanish-language media and that they plan to meet with executives at the two networks to discuss the study.
“It’s going to be outreach that we’re going to do to hopefully sit down with some of the major players in the Latino media, go through these findings and try to see if we can have a constructive dialogue,” Bozell said. “I don’t believe in any suggestion that liberals shouldn’t have their world view presented, but a, conservatives need to have equal footing. And b, you can’t use your network to actively promote a political agenda.”
MRC Latino will be run by Ken Oliver-Méndez, who “led the Bush administration’s domestic ethnic and religious media outreach, including management of the White House Spanish language web site and serving as Spanish-language coach to the President.”
While Bozell insists that the Spanish-language press is unfair to Republicans, the activist who once compared President Obama to “a skinny, ghetto crackhead” may want to consider if he himself is playing a role in damaging the GOP brand.
For example, Bozell “called for a clean sweep of the House Republican leadership if it moved forward on the issue” of immigration reform, and his group “blitzed the speaker’s office with thousands of phone calls to jam the lines and protest his stance on immigration.” He also defended Arizona’s draconian anti-immigrant SB 1070, a law strongly opposed by Latino voters.
Even though Bozell says he now supports greater Latino outreach and engagement, he once criticized “Big Tent conservatism” for hurting the larger movement. “We reject completely the idea of Big Tent conservatism,” he told a Citizens United event in March.
He also dismissed the Latino vote, which swung heavily towards Obama, in the run-up to the 2012 election and attacked the media for being “too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.”
Time's cover carried the words "Yo Decido: Why Latinos Will Pick the Next President."
This is odd, since whites are still 64 percent of the population. Time and CNN select the Latino vote as crucial because they want to make the Republicans cry uncle on amnesty. Time's Michael Scherer began his cover story by slamming Gov. Jan Brewer for "the most incendiary immigration law in the country."
But who made that law a national issue? The liberal media did. They put all the political pressure on anyone opposed to illegal immigration. It was "incendiary" despite a Rasmussen poll finding 70 percent of Arizonans supported the tougher law. The Obama-obedient media never found it "incendiary" for Obama to announce in 2011 that he was suspending most deportations in a transparently political move.
Take a look at the numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimated that 69 percent of Latinos voted for Democrats in 2006 and 67 percent for Obama in 2008. But in 2010, that percentage dropped to 60 percent, even though liberals surely tried to make Tea Party "racism" an issue to Latino voters.
Republicans shouldn't write off the Latino vote, but they can wonder how much of that 9-percent slice of Latinos would vote Republican if they Xeroxed the liberal amnesty position. CNN and Time could wonder if Obama will hurt his Latino "landslide" by canceling pipelines and signaling a hard-left position on abortion, gay marriage and religious liberty. But they're too busy celebrating and pandering to minority voters as the most crucial, special voters of all.
During Scott Lively’s interview with Michelangelo Signorile last week, the anti-gay pastor denied ever having said that President Obama is the Antichrist…until Signorile played audio captured by Right Wing Watch of Lively saying exactly that.
Last year, Lively told Rick Wiles of TruNews that the Antichrist “is heading the largest superpower of the world today,” obviously referring to Obama, who he predicted would eliminate “the debts of the world,” bring about “a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis” and establish “secular humanism” as a global religion.
Later in the Wiles interview, Lively said that gay rights will bring about the End Times and hailed Russia’s Vladimir Putin for “championing the traditional marriage and Christian values regarding the central moral issue of our time,” homosexuality.
But Lively told Signorile that he never referred to Obama as the Antichrist or Putin as a champion of right-wing Christianity: “No I didn’t say that. Oh boy, that’s quite the leap you’re making. No, I’ve never said either of those things. In terms of the Antichrist thing, we need to have a conversation about prophecy and those things for it to make any sense at all, but I did not say that Obama is the Antichrist.”
“Where are you getting this? What’s that from?,” he demanded.
But he eventually conceded that he did in fact call Obama the Antichrist after Signorile played his words back to him. “No, that’s Obama,” Lively said, but then tried to spin it as merely a “hypothetical” discussion of the End Times.
However, Lively was clearly referring to the current leader of the “largest superpower” (Obama) and even suggested that the cancellation of debts will take place in 2015.
Conservative groups including the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America and Liberty Counsel are urging parents to keep their children at home on April 11, the annual anti-bullying Day of Silence, in order to avoid exposing them to protests against anti-LGBT bullying.
Mission America’s Linda Harvey and Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute, an AFA affiliate, discussed the boycott plans on Harvey’s weekend radio show, where Harvey claimed that the Day of Silence actually represents “medical malpractice.”
“This is educational malpractice, it really is, and it really should be medical malpractice,” she said of gay rights advocacy, “especially when you have HIV rates and the other hazards we know that are out there for kids.”
Higgins added that public school educators “censor” anti-gay activists by citing concerns about “safety, or whatever that is,” and said that their curriculum “violates any kind of principles of sound pedagogy.”
Harvey warned that the Day of Silence helps LGBT and allied students feel “empowered in very inappropriate ways,” to intimidate others: “The Day of Silence, the real silencing going on is not the so-called LGBT students, the real silencing going on is conservative and Christian thought.”
“What’s dishonest about this movement is they don’t acknowledge that their end goal is not ending bullying, they’re using that; their end goal is to eradicate conservative moral beliefs or to make it socially, politically impossible to repeat them,” Higgins said. “This is dishonest to say this is just about bullying, this is really and truly about silencing conservatives.”