C4

Pat Robertson: Hillary Clinton Taking Us 'Back To The 50s'

Pat Robertson kicked off "The 700 Club" today by likening Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign announcement to the movie “Back to the Future,” adding that, this time, it is a case of going "back to the past."

"Are we going back to the '50s, is that where we want to be?" Robertson asked, without a hint of irony. "Or in the '70s? Well it looks like one of the candidates wants to take us back to the future."

Cliff Kincaid: Gays And Obama Are 'Making A Raw Power Grab For Our Kids'

Accuracy In Media’s Cliff Kincaid is incensed about President Obama’s recent statement that he supports efforts to bar the practice of sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapy on minors, writing today in BarbWire that “we are now seeing Obama and the progressives, including the homosexual movement, making a raw power grab for our kids.”

Arguing that measures to limit the pseudo-scientific practice will help “weaken the United States,” Kincaid writes that “a form of ‘conversion therapy’ will be retained, but used on those who resist the homosexual movement’s demands for our children.”

Kincaid explains that “Obama doesn’t seem concerned” about the “consequences of their immoral behavior” since “he was a heavy dope smoker.”

From Obama’s perspective, these parents stand in the way of creating an army of “LGBT” young people who will forever be grateful to the President for standing up for their “rights.” Like the dope smokers in Colorado, participating in what Obama calls an “experiment,” these young people constitute another Democratic Party constituency. Obama doesn’t seem concerned, however, about the consequences of their immoral behavior. After all, he was a heavy dope smoker and look what happened to him and where he ended up.



In other words, a form of “conversion therapy” will be retained, but used on those who resist the homosexual movement’s demands for our children. Believers in the old-fashioned values of one man and one woman marriage will be “re-educated,” or else.



Not only are the rights to freedom of the press and religion now at risk, parental rights are also in jeopardy. We are now seeing Obama and the progressives, including the homosexual movement, making a raw power grab for our kids. The parents are being labeled as the lunatics.

Yet while the Obama administration opposes counseling for young people who may want to change their sexual feelings from homosexual to heterosexual, they have no problem paying for traitor Bradley Manning to physically “change” from being a “he” to a “she.” It is reported that the Army has agreed to pay for hormone treatments, makeup, and female underwear for Manning, who is serving a 35-year sentence for espionage and other charges, so he can become “Chelsea.”

Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America is getting downright weird. It appears to be a one-way street away from our Judeo-Christian values. Like so many other policies pursued by this President, it’s difficult to see how this one can do anything but weaken the United States.

The GOP Finally Allows a Judicial Confirmation Vote

Later today, the Senate is scheduled to vote to confirm Alfred Bennett to the Southern District of Texas. But if McConnell is expecting congratulations, he should expect to wait a long time … just as he forces judicial nominees to wait for a confirmation vote.
PFAW

People For the American Way Launches Spanish-Language Radio Ad Criticizing Rubio for Dangerous Agenda

In anticipation of Marco Rubio’s announcement that he is running for President, People For the American Way launched a Spanish-language radio ad criticizing Rubio for his dangerous agenda that ignores the interests of working families, including Latinos. The ad makes clear how Rubio is no different from the rest of the GOP; his far-right positions should disqualify him from the Presidential ticket.

“From the get-go, our community needs to know how dangerous Marco Rubio’s platform is,” explained civil rights leader and People For the American Way board member Dolores Huerta. “Just like the rest of the Republican Party, Rubio's wrong for working families: He supports getting rid of the minimum wage, cutting Medicare, and deporting DREAMers.”

The ad runs this week, starting Monday morning, on Spanish-language radio stations in Miami, FL and Denver, CO.

Listen to the radio ad here:

Ad script:

Marco Rubio quiere ser presidente, pero es sólo otro republicano con un plan peligroso.



¿Por qué...?



Marco Rubio está dispuesto a ayudar a los ricos, dándoles a ELLOS los recortes de impuestos...


Pero él está en contra de aumentar el salario mínimo…



Lo que ayudaría a los trabajadores, como nosotros, poder proveer para nuestras familias



Y en lugar de asegurar que los abuelos puedan ir al médico cuando están enfermos



Él quiere recortar el Medicare que tanto necesitan para mantenerse saludables



Y en lugar de darles a los “Dreamers” la oportunidad de ir a la universidad y hacer un futuro…



Marco Rubio votó para deportarles...



Marco Rubio y el plan republicano son más que extremosos--- son peligrosos



Y Marco Rubio es simplemente malo para nuestra comunidad.

Pagado por People For the American Way (www.pfaw.org) y no autorizado por ningún candidato o comité de candidato. People For the American Way es responsable por el contenido de este anuncio.

English translation:

Marco Rubio wants to be President—but he’s just another Republican with a dangerous plan.

Why…?

Marco Rubio is happy to help the rich by giving THEM tax cuts…

But he is against raising the minimum wage…

Which would help working people like US better care for our families

And instead of making sure grandma and grandpa can go to the doctor when they are sick

He wants to cut the Medicare they need to stay healthy

And instead of giving Dreamers an opportunity to go to college and build a future…

Marco Rubio voted to deport THEM…

Marco Rubio and the Republican Plan is more than extreme—it’s dangerous.

And Marco Rubio is plain bad for our community.

Paid for by People For the American Way (www.pfaw.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. People For the American Way is responsible for the content of this advertising.

###

Lanza anuncio radial en español People For the American Way criticando la agenda de Rubio

Anticipando el anuncio de postulación para presidente de Marco Rubio, People For the American Way le hará seguimiento al lanzar un anuncio publicitario por radio criticando la agenda peligrosa de Rubio que ignora los intereses de las familias trabajadoras, incluyendo a la de los latinos. El anuncio deja en claro cómo Rubio no se diferencia del resto del partido republicano; que debería de ser descalificado para el binomio presidencial por sus posiciones ultra-derechistas.

«Nuestra comunidad necesita saber lo peligroso que es el programa electoral de Marco Rubio», explicó la líder pro derechos civiles e integrante de la junta directiva Dolores Huerta para People For the American Way. «Al igual que el resto del partido republicano, Rubio no respalda a familias trabajadoras: Ėl apoya deshacerse del salario mínimo, recortar a Medicare, y deportar a los DREAMers.

El anuncio publicitario será difundido ésta semana, comenzando el lunes por la mañana, en estaciones de radio de español en Miami, FL y Denver, CO.

Escuche el anuncio aquí:

Guión:

Marco Rubio quiere ser presidente, pero es sólo otro republicano con un plan peligroso.



¿Por qué...?



Marco Rubio está dispuesto a ayudar a los ricos, dándoles a ELLOS los recortes de impuestos...


Pero él está en contra de aumentar el salario mínimo…



Lo que ayudaría a los trabajadores, como nosotros, poder proveer para nuestras familias



Y en lugar de asegurar que los abuelos puedan ir al médico cuando están enfermos



Él quiere recortar el Medicare que tanto necesitan para mantenerse saludables



Y en lugar de darles a los “Dreamers” la oportunidad de ir a la universidad y hacer un futuro…



Marco Rubio votó para deportarles...



Marco Rubio y el plan republicano son más que extremosos--- son peligrosos



Y Marco Rubio es simplemente malo para nuestra comunidad.

Pagado por People For the American Way (www.pfaw.org) y no autorizado por ningún candidato o comité de candidato. People For the American Way es responsable por el contenido de este anuncio.

###

Donald Trump: Obama Is 'Not A Good Person' Because He Says 'ISIL'

Donald Trump is furious that President Obama refers to the so-called Islamic State as “ISIL,” or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The last word in the group’s acronym, “al-Sham,” is roughly translated as Greater Syria, or the Levant, as Pamela Geller — the anti-Muslim blogger who used “ISIL” until Obama used the same acronym and then decided it was somehow a bad thing — helpfully explains in this map.

“The only one that says ‘ISIL’ is Obama,” Trump said. “Hes the only one. He talks about ‘ISIL,’ everyone else says ‘ISIS.’ He’s got a little reason because there’s a little part of the region — but he’s the only one. Just not a good person and perhaps — go ahead, you can hear it, if you believe it. I don’t know if he has the interest of the country, he probably does, but as I said, I think the whole group, led by the leader, led by the leader, is grossly, grossly, incompetent, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

This led Trump into a tirade about China “taking our jobs” and immigration, claiming that Mexico is “sending everybody right through the border and we’re taking pictures and watching them.”

“Everybody is coming in illegally, millions of people coming in illegally, we’ve got to stop it at the border and we have to stop it fast,” he said.

Penny Nance: LGBT Activists 'Going Around You To Get To Your Children'

In a column today for Brietbart News, Concerned Women for American President Penny Nance joins the right-wing detractors of the anti-bullying Day of Silence, telling parents that the event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is in fact a tool for LGBT activists who “are going around you to get to your children.”

Nance insists that GLSEN is “working tirelessly to infiltrate schools and influence children across the country” and “taunting and bullying kids in public school and shaming them regarding their religious beliefs that favor traditional marriage.”

What if I told you that pro-lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) activists are working tirelessly to infiltrate schools and influence children across the country? What if I said activists were taunting and bullying kids in public school and shaming them regarding their religious beliefs that favor traditional marriage? Most parents do not want to hear this, but it is a reality they must face. Gay activist are going around you to get to your children, and schools are complicit.

The “Day of Silence,” to be held next Friday, April 17, is part of that effort. It is a project of the radical Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which is the leading pro-LGBT national education organization working inside schools in all 50 states.

Here’s an idea: how about GLSEN doing an effort against bullying, period? We could all get behind that. I despise children being bullied for being “gay” just as much as for being obese or for being from another country, or simply being different or for whatever reason. How about we teach our kids, “Be ye kind one to another.”

But these activists are not interested in stopping bullying — they actually want to bully anyone who dares oppose their opinion, as we have seen. The Day of Silence is an opportunity to make sure any other view is completely silenced.

They would use different language, to be sure. They would say they are combating “homophobia.” But they consider traditional Christian teaching to be homophobic, and, therefore, if your child is a Christian, they will be under enormous pressure to ignore their faith in this area or risk intense ridicule and contempt (or, dare we say, hatred).

The most dangerous thing about all this is that schools are complicit in disallowing debate. This is why no parent will be notified of this day or most other pro-LGBT activities in advance. The educational institutions are so politicized that they will and must abide by political correctness at all times.

That is one of the many reasons why parents must stay informed and involved in their children’s education. There is an effort to combat the Day of Silence called the “‘Day of Silence’ Walk Out” where parents are encouraged to keep their children home. Most parents don’t know about it, so we must spread the word. Only by staying involved will we be able to combat these efforts and train our kids to navigate the turbulent waters of today’s increasingly secularized, hostile culture.

Ben Carson: We Need Guns To Fight Terrorists Since Obama Won't

Likely GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson told the NRA’s annual meeting today that Americans need guns more than ever since the southern border has been exposed to infiltration from “radical extremist Islamic terrorists” whom President Obama doesn’t intend to fight.

“When they get here,” Carson said, “we need to be able to fight them, particularly if we have an administration that won’t fight them, we need to be able to fight them ourselves.”

He added that guns are necessary for people to “defend themselves against an overly aggressive government that wanted to exact tyranny in this country.”

NRA Speaker Proposes Adding Semi-Automatic Rifle To US Seal

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, an emerging conservative folk hero, got a speaking slot at today’s NRA convention, which he used to rile up the crowd by suggesting that the arrows in the talons of the eagle on the Great Seal of the United States be replaced with a semi-automatic rifle.

Referring to President Obama’s 2008 campaign remark about voters who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them,” Clarke said, “Now let me say this about being one of those ‘bitter clingers.’ There is nothing else I would rather hold in my hand when fighting government tyranny than a Bible in my left hand that I use to swear to uphold the Constitution, and in my right hand a Winchester rifle, a symbol of freedom and liberty in the United States of America."

"In fact," he continued, "I propose that we change the Great Seal of the United States, you know the one with the American bald eagle holding an olive branch in one claw and arrows in the other. We should take those arrows out of the eagle’s claws and replace them with a semi-automatic rifle, preferably one that shoots M-855 ammunition.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms dropped a proposed ban on M-855 armor-piercing ammunition last month after an outcry from gun advocates.

Donald Trump Would Have Negotiated A Great Iran Deal Because He Wrote 'The Art Of The Deal'

Donald Trump told Iowa radio host Simon Conway yesterday that while NBC wants him back for more seasons of “The Apprentice,” he is too busy to film the show because “the country’s going to hell” and “we have an incompetent president.”

Continuing to pretend that he is running for president, Trump took on President Obama’s negotiations with Iran, which he insisted he would have been able to handle better because he wrote “the biggest-selling business book of all time,” his get-rich guide “The Art of the Deal.”

“The deal is terrible, it’s going to lead to nuclear all over the place and everyone’s going to want to have it and it’s a disaster for Israel, I can tell you, it’s a disaster for this country,” he said. “And they just don’t know what they’re doing.”

Jindal: Indiana And Arkansas Controversies Were A 'Dangerous' 'Attack On Our Constitution'

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal continued to try out his anti-big business, populist talking points in speech to the National Rifle Association’s convention today, telling the big-spending political group that is funded by the gun industry that Republicans need to “be ready to stand up to big business.”

He was talking, of course, about the recent decisions of lawmakers in Indiana and Arkansas to soften measures sanctioning discrimination under the guise of “religious liberty” – decisions that were made under pressure from corporations wary of doing business in states seen as hostile to LGBT people.

Jindal called the Indiana and Arkansas decisions “very, very dangerous,” saying that “Hollywood liberals and editorial columnists” and “some of the biggest corporations in our country…came together to bully the elected representatives of the people.”

“This wasn’t just a matter of competing policy preferences,” he said. “This was different. This was an attack on our Constitution. It was an attack on the fundamental right to speech and association and the free exercise of religion. It was large corporations, Hollywood and the media elite saying, ‘We don’t care about the First Amendment.’”

“If these large forces, if they can conspire to crush the First Amendment, it won’t be long before they conspire to crush the Second Amendment,” he told the crowd.

“This 2016 election will be an election between elitist and populism. Hillary Clinton will be on the side of elitism, we need to be on the side of the people and their First and Second Amendment rights,” he said.

NRA's LaPierre: 'Hillary Rodham Clinton Will Bring A Permanent Darkness Of Deceit And Despair'

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre dedicated his speech today at the group’s annual meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, to attacking Hillary Clinton, at one point even resorting to listing a series of “gate” scandals attributed to her and her husband, including “Vince Foster Gate” and “White House Coffee Gate.”

“Hillary Clinton has more ‘gates’ than a South Texas cattle ranch,” LaPierre said. “And Americans know it.”

Later, he warned that “Hillary Rodham Clinton will bring a permanent darkness of deceit and despair, forced upon the American people to endure.”

FRC Spokesman: Homosexuality A Result Of Sexual Abuse, Can Be 'Overcome'

Family Research Council spokesman Peter Sprigg defended sexual orientation conversion therapy yesterday by insisting that homosexuality is the result of “developmental issues in childhood and adolescence” such as “sexual abuse” and “poor bonding with a same-sex parent or peers.”

Sprigg told his FRC colleague Craig James, who was guest hosting the group’s “Washington Watch” radio program, that “while same-sex attractions are not a sin, they are a temptation to sin and same-sex sexual conduct, homosexual conduct, is the sin.” Sprigg, upset with President Obama’s recent statement condemning the pseudo-scientific therapy, which has been discredited by major medical and social worker groups, insisted that gay people can “overcome their sinful temptations.”

He dismissed “this idea that these therapists are forcing change on people who are perfectly happy to be gay” as “just a fantasy,” claiming that the therapy benefits even reluctant clients since it helps them “with underlying issues, with their depression, with their relationship issues.”

“And what they sometimes find is if the underlying psychological problems are addressed, the same-sex attractions actually begin to go away,” he said.

James agreed, complaining that Americans are “being forced to accept” bans on “conversion therapy” when in reality “many” have “chosen a heterosexual lifestyle.”

Right-Wing Activist: No Government Aid For Single Moms Who Cohabitate

Mike McManus, a Religious Right activist and founder of the group Marriage Savers, appeared on the Family Research Council’s show “Washington Watch” yesterday to share with guest host Craig James his plan to increase the country’s marriage rate.

McManus told James that the government should simply tell single mothers who cohabitate with a partner that they will lose government support if they don’t get married. “Uncle Sugar” should cut women off, he said, unless they get married, in which case they will continue to receive benefits for at least two years.

When James asked why politicians aren’t taking up his proposal and are instead focusing on issues such as same-sex marriage, McManus said that gay people are a small segment of the population who don’t even want to be married.

“One point seven percent of Americans are gay or lesbian, and we just can’t be intimidated by this tiny percent,” McManus said. “It’s a tiny fraction of gays who want to marry in the first place, so why are we intimidated by this? We need to simply stop arguing with these gays and simply focus on what can we do to strengthen traditional marriage.”

The 5 Worst Arguments Against Marriage Equality At The Supreme Court

In the weeks leading up to oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges, a collection of marriage equality cases being heard at the Supreme Court this month, groups on both sides of the issue have been flooding the Court with amicus briefs.

These have inevitably included some very bad arguments from lawyers arguing on behalf of anti-LGBT groups. Here are five of the worst:

5. Gays Need ‘Tough Love,’ Like Smokers Or Drug Abusers

Mike Huckabee Policy Solutions (which identifies itself as a group “backed by private citizens and organizations who support the national policy aims of Mike Huckabee”) and anti-gay “statistician” Paul Cameron’s Family Research Institute tell the Justices that “[h]omosexuality and same-sex marriage are tied to early death” and thus gay people, much like drug abusers, need “tough love” instead of marriage rights.

As with smoking or drug abuse, it would be neither compassionate nor kind to normalize and encourage a known and significant public health risk such as homosexuality. Heightened early mortality risk suggests that homosexual practice (whether in casual or long-term unions) is self-injurious and therefore would put undue financial, emotional, and health burdens on survivors, especially children, as well as society, pursuant to any normalization of same-sex marriage by decree of this Court.

Just as in the cases of drug abusers or suicidal individuals, it would not be compassionate nor kind of this Court to attempt to further normalize and encourage known and significant public health risks represented by LGBT lifestyles and unions. Thus, the expansion of LGBT activity by decree of this Court is likely to proliferate undue financial, emotional, and health burdens upon survivors, especially children, and upon wider society as well. Far from “hateful,” the amici curiae herein hold that deference to the States in the regulation of lawful marriage, as well as federalist restraint and humility by this Court, would represent an act of love. “Tough love,” perhaps, but love nonetheless.

4. Marriage Equality Will Lead To Civil War

While the Texas chapter of Eagle Forum, in a brief written by Phyllis Schlafly’s son Andrew, never exactly says in its Supreme Court brief that a broad ruling in favor of marriage equality would lead to civil war, it does draw an awful lot of parallels between the effects of Obergefell and those of the infamous pre-Civil War Dred Scott case.

The Texas Eagle Forum brief warns of “a badly fractious effect” if the Court declares that “the Bible is wrong about marriage,” drawing out “regional differences” similar to the regional divide over slavery before the Civil War. The group warns that, like Dred Scott, “any ruling by the Court that imposes homosexual marriage on Texas and every corner of the United States would cause vastly more conflict, along regional lines.”

In 1857, as now, there were sharp regional differences over a fundamental social issue. But rather than allow Congress to sort the disputes out, the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds and attempted to dictate one solution nationwide about slavery. That poured fuel on the fire, as history teaches. Likewise, any ruling by the Court here that attempts to establish homosexual marriage for every region of our country, thereby declaring that the local voters are wrong, their political leaders are wrong, and the Bible is wrong about marriage, will have a badly fractious effect.

The disunity will greatly worsen if the Court rules that Texas and other southern states must begin performing homosexual marriage. Far from unifying the Nation, as some argue, such a Court ruling would have a divisive effect similar to that of the Dred Scott decision. The Dred Scott Court felt that by imposing its view of slavery on the entire Nation, the Court was resolving the conflict. In fact, of course, the decision made the conflict far worse. Likewise, any ruling by the Court that imposes homosexual marriage on Texas and every corner of the United States would cause vastly more conflict, along regional lines.

Texas Eagle Forum specifically argues that the supposedly unbiblical nature of same-sex marriage would “be disastrous for the unity of our Nation” because the Bible is “the strongest link that holds our society together.”

The Bible is perhaps the most unifying force of our Nation.

A Supreme Court ruling that endorses homosexual marriage would directly conflict with clear teachings in both the Old and New Testaments. See, e.g., Genesis 2:24 (“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”) and Mark 10:6-8 (“But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’”) (ESV). In essence, the Court would be rejecting the Bible as false, and by implication perhaps even disparaging the Bible as hate speech. Whether the large percentage of Americans who respect the Bible would be persuaded by such a ruling remains to be seen. But if they are persuaded, then the results would be disastrous for the unity of our Nation, because it would weaken the strongest link that holds our society together.

3. Marriage Equality Is Bad For Gay People’s Kids Because Right Wing Watch Criticized Robert Oscar Lopez

There was a big splash in the right-wing media when four adults who were raised for at least part of their lives by same-sex couples, most prominently activist Robert Oscar Lopez, submitted an amicus brief against marriage equality.

Lopez cites one flawed study about same-sex parenting and uses it as a jumping-off point for discussing what he speculates is a trend toward things getting “harder, not easier” for children raised by same-sex couples as “gay marriage has become a broader and more accepted phenomenon."

It has gotten harder, not easier, for COGs [Children of Gays], to the extent that gay marriage has become a broader and more accepted phenomenon. The younger generation of COGs has lived with an enormous amount of surveillance and speech policing by people interested in ensuring that they say nothing to undermine the social prestige of their gay guardians. The younger generation of COGs seems to feel more uprooted from the missing half of their ancestry and more fearful of defying the authority of gay stepparent figures whom they still tend to view as stepparents even if they are fond of them.

COGs are now treated with less dignity, more suspicion, fewer protections and heightened discrimination/harassment/retaliation than they saw before same-sex marriage achieved a level of national success. All of this is emanating from within the gay community, enabled by complacent groups such as COLAGE and emboldened by the gay-marriage equality movement. Put simply, the situation for COGs has worsened as their numbers have multiplied.

Lopez’s main piece of evidence for the “heightened discrimination/harrassment/retaliation” being directed at the children of gay parents since those parents began to gain marriage rights seems to be his own experience being criticized by blogs, including Right Wing Watch, which he details at great length in a separate section of the brief.

2. It’s Okay To Discriminate Against Women, So Why Not Gays?

Mark Joseph Stern at Slate flagged a brief submitted by the state of South Carolina which illustrates at length the concern that the drafters of the 14th Amendment had about it granting rights to women. Since the state at the time sought to discriminate against women, the brief argues, then it is absurd to apply the amendment’s protections to gay and lesbian people who want to get married.

Here’s a representative paragraph:

Nor did the framers and their contemporaries conceive that the definition of marriage consisted of anything other than the union between man and woman. Indeed, the framers insisted upon leaving untouched those state laws depriving women of basic rights upon marriage to a man. Surely then, those state laws exclusively defining marriage as between a man and woman were hands off under the Amendment’s original meaning.

Representatives from the South Carolina solicitor general’s and attorney general’s offices followed up with Stern to clarify that “that their state does not wish to implement the sexist laws outlined in its brief—though it could if it wanted to.”

1. Marriage Equality Will Cause God To Destroy America

Really any constitutional argument you can come up with becomes irrelevant if we are threatened with God’s judgement on America. A coalition of right-wing groups (two of which have close ties with Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore), pulled out that trump card in a brief in which they warn the Justices that should they “require the States and the People to ‘ritualize’ sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the Nation.”

The groups, including Public Advocate of the United States and the Institute on the Constitution (run by longtime Moore funder and Maryland GOP official Michael Peroutka) and assisted by former Moore collaborator Herb Titus, assure the Justices that the warnings of Leviticus are still very much in effect:

Should the Court require the States and the People to “ritualize” sodomite behavior by government issuance of a state marriage license, it could bring God’s judgment on the Nation. Holy Scripture attests that homosexual behavior and other sexual perversions violate the law of the land, and when the land is “defiled,” the people have been cast out of their homes. See Leviticus 18:22, 24-30. Although some would assert that these rules apply only to the theocracy of ancient Israel, the Apostle Peter rejects that view: “For if God ... turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” 2 Peter 2:4-6. The continuing application of this Levitical prohibition is confirmed by the Book of Jude: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering 1 Kings 14:24. 41 the vengeance of eternal fire.”

Maryland Passes Bill Bolstering Voting Rights for Formerly Incarcerated People

Today the Maryland legislature passed a bill that would allow people to regain the right to vote as soon as they are released from prison. The legislation rights a wrong in current Maryland law, which denies people voting rights until their entire sentence has been completed, including probation and parole. Without this bill, thousands of formerly incarcerated Marylanders — many of whom are people of color — will continue to be needlessly forced to stay home on Election Day.

PFAW activists in Maryland and members of PFAW’s African American Ministers In Action have been working with allies to help change this, calling their state representatives and urging them to support the immediate restoration of voting rights.

Disenfranchising those who have served their time in prison hampers the process of reintegration and shamefully blocks thousands of Americans from participating in elections. It worsens the discrimination already faced by formerly incarcerated people — who pay taxes, work, and contribute to their communities — and it weakens our democracy.

Passage of this bill is a big step forward in the movement for voting rights for all. Now it’s up to Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan to sign it and help make the state’s democratic process as fair and accessible as possible.
 

PFAW

Jindal: Hollywood And Corporations Teaming Up To 'Assault' Christians

The main theme at an Iowa homeschooling event yesterday attended by four potential GOP presidential candidates was what Sen. Ted Cruz called the gay “jihad” against religious liberty in the form of nondiscrimination laws.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal attempted to add a populist bent to his remarks on the topic — an increasingly popular strategy among LGBT rights opponents — by declaring that “an alliance of Hollywood elites and corporate America” are “assaulting the rights of Christians” by opposing measures like those in Indiana and Arkansas that would have given broad leeway to business owners to discriminate against LGBT customers.

“We need to remind these elites, America did not create religious liberty, religious liberty created the United States of America,” he told the enthusiastic crowd.

Did The Pentagon Gay-Bomb America?

Yesterday on “Washington Watch,” the Family Research Council’s Craig James fielded a call from a listener who wondered if the Pentagon had secretly used a “gay bomb” on America, leading to a rise in the number of openly gay people in the country today.

The caller noted that his theory — loosely based on an actual 1994 proposal floated by Air Force scientists for a “hormone bomb” that could “turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting” — sounded “off in left field.” But he just had to ask if “some of those same techniques got used on the American people.”

James said he never heard of the “gay bomb” and agreed that it’s “out there for sure,” hastening to add that he believes the real reason America is even debating topics like homosexuality is because “we’ve moved away from God’s word in the Bible.”  

Alan Keyes: Obama Wants Nuclear War To Obtain A Third Term

In a WorldNetDaily column titled “Is Iran Deal Part Of Obama-3rd-Term Scheme?,” conservative activist Alan Keyes writes today that President Obama has made a secret deal with Iran that allows the country to “unleash nuclear destruction” since it would give him the justification to launch a Nazi-style “coup d’état” here at home.

Keyes, who was Obama’s GOP challenger in the 2004 U.S. Senate race in Illinois, alleges that Obama is aiding both ISIS and Iran in order to create an excuse to illegaly remain in power after his second term in office.

“What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?,” Keyes asks.

“Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States?”

A steady diet of meticulously depicted violence, served up in films and interactive video games, has probably brought some Americans to the point where they react to recorded images of beheadings and other mass atrocities from a place of emotional stupefaction. But if Americans want to think clearly about the Obama faction’s role in arming ISIS terror, or their treacherous deal with the moguls of Shiite terrorism in Iran, we must overcome this stupefaction.

The fact that Obama has come to terms with such masterminds of evil ought to produce the sort of revulsion that demands an emetic remedy, lest we die. So does the likelihood that Obama, Hilary [sic] Clinton and their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood had a hand in arming the malevolent Islamic State forces Obama’s de facto alliance with Iran now purports to fight.

The “experts” and pundits reacting with alarm to Obama’s apparently self-contradictory rapprochement with deadly evil speak of his ambition to secure a triumph for his foreign-policy legacy, or his failure to appreciate the real nature of the dangers involved in thinking that Iran can be safely installed as the stabilizing power in the Middle East. Most don’t even hint at what may be his most sinister aim, i.e., “to take America down.”

The Obama administration now appears to include people at the highest level disloyal enough to form a de facto alliance with America’s most outspoken and implacable enemies. They have agreed to look the other way while Iran finishes the work needed to construct weapons that put them in a position to force us to choose between complying with their agenda and unleashing nuclear destruction.

Who among us thinks that, like the generation fresh from the triumphs of the last World War, our current self-serving politicos have the experience, moral probity and courage to face that choice of evils? Who is honestly sure that they aren’t already preparing an exit strategy that leaves their own factional power intact, even if America is no longer free?

What if Obama isn’t looking to his “legacy”? What if the threat of nuclear devastation he helps to arm with this agreement (an America-hating Iran with nuclear bombs) is to be brandished, along with a related threat from ongoing terrorist uprisings on U.S. soil, to create the exigent circumstances needed to justify imposing martial law throughout the United States and a plausible excuse for demanding that Obama remain in office until the emergency passes?

There it is. The unthinkable scenario predicated upon the thought that Barack Obama and those who lifted him to power are precisely what they appear to be – the enemies of America’s power, its prosperity, its constitutional liberty, its moral strength, indeed of everything about America except their own boundless ambition. Why is it at all inconceivable that people willing to collude with and arm our boldest enemies may be doing so for the sake of their own power? Why should we be unwilling to ponder the possibility that the Obama faction has agreed to help Iran achieve hegemony in the Middle East in order to help themselves to dictatorial control over the United States? What certainty do we have that, in some secret, back-channel codicil, this agreement is not already in place?



You may believe a coup d’état “could never happen here.” But the danger we face is not some beer hall putsch. It’s is more like the consolidation of tyrannical power Hitler’s faction completed after he was appointed chancellor of Germany. But if such a denouement is already in view for the United States, isn’t it urgently necessary to begin doing what must be done to prevent its completion? As food for urgent thought, I will propose such a strategy in the next article to be published on my blog. Are you willing to think about it yet?

Ted Cruz: Gay Community Waging 'Jihad' Against Religious Freedom

During a presidential candidate forum hosted by an Iowa homeschool group yesterday, Ted Cruz lashed out at the gay community for waging a “jihad” against so-called religious freedom laws in states such as Arkansas and Indiana.

Cruz, speaking at a panel moderated by conservative talk show host Steve Deace, who regularly castigates the “Rainbow Jihad,” told the crowd of homeschooling activists that they should fear “the jihad that is being waged right now in Indiana and Arkansas, going after people of faith who respect the biblical teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.”

By condemning this gay “jihad,” Cruz said, he could “bring people together” to defend religious freedom.

Other likely candidates present at the forum included Gov. Bobby Jindal and past Iowa caucus victors former Gov. Mike Huckabee and former Sen. Rick Santorum.

Boycott Group Spokesman: Boycotts Are Economic Terrorism

The American Family Association has launched dozens upon dozens of boycotts and other forms of pressure campaigns, typically targeting a company or organization over its alleged support for the LGBT community or failure to use the word “Christmas” in its advertising.

The AFA has targeted Home DepotPetSmartTargetHoney MaidPlanet Fitness and Girl Scout cookiesamong many others. Most recently, the AFA launched a boycott of Angie’s List after the online consumer review company cancelled a planned expansion in Indianapolis in protest of Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law.

Of course, if a company criticizes Indiana’s “religious freedom” law, arguing that it will negatively impact its ability to hire and retain employees and undermines its values, in that case the company is committing “economic terrorism.”

At least according to Sandy Rios, the group’s director of governmental affairs, who on her radio program this morning heartily endorsed an email she received from a fan who said that businesses that came out against the Indiana law were using “economic terrorism.”

This is from Jim, this is good, he said: ‘I listen to you every morning and you get me motivated.’ And here he talks about, I think he is referring to what happened in Indiana, and he talks about the phrase ‘capitalistic-cronyism,’ but he said he thinks that what just happened in Indiana and probably Arkansas was economic terrorism. ‘These companies are using their financial clout to scare politicians into voting the way they want and to me that’s what terrorists do, and if I remember correctly the fundamental thought our representatives should act on is one should not negotiate with terrorists.’ That was excellent, Jim, excellent, excellent.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious