C4

Cuccinelli: McAuliffe is Waging 'The Real War on Women'…Because He Hasn't Commented on Mayor Three Time Zones Away

Last week, the Republican National Committee and the four national GOP campaign committees sent out a memo claiming that there is in fact a Democratic “war on women” being waged on two fronts: New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner’s sexting and San Diego mayor Bob Filner’s sexual harassment.

Claiming that “most Democrats said nothing” about the San Diego mayor’s serial sexual harassment and the former congressman’s serial sexting of strangers, the memo charges, “With their silence, they are sanctioning the actions of Bob Filner and Anthony Weiner and numerous others who have assaulted, harassed, and preyed on women.”

Now, Virginia attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli has picked up on the theme, sending out a fund raising email with a graphic connecting Cuccinelli’s Democratic opponent Terry McAuliffe and President Obama with Weiner and Filner.

“By not condemning Weiner and Filner’s unacceptable behavior towards women, leaders like Obama and McAuliffe are signaling to our young people that it’s okay for powerful American leaders to harass, humiliate and assault women,” the email reads.

As many commentators have noted, the GOP’s new attempt to turn the tables on the War on Women isn’t exactly convincing, especially coming from the party of trans-vaginal ultrasounds and “legitimate rape.”

But the argument is almost comical coming from Cuccinelli, who has one of the most extreme records in the country when it comes to women’s health and women’s rights. This is a candidate who:

Yet, Terry McAuliffe is waging “the real war on women” because of the actions of a man he’s never met who lives on the opposite side of the country.

Boykin and Starnes Doubt Terror Alerts are Genuine & Suggest Warnings are Ploy to Downplay 'Scandals'

While speaking with American Family Association talk show host Sandy Rios, Fox News commentator Todd Starnes and Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin floated the conspiracy theory that new security warnings might be a political ploy to distract from the “scandals” under President Obama.

Neither Boykin nor Starnes had any evidence to back up their claim. In fact, the last time such a move occurred was under Republican leadership: during the Bush administration, former Department of Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge revealed that he faced pressure from top officials to raise the terror alert during the 2004 campaign for political purposes.

Rios asked Boykin if the threats were genuine or “a way of covering for the scandals that are going on?” Boyin said that “both” of her claims are true.

He claimed Obama dismissed warnings about Al Qaeda’s work with other terrorist organizations, “the network is growing and the threat is very serious so that’s not what the administration has been telling us.” However, Obama actually made the point in May that Al Qaeda has become “more diffuse” and working in “regionalized networks”.

After distorting Obama’s views, Boykin went on to claim the alerts are an attempt to “deflect” attention from the administration’s “scandals”: “I think you’re absolutely right, I think there are so many things that are occurring today that are embarrassing for the administration, that are causing people to start to wake up and take a look at what the administration is doing and I think this is a way of deflecting attention away from all these other scandals.”

Not to be outdone, Starnes said that the warnings could be a “false flag” and asked, “I mean, is the entire planet endanger? Because they’re putting the entire world on this alert. Unfortunately in this administration it’s like the principle of the little boy who cried wolf, we just don’t know when to believe this administration.”

NRLC Punishes Chapter Over Gay Marriage Stance

The National Right to Life Committee has cut ties with its Cleveland chapter after the local group announced that it would oppose Ohio Sen. Rob Portman’s re-election because of his support for marriage equality.

NRLC president Carol Tobias told [PDF] the Cleveland Right to Life that its “public criticisms of and implicit political threats against a U.S. Senator who has supported the right-to-life position” over “a non-right-to-life issue” has “violated National Right to Life policy, causing the chapter to disaffiliate itself from the NRLC.”

“We respectfully insist that you remove from your website the claim that you are affiliated with NRLC,” Tobias writes.

The Cleveland group blamed the disaffiliation on “coordination” between the national group and Sen. Portman’s office and reiterated that “any politician, including Portman, who supports the break-up of the American family and supports the denial of a mother and father for children has forfeited the right of support and endorsement of the prolife movement.”

Seeing that Portman became persona non grata among Religious Right organizations after he endorsed marriage equality, NRLC’s decision to stick by him is likely to provoke the ire of other anti-choice groups that are more vocal opponents of same-sex marriage.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine: 'We Would Be Heroes' for Shutting Down Government to Defund Obamacare

Even though only thirty-four percent of Americans want to repeal health care reform (and even fewer support shutting down the government in order to do so), Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) confidently predicted that Americans — Republican and Democrat alike — will treat GOP members of Congress as “heroes” is they shut down the government over Obamacare funding.

“We would be heroes,” Bridenstine said while speaking with Family Research Council head Tony Perkins, “you know somebody was showing me polling about government shutdown this and government shutdown that, we don’t want to shut down the government, we want to fund the government, we just want to have a limitation amendment that defunds Obamacare.”

The congressman’s remarks echoed those of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who believes that President Obama is actually the one threatening a government shut down because he won’t bend to his demands to defund the health care law.

Bridenstine added that Obama should be grateful that Republicans would support any resolution funding the government at all: “Look, we’re willing to reluctantly fund all of the rest of the government; all we’re asking for is this one item.”

Revisiting McConnell’s Obstruction and the 2014 Kentucky Senate Race

The 2014 elections are quickly heating up in Kentucky. Two weeks ago, Tea Party candidate Matt Bevin announced his plans to challenge Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Republican primary, setting off a round of vicious attack ads from McConnell’s campaign almost instantly.  Even more troublesome for McConnell though than Bevin’s primary challenge is the prospect of a general election fight with Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes, who announced her candidacy in early July and who is expected to coast through the Democratic primary.  According to a poll released on July 31st, Grimes is leading McConnell by 2% in a potential head to head race, and is polling 15% higher amongst those who have heard of both candidates – McConnell, a longstanding incumbent, currently enjoys substantially higher name recognition.

Although Grimes and Bevin are polar opposites on the political spectrum, they both are in agreement on one thing: Senator Mitch McConnell is vulnerable.  Polling data released in April revealed that a full 54% of Kentuckians disapprove of McConnell’s job performance in the Senate, while only 36% approve.

Such numbers should not come as a surprise to any casual observer of the Senate.  McConnell is the king of gridlock, and has become the personification of DC dysfunction.  Kentuckians, like the rest of the country, have grown understandably fed up with his tactics.

Earlier this year, Public Campaign Action Fund explored McConnell’s obstruction in a report entitled, “Cashing in on Obstruction: How Mitch McConnell’s Abuse of the Filibuster and Other Senate Rules Benefits His Big Money Donors.” Among other findings, the report revealed that McConnell’s repeated and unprecedented use of the filibuster has benefitted the interests of his campaign backers.  The report’s case studies were particularly instructive.

In March of 2012, on the very day debate began on a bill that would have repealed Big Oil subsidies, McConnell received an astonishing $131,500 in campaign contributions from Texan oil donors.  Three days later, the bill was blocked by a filibuster.

In April of 2009, the House passed the “Helping Families Save Their Homes Act,” a bill that included a provision that would have granted bankruptcy judges more flexibility to modify mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure, and that would have cost the country’s biggest banks billions of dollars in profits.  That provision failed to receive the necessary 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and didn’t make it into the Senate version of the bill.  Over the course of his career, McConnell has received $8.7 million in campaign contributions from Wall Street interests.

In 2010 and 2012, despite overwhelming public support for providing transparency in election spending, McConnell led the charge against the DISCLOSE acts, bills that would have closed current loopholes in federal election law and brought Citizens United-empowered “dark money” groups to light.  Those groups – 501c4 non-profits and 501c6 trade associations – spent at a 5:1 ratio in favor of Republicans like Senator McConnell over Democrats in the 2012 election cycle.

In March of 2010, John J. “Jack” McConnell (no relation) was nominated to the District Court of Rhode Island, after successfully litigating against asbestos, tobacco, and lead paint interests on behalf of consumers.  Jack McConnell faced substantial opposition from trade associations that represent those interests, like the Chamber of Commerce, and from Senator McConnell, who, after filibustering the nomination and delaying the vote so that it took a full 420 days to be confirmed, stated for the record he resented Jack McConnell’s “persistent hostility to American job creators.” Senator McConnell has received, it should be noted, $1.7 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry alone.

McConnell’s career campaign contributions by sector
Source: Public Campaign Action Fund

Yet beyond obstructing the governing process to the benefit of his campaign backers, Senator McConnell has also pursued obstruction for the sake of gridlock itself.  As People For the American Way continues to report , McConnell’s treatment of judicial nominees has been particularly abominable.  The obstruction of Jack McConnell, a district court nominee, was not an aberration; it was part of a strategy of judicial obstruction that, under McConnell’s continued abuse of Senate rules, has become standard practice.  During the eight years that President George W. Bush was in office, only one federal district court nomination was filibustered, requiring the majority to file a cloture petition; so far under President Obama, Republicans have forced Democrats into 20 such filings for district court nominees. 

There’s a price to pay for unremittingly representing corporate interests, and for being the leader of an assault on the Senate’s functionality.  And the American public, and the state of Kentucky, are well of aware of who’s to blame.

PFAW

Gay-Inclusive Curriculum Leads to Witchcraft, Child Molestation

Last week, Sandy Rios spoke to a South Carolina teacher named Ira Thomas who denounced the National Education Association’s gay-inclusive curriculum during the union’s Atlanta convention and even compared the curriculum to instructing children on how to use crack.

Thomas also spoke about his anti-gay activism to Linda Harvey, a harsh critic of the NEA, over the weekend and this time said that gay-inclusive curriculum will let people force “things on us in school that we don’t believe in from witchcraft to even the molestation from children.”

Later in the interview, Thomas likened the issue to the Penn State abuse scandal where “so many people knew what was going wrong but no one spoke out for whatever reason.”

Thomas: There was another item about showing a video and I can’t remember what video but it was something dealing with the gay and lesbian [sic], but after sitting through several of those I decided it was time to let the voice be heard instead of sitting by and saying nothing.

Harvey: So what did you eventually say?

Thomas: In short I told them as a person I do not have a right to discriminate, but by the same token they do not have a right to disseminate what I consider to be harmful material to children. I do not have a right to tell them what to choose but they also do not have a right to choose a curriculum for me that I feel is biblically wrong. It’s like with prayer, it’s not right for me to put my Christian beliefs on anybody, it is right for me to share the Gospel, but even Christ gave us the choice. If we’re going to go there then the next thing we know we’re going to have everybody forcing things on us in school that we don’t believe in from witchcraft to even the molestation from children.



Thomas: I don’t want to take this analogy too far but the best one I can think of is the incident that happened at Penn State. So many people knew what was going wrong but no one spoke out for whatever reason. Even with this, we can believe it in our heart but if we don’t ever speak out we are allowing things to go and to keep going on and on.

Apparently, Criticizing E.W. Jackson Is 'Attacking The Right to Free Speech'

While E.W. Jackson, the Virginia GOP nominee for lt. governor, is fine with leveling virulent attacks against Democrats and gays and lesbians, Jackson plays the victim the minute anyone criticizes him or simply quotes his derogatory statements verbatim.

On an interview with WLEE, he recently doubled down on his long held belief that the Democratic Party is an “anti-God” party. After even members of his own party distanced themselves from his remarks, the Republican leader is again crying persecution.

Jackson addressed the negative reaction to his statements while speaking with the Family Research Council’s Quena Gonzales and Josh Duggar , who told Jackson that the media is “attacking the right to free speech.”

“This is something that they do incessantly, unfortunately, because they have an agenda and that agenda means that spokespersons like me have to be destroyed, marginalized, basically gotten rid of in order for them to further that agenda,” Jackson replied. He stood by his remarks as “truthful,” but argued that they were not directed at Democrats as individuals but about the party in general.

Duggar: How has the media portrayed its liberal bias, twisting your words and attacking the right of free speech?

Jackson: This is something that they do incessantly, unfortunately, because they have an agenda and that agenda means that spokespersons like me have to be destroyed, marginalized, basically gotten rid of in order for them to further that agenda; so when you say something that’s truthful, they twist that and turn that into something mean or nasty or like it’s an attack. I never attacked Democrats and said if you’re a Democrat you’re not a Christian.



Gonzales: Can you quickly tell us what it is you actually said and how that was misconstrued?

Jackson: What I’ve actually said is, and look I’m hoping this will lead to reform in the Democratic Party, what I’ve said is that the Democratic Party based on their behavior at the convention, based upon their platform, supporting same-sex marriage, based on their radically, avidly pro-abortion platform, has become a party that is really antithetical to things that Bible-believing Christians hold dear.

Of course, last year Jackson similarly called the Democrats an “anti-God” party that is “no longer a party that any Christian can be associated with.”

“What people do is up to them but we can’t associate ourselves with something that seems to have clearly committed itself to evil and to that which is against the word of God,” he said at the time.

As I watched the Democrat Party [sic] continue to go down this road of moral relativism, cultural relativism, I think when it declared same-sex marriage to be an official part of its party platform I realized that they had really crossed the Rubicon, it was a step too far, it was clear they were going in an anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-life, anti-Israel direction and that this was no longer a party that any Christian could be associated with.



What people do is up to them but we can’t associate ourselves with something that seems to have clearly committed itself to evil and to that which is against the word of God. So how people interpret what they do, if they can’t vote for a Democrat, they can’t vote for this nominee, what they do from there is up to them.

Rep. Ted Yoho Rails Against Gay Marriage, Food Stamps and Terrorist Immigrants

At a town hall meeting earlier this month, after he announced he would back birther legislation and accused Obamacare of being racist against white people, Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL) went after gay marriage, immigration reform and food stamp funding. “I think it’s a sad state of affairs in America today that we as a society are so confused that we have to redefine what marriage is,” Yoho lamented. “It’s an institution that’s been around for thousands years and I feel like it’s ordained by God; are we that confused as a country that we have to start redefining these things?”

The congressman then moved on to food stamp funding, which the House GOP recently severed from the Farm Bill. Yolo said he doubted that around 50 million Americans face food insecurity, joking: “I think there’s 330 million people starving, at least three times a day, we call it breakfast, lunch and dinner.” He added that huge proposed cuts to food aid won’t impact anyone, telling the audience that “not one person would lose a calorie or crumb that deserves it.”

Yoho revealed that his family had used food stamps for about two months, but claimed that the cuts are necessary because it has become a “lifestyle” and that it is too easy to qualify for the program.

Yoho also expressed skepticism about new immigration reform efforts because he believes the Lebanese group Hezbollah is smuggling potential terrorists over the border: “I talked to a guy that works with Hezbollah, they call him the 007 of Hezbollah, they call him and find out he’s brought over 1,500 people here illegally that don’t like us, they want to blow us up.”

Rep. Ted Yoho Praises Birther Conspiracy, Calls Obamacare Racist Against White People

UPDATE: More of Yoho's far-right comments here.

Speaking at a town hall meeting earlier this month, Florida Republican congressman Ted Yoho promised that he would support possible birther legislation floated by Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX), telling the audience that after learning about a potential birther bill from Stockman while attending a Tea Party meeting, he called the congressman and agreed to back it.

In audio recorded by an audience member and posted on YouTube, Yoho can be heard telling the crowd that the issue of President Obama’s birth certificate was a “distraction” from topics like the national debt, he said he was hopeful that a birther investigation could bring down the whole government: “They said if it is true, it’s illegal, he shouldn’t be there and we can get rid of everything he’s done, and I said I agree with that.”

Yoho also seemed to embrace the right-wing claim that Obamacare is “racist” because it taxes tanning beds, explaining that if he goes tanning then he will be “disenfranchised because I got taxed because of the color of my skin.”

I had a little fun with [John] Boehner and told him about the sun tanning tax. He goes, ‘I didn’t know it was in there,’ and I said, ‘Yes, it’s a ten percent tax.’ He goes, ‘Well, that’s not that big of a deal.’ I said, ‘It’s a racist tax.’ He goes, ‘You know what, it is.’ I had an Indian doctor in our office the other day, very dark skin, with two non-dark skin people, and I asked this to him, I said, ‘Have you ever been to a tanning booth?’ and he goes, ‘No, no need.’ So therefore it’s a racist tax and I thought I might need to get to a sun tanning booth so I can come out and say I’ve been disenfranchised because I got taxed because of the color of my skin. As crazy as that sounds, that’s what the left does right. By God, if it works for them, it’ll work for us [inaudible].

Rios and Lutzer Link Homosexuality to Pedophilia, Crime and Cleveland Kidnapper Ariel Castro

American Family Association talk show host Sandy Rios chatted with prominent Chicago pastor Erwin Lutzer today about homosexuality and the unsuccessful same-sex marriage bill in Illinois. Lutzer said one reason he opposes marriage equality is because of Chicago’s crime rate: “We have such crime here in Chicago, young people being slaughtered every night, we wake up in the morning and there’s been another murder, another teenager has been killed. They said in the midst of a society that is so desperate and so high-crime ridden, do we really now need laid upon this the destruction of the family and the destruction of marriage?”

The two also reiterated their belief that it is wrong to allow same-sex couples to marry just because they love each other. Lutzer, responding to a pro-gay marriage Facebook message, claimed that even pedophiles believe that they “love” the children they abuse. Rios added that even Ariel Castro, the Cleveland man who kidnapped three women, claimed that he loved the women he held in captivity.

Swanson: Royal Baby Should Have Been Named 'Mohammad Elton John'

Yesterday, pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio used the opportunity of the birth of Prince George Alexander Louis to mock the supposed cultural decline of Western civilization.

Swanson joked that William and Catherine should have responded to the Muslim and gay-ification of the West by naming their son “Mohammad Elton John.” “Talking about the other queen,” Buehner added, which led to an intellectually stimulating debate over whether the baby was named after George Washington or King George III.

Anti-Muslim Activists Ask Government to Seize Tennessee Mosque

Conservative leaders from Herman Cain to Pat Robertson lauded anti-Muslim activists in Tennessee who tried to block the construction of a mosque in the city of Murfreesboro. Mosque opponents alleged that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (ICM) would aid terroristsestablish Sharia law and increase the Muslim population. With the help of Frank Gaffney, they argued that their push to stop construction of the mosque didn’t violate the First Amendment since Islam is not a religion.

Even after losing their lawsuit and the completion of construction, anti-Muslim activists are now asking the government to seize the year-old mosque.

The appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court to shut down and confiscate the mosque follows a rash of attacks and threats that have been directed at the ICM.

Bob Allen of the Associated Baptist Press reports that ICM opponents refer to the mosque as a threat to public safety:

Mosque opponents in Murfreesboro, Tenn., want the county to seize a newly constructed Islamic Center and turn it over to someone else.

J. Thomas Smith, an attorney for citizens asking the Tennessee Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision that allowed occupancy of the new 12,000-square-foot Islamic Center of Murfreesboro last November, told The Tennessean there would be several acceptable remedies should his clients prevail.

“I think the county would step in and have someone else take it over," Smith said.

An application for appeal filed July 29 asks the state’s high court to overrule a May 29 opinion of the Tennessee Court of Appeals that notice of the May 24, 2010, meeting of the Rutherford County Regional Planning Commission was adequate according to the state’s open meetings law.

That reversed a June 1, 2012, ruling by local Chancellor Robert Corlew III that The Murfreesboro Post, a free-distribution weekly newspaper that carried notice of the meeting in which the planning commission approved plans for the ICM to construct a mosque just outside the Murfreesboro city limits, did not meet the standard requiring that such legal ads be purchased in a newspaper with “general circulation.”

While the lawsuit’s main argument is that citizens were denied proper notice to voice their objections before the project’s approval, it also objects to Corlew’s refusal to allow the testimony by two expert witnesses called to testify about alleged “Sharia-Jihad” risks related to the Islamic congregation that had been meeting in a smaller facility within Murfreesboro for about 30 years.

“The issue of the risk to public safety from the Sharia/Jihad teaching and practices of a regional Islamic training center such as the ICM was the major factual issue dealt with by the Court in its November 2010 opinion,” the Supreme Court document says.

Corlew said testimony by former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney about “red flags of terrorism” connected to the mosque was inadmissible, because Islam is a religion and entitled to the same right to construct a building as a church.

...

A spokesperson for the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office said she was unaware of any criminal complaints against the new mosque.

Mosque members cannot say the same. Even before construction someone vandalized a sign at the future mosque site by spray painting it with the phrase "Not Welcome." A second sign vandalism occurred later, and finally somebody set fire to heavy construction equipment parked on the lot for site clearing.

In 2011, the Islamic Center received a bomb threat in a profanity-laced phone call threatening that a bomb would be placed in the facility on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In June, Javier Alan Corre of Corpus Christi, Texas, apologized to the imam and mosque leaders and pleaded guilty to a federal charge.

Corre, 25, said he had been drinking and wasn’t thinking clearly when he made the call, and that he understands that all Muslims are not terrorists.

Kris Kobach's Bold New Plan to Keep People From Voting

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has become a national figure by advising other states on how to implement anti-immigrant and voter suppression measures, has come up with a new creative way to make it harder for Kansans to vote: barring those who register to vote with a federal form from casting ballots in state elections.

Back in June, the Supreme Court struck down an Arizona elections law that required those registering to vote to show proof of citizenship beyond what is required by federal voter registration forms. In Kansas, Kobach has been struggling to deal with the implementation of a similar proof-of-citizenship law, which has left the voting status of at least 12,000 Kansans in limbo.

These voters, many of whom registered with the federal “motor voter” form at the DMV, were supposed to have their citizenship information automatically updated, a process that was delayed by a computer glitch. Kobach then suggested that these 12,000 voters be forced to cast provisional ballots – a suggestion that the state elections board rejected.

Now, the Lawrence Journal-World reports, Kobach has a new idea to deal with the problem that he created. The paper reports that Kobach is considering a plan to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision in the Arizona case by creating two classes of voters. Under this plan, those who register with a federal form would be allowed to vote only in federal elections until they produced the state-required citizenship documents. Those who meet the state registration requirements would then be allowed to vote in state-level elections.

In Kansas, a new state law requires proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Kobach, a Republican who pushed for that law, said he is considering a proposed rule change that would allow those who use the federal form to register to vote to be allowed to vote in federal elections, such as presidential and congressional contests. The federal voter registration form does not require proof of citizenship documents, but includes a signed sworn statement that the individual is a U.S. citizen.

But those people would not be allowed to vote in state elections, such as contests for governor, other statewide offices and the Legislature.

Those who register to vote by providing proof of citizenship will be able to vote in both federal and state elections under the proposal.

Voting rights advocates in the state are understandably skeptical:

Dolores Furtado, president of the League of Women Voters of Kansas, said she would strongly oppose such a plan.

"It won't work," Furtado said. "When we can't handle registrations, the process of applications and processing registrations, how are we going to separate ballots?" she said. "This is creating a problem. Whenever we make things complex, people shun away."

When the elections board rejected his provisional ballots plan, Kobach was taken aback, saying that those who register to vote with the motor voter form aren’t likely to vote anyway, so disenfranchising 12,000 of them wasn’t “a major problem.” That seems to be his justification for the two classes of voter plan as well.  According to the World-Journal, “Kobach said few Kansans register to vote using the federal form, so it shouldn't affect too many voters.”
 

Gun Owners of America Embraces Racist 'Black Hurricane Names' Meme

Earlier this week, the Congressional Black Caucus recommended that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee replace Janet Napolitano as the head of the Department of Homeland Security, so naturally the American Family Association’s One News Now turned to Gun Owners of America for comment.

Gun Owners of America is no fan of the DHS under Janet Napolitano – the group’s executive director, Larry Pratt, thinks the agency is raising a private army that will allow President Obama to overpower the US military.

But the group’s objections to Jackson Lee are unrelated. Seizing on a bizarre meme popular among Internet racists circa 2006, GOA spokesman Erich Pratt (Larry’s son), told One News Now that Jackson Lee thinks “one of the top pressing issues of our time ... is the group NOAA, which takes part in naming hurricanes. She thinks that they're racist because they don't use black-sounding names like ‘D’Shaun’ and ‘Keisha’ and ‘Jamal’ and names like that."

As Snopes explains, Jackson Lee did in fact express concern in a 2003 interview that “all racial groups should be represented” in NOAA’s hurricane names and hoped that the agency “would try to be inclusive of African American names.” Her comment then provoked a storm of anger among right-wingers including Rush Limbaugh and WorldNetDaily, which published a comment from a reader asking, “This is ridiculous. How about naming the storms after gang members, or infamous criminals?” It also spawned at least one horribly racist chain email.

And apparently the meme lives on, since Gun Owners of America – normally a leading light of racial reconciliation – is featuring it as its primary objection to a possible Jackson Lee nomination.

Erich Pratt, spokesman for Gun Owners of America (GOA), is not keen on the idea of the longtime representative heading up DHS.

"If Sheila Jackson Lee becomes the new Homeland Security director, I think it will make us all long for the days of Janet Napolitano, who was certainly one of our more inept directors,” he tells OneNewsNow. “... We don't think [she] is going to be any better. She's ‘F-minus’ rated from Gun Owners of America."

Pratt also fears Jackson Lee would politicize the DHS even more than did Napolitano.

"[Jackson Lee thinks] one of the top pressing issues of our time ... is the group NOAA, which takes part in naming hurricanes,” he explains. “She thinks that they're racist because they don't use black-sounding names like ‘D’Shaun’ and ‘Keisha’ and ‘Jamal’ and names like that."

Klingenschmitt: Gay Marriage Increases Inflation and Undermines National Security

When former chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt appeared on The David Pakman Show, he was unable to come up with a single way how the legalization of gay marriage in some states has had an impact on his marriage to his wife. Klingenschmitt yesterday emailed members of the Pray In Jesus Name Project to claim that he has actually found seven ways that marriage equality hurt his family.

The supposed harms of same-sex marriage on his family include that marriage equality “hurt our national security and therefore our family's safety by de-funding benefits given to straight couples or weapon systems and re-distributing those Pentagon dollars to gay ‘married’ couples,” “de-valued by inflation our dollars in our family’s bank accounts” and is “depriving us of a sacred worship space.”

Here are 7 ways the homosexualization of "marriage" has de-valued the traditional marriages of all Christian families, including my own:

1. It has made our traditional marriage less valuable in the eyes of the state.

2. It has forced Christian couples to pay more taxes to make up for the homosexual "bonus pay" now issued by as tax-benefits given to gay "married" couples.

3. It has de-valued by inflation our dollars in our family's bank accounts by increasing the national debt to pay for more government benefits for gay "married" couples, for which the Fed must print new dollars to pay such debt.

4. It has taken away the rights of Christian couples and Catholic charities to foster or adopt children in states like Massachusetts, as my friend Amy Contrada proves here.

5. It has hurt our national security and therefore our family's safety by de-funding benefits given to straight couples or weapon systems and re-distributing those Pentagon dollars to gay "married" couples.

6. It has hurt our ability to worship Almighty God in a Christian chapel building whose altar has been desecrated by homosexual "weddings" depriving us of a sacred worship space.

7. It has threatened our family's religious freedom in countless ways, as I explain here.

If I thought about it more, I'm sure I could develop a longer list. But the fact is, yes David, my own marriage has been adversely impacted (as I said twice on your show), and yet my love for my wife and my relationship with her remains faithful and unchanged.



I met several Congressmen last week in DC, and although they are discouraged, they are not ready to quit. But they must hear from us, that we still care about traditional marriage. Let's send Congress a message today. Demand a Constitutional Marriage Amendment.

Jesse Lee Peterson: Immigration Advocates 'Trying to Appease the Hispanics' With Citizenship 'They Don't Want'

The New American, the online outlet of the John Birch Society, published an interview yesterday between two prominent attendees of last month’s anti-immigrant rally in DC, Jesse Lee Peterson and Stephen Broden.

Peterson, who calls himself a “proud member” of the John Birch Society, told Broden that the American dream is “fading” because pro-immigration elected officials are “trying to stay in power, so they’re trying to appease the Hispanics.”

And anyways, Peterson argued, undocumented immigrants don’t even want citizenship. “I even personally know some illegal aliens who have been here for a long time, Hispanics, and they don’t want amnesty, because they’re saying, ‘Oh, it’s gonna mess with our jobs,’ you know, at the car wash and places like that,” he said.

“It’s not that they love the illegals, they’re bringing them in because they know that a lot of these people will become Democrats, and that’s going to give them a path to power.”

What immigration reform is, the two agreed, is a “malicious” attempt to put African Americans under government control.

“What we’re perhaps looking at is a deliberate attempt to put them on the government dole,” said Broden. Peterson agreed: “Yes, sir, it’s to put them on the government, because you hook them to the government, then you can control them.”
 

WND: 'BSA Is Conditioning Scouts to Become Little Soldiers for Socialism'

WorldNetDaily is angry that the Boy Scouts of America introduced a sustainability merit badge, with columnist Jane Chastain arguing that it is one of the horrible consequences of its decision to “admit openly gay youth.”

“Unfortunately, these innocent young boys are being indoctrinated into Agenda 21,” Chastain writes, “sustainability is the hammer the United Nations uses in an attempt to bring all the nations of the world into submission.”

She claims that the organization’s relationship with the World Organization of the Scout Movement and the BSA-affiliated Messengers of Peace will not only advance one-world government but also lead to “sexual activity” among scouts and socialist brainwashing.

“Attendees who are familiar with the goals of the WOSM and the programs of Agenda 21, however, are concerned that the BSA is conditioning Scouts to become little ‘soldiers for socialism’ and world peace,” Chastain writes.

When the Boy Scouts of America voted to admit openly gay youth, it was a sea-change for the organization, which since its inception had trained young boys to serve both God and country and to keep themselves “morally straight.” In other words, to abide by to the principles in His word.

Now that the big (G)od is gone and only a little (g)od who doesn’t demand anything is allowed, it is only a matter of time that “country” also will be invited to take a hike.

The 2013 Jamboree, which was just concluded at the Summit, the Scouts’ new 10,600 acre, half-billion dollar home in West Virginia, was a step toward that end.

The theme was “Go Big,” and indeed it was. One attendee pointed out that it was at least an hour’s walk to get anywhere, and there was no transportation, as there has been at past events, because the unofficial theme of this Jamboree was “sustainability.”

For the uninitiated, sustainability is the hammer the United Nations uses in an attempt to bring all the nations of the world into submission under a perfect “peaceful” one-world government controlled by the “enlightened.”



Unfortunately, these innocent young boys are being indoctrinated into Agenda 21 as they are now required to earn one of two badges: Environmental Science (boring) or the new and exciting Sustainability Badge, which was introduced at the Summit. To help them along this path, there was a Sustainability tent.



The Messengers of Peace originated with the U.N. and is used to focus attention on its work. This initiative was launched by the World Organization of the Scout Movement, which was widely promoted at the Summit along with the BSA’s co-ed Venture program. It appears, the BSA is now laying the groundwork to conform to the goals of the co-ed WOSM.

In many countries this includes co-ed tent assignments, with sexual activity viewed as a “right of passage.” It may not be officially sanctioned, but sex between tent-mates is not frowned upon if the hookups are between scouts near the same age.

All the kids at the Summit participated in a Messenger of Peace Day of Service, which on the surface appears laudable. Attendees who are familiar with the goals of the WOSM and the programs of Agenda 21, however, are concerned that the BSA is conditioning Scouts to become little “soldiers for socialism” and world peace.

There is a big difference between peace and freedom. If the goal is the former, then, over time, one can be conditioned to give up the latter.

Unfortunately, it appears that in the new BSA that is the goal.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious