C4

Liberty Counsel Fears Prom, Losing Freedom To Be Abstinent Before Marriage

As Valentine’s Day approaches, the conservative activists at Liberty Counsel are once again promoting the competing “Day of Purity,” an opportunity for those “who strive for sexual purity an opportunity to stand together in opposition to a culture of moral decline.”

Liberty Counsel’s previous attempt to make the Day of Purity cool for kids, a video featuring “Purity Bear,” has unfortunately been removed from YouTube following widespread Internet mockery (but can still be found on Vimeo).

Now, the group is trying to make abstinence-only-before-marriage hip by calling it the “politically incorrect” [PDF] thing to do. In a handout [PDF] about the event, Liberty Counsel even makes the absurd claim that supporters of abstinence before marriage are losing their “right to speak and be heard.”

Defending your rights and the rights of others to express their beliefs and act in accordance with those rights. There are those in today’s culture that are trying to silence those who believe that sex should be saved until marriage between a husband and a wife. They say they want tolerance and diversity, but what they really want is to silence anyone who believes in traditional values and traditional family. You have the right to speak and be heard. Be mature and speak out for what you know is right and true.

We are not exactly sure where it is now a criminal act to be abstinent or to encourage others to be abstinent.

Maybe in the same jurisdictions where Liberty Counsel attorney Matt Barber fears he may soon be forced to choose between participating in gay marriage and death.

Liberty Counsel has more fun tips for the Day of Purity, including a “True Friend” guide [PDF] that warns against maintaining friendships with people who do “not share the same value system.” The group also offers great some great prom theme ideas [PDF], such as “Chlamydia”:

…as well as some outdated MasterCard spoof ads:

Along with:

Pat Robertson Explains Divine Genocide

Genocide is okay if its purpose is to stop man-animal sex, Pat Robertson explained today on the 700 Club.

When a viewer asked the televangelist about Old Testament accounts “where God told his people to wipe out cities and take their lands,” noting that it “sounds like Islam to me,” Robertson responded that God was actually showing mercy on the annihilated peoples because otherwise they would pass their sinful ways onto their children and grandchildren.

Assuming you have a culture that has 1,000 really bad people in it — they’re murderers, they’re thieves, they’re rapists, they’re having incest, you name it they are doing everything horrible — now if they have children, what’s going to happen? Instead of having 1,000, you’ll have 3,000 or 4,000; then — nothing has changed them — then they’ll pass it on to the next generation and the next thing you know you’ve got 10,000 or 20,000 of them and if it keeps on going you’re going to have a million of them. So what’s the most merciful thing for a loving God to do? It’s to take the thousand and get rid of them. And that’s what He did.

“It sounds cruel but in the long run it’s more merciful,” he continued. “Further, He didn’t want his people to be contaminated by those people…. They had sex with animals, they had incest, they did all of these terrible things and they offered their children as sacrifices to their gods, it was horrible what they did.”

The 10 Worst Arguments In Eagle Forum's Anti-Immigrant Plan To Save The GOP

Phyllis Schlafly, one of the strongest proponents of the theory that the Republican Party can survive simply by solidifying its base of white voters, is out with a new report arguing that all the GOP needs to do to thrive is to cut legal immigration in half.

In the report, Eagle Forum argues that immigrants – particularly Latino and Asian-American immigrants -- are inherently “leftist,” drawn to “the left’s race-based grievance politics,” and reliant on the country’s “racial spoils system and a huge welfare state,” and so therefore legal immigration should be dramatically reduced in order to save the Republican Party.

The report backs Schlafly’s idea – echoed by groups such as the Center for Immigration Studies and activists such as Pat Buchanan – that the Republican Party shouldn’t bother trying to become “ welcoming and inclusive” (particularly through immigration reform) but instead stir up racial hostility in order to solidify its hold among white voters. Unsurprisingly, this theory was first laid out by a prominent white nationalist writer before it hit the big time.

Schlafly has never been very good at hiding partisan motivation for right-wing policy. Last year, for instance, she unabashedly admitted that the purpose of Voter ID laws is to decrease Democratic turnout.

We’ve collected ten of the worst arguments in Eagle Forum’s report, which we fully expect to see waved around by conservative lawmakers in the near future.

  1. Democrats promote immigration just to get votes. “Looking at the political motivation of the groups push­ing higher immigration and amnesty, it’s obvious that the Democrats promote large-scale immigration because it produces more Democratic votes. A recent Gallup poll found that ‘Hispanics in the United States identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party over the Republicans Party by about a two-to-one margin, regardless of whether they were U.S.-born.’ If the Republican Party is to remain a party that is conservative and nationally competitive, it must defeat amnesty and any proposed increases in legal immigration. Further, conservatives must work to signifi­cantly reduce the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country from the current level of 1.1 million a year.”
  2. Reducing legal immigration should be the #1 conservative issue. “ Each decade under current policy, about 11 million new legal immigrants arrive and become potential voters. If immigra­tion is not reduced, it will be virtually impossible for Republicans to remain nationally competitive as a conservative party. The key conclusion of the report is this: For conservatives, there is no issue more important than reducing the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year .”
  3. Immigrants “attracted” to “affirmative action and welfare” and “identity- and grievance-based politics.” “Most immigrants come from countries where the government plays a larger role in the economy and society. Their support for expansive government is reinforced by liberal elites in immigrant communities and the liberal urban areas in which so many settle. Further, immigrants’ liberalism often reflects self-interest, as many benefit from affirmative action and welfare. Unfortunately, some immigrants are also attracted to the Democratic Party’s support for identity- and grievance-based politics. In short, the factors contributing to immigrants’ liberalism are largely outside of the Republican Party’s control .”
  4. Anti-immigrant policies don’t hurt Republicans. “The idea that Republicans’ support for Proposition 187 two decades ago is what continues to cost the party [California] ig­nores the fact that voters in immigrant communities support Democrats because they largely agree with them on policies other than immigration ... The real problem is that immigration has created a far larger liberal electorate in California. If legal immigration is not reduced, the same thing will happen across the country .”
  5. Immigrants will turn America into New York and San Francisco . “These are two of the most intensely immigrant-settled cities in America — one-third of their residents are foreign-born. The governments of both cities are solidly left-wing, combining high taxes and oppressive business regulation with the Left’s cultural agenda and race-based grievance politics. The immigrants in both cities are quite different, with San Fran­cisco being predominately Asian while New York’s immigrants are very diverse, with Hispanics being the largest share. Yet, there has been no significant political pushback against liberal policies from immigrant voters in either city. In fact, Hispanics and Asians are part of the dominant Democratic coalition in both places. New York and San Francisco show how voters in immigrant communities can live with the most extreme manifestations of the Left’s social and economic agenda and remain enthusiastic Democrats.
  6. Immigrants are “alienated” by patriotism. “Yet the gap between naturalized citizens and native-born citizens on measures of attachment to the United States is so large that the authors of a Hudson report concluded that the nation’s ‘patriotic assimilation system’ is broken. These results matter politically because patriotism and American sovereignty are central to the conservative message, but such a message is meaningless to a significant share of immigrant voters, or even likely to alienate them .”
  7.  Immigrants encourage “ethnic separatism” and “grievance-based politics.” Putting aside the level of immigration, the rise of multicul­turalism and ethnic grievance-based politics makes the kind of assimilation that leads to voting Republican much more difficult. Unlike in the past, today’s immigrants are ar­riving in an America with a racial spoils system and a huge welfare state, which unfortunately many are dependent on. This new reality makes it much less likely that the children of today’s immigrants will come to identify with the small-government agenda of the Republican Party. Most principled Republicans rightly oppose such policies, but identity politics and all the policies that go with it are well established in modern America. Even if one optimisti­cally assumes that someday we will abandon such divisive policies, for the foreseeable future immigrants will continue to arrive in an America that encourages ethnic separatism and discourages assimilation. In fact, mass immigration provides one of the key underlying justifications used by liberal elites for continuing such policies. This fact makes lowering the level of new immigration all the more impor­tant.”
  8. Diversity is ruining America. “Finally, immigration increases support for big government by adding to society’s diversity. Robert Putnam of Harvard has shown that increased diversity results in less civic engagement and attachment. Putnam’s work shows that as diversity increases, people of all groups become less trusting of one another — even less trusting of members of their own group. He concludes that people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actu­ally make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” A society in which private citizens do less for themselves but want more from the government is tailor-made for Democrats. Federal immigration policy, if it is allowed to continue, will move America further in this direction. When private citizens do less for themselves or for others, the vacuum is filled by government. Yes, immigration adds many new Democratic voters. But it also makes the rest of the electorate more inclined to support the Democrats’ statist agenda."
  9. Descendants of European Catholic and Jewish immigrants aren't good for Republicans either. "It is also worth pointing out that many of the descendants of Great Wave immigrants still do not vote Republican, a cen­tury after many of their ancestors arrived. Looking at white non-Hispanic Catholics and Jews gives us some idea of how the descendants of these immigrants vote today. While Romney did better in 2012 than most recent Republicans with white Catholics, in both 2000 and 2008 only 52 percent voted for the Republican presidential candidate. Moreover, a majority of Jews have voted Democratic in every presi­dential election for which there is data, including 2012. The idea that the descendants of Great Wave immigrants eventually became solidly Republican is incorrect."
  10. Immigrants will take away your guns just by living in cities. One of the reasons whites have such a strong commitment to gun rights is the much larger share who own them. The reason for this is that a much larger share of whites live in rural America or have roots there and are thus familiar with firearms in a way that is less common among urbanites. Asians and Hispanics in contrast are set­tling in cities and the suburbs where hunting and gun ownership are much less widespread. And they are coming from countries where firearms ownership is highly restricted. It is unlikely in the extreme that Asians and Hispanics will ever have gun ownership rates approaching that of whites given where they are coming from and where they are settling. This fact means that immigration unavoidably increases the share of the electorate that has no experience with guns. As a result, immigrants and their children will tend to be much more supportive of efforts to limit or even ban gun ownership. As is the case with other issues, continued high levels of immigration have important implications for the future of public policy.

 

 

Rep. Jim Bridenstine Shrugs Off Questioner Who Called For Obama To Be Killed

At a breakfast event with the Tea Party organization Tulsa 9:12 Project last week, Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) saw no need to rebuke or even disagree with a questioner who said that President Obama should be executed.

“Obama, he’s not president, as far as I’m concerned, he should be executed as an enemy combatant,” the questioner said, before asking the congressman about “the Muslims that he is shipping into our country through pilots and commercial jets” (a claim based on a bizarre right-wing conspiracy theory).

“This guy is a criminal and nobody’s stopped him,” she declared.

Bridenstine didn’t respond to her call for the president’s execution, but agreed that Obama is “lawless” and said he rules “by decree” and through the United Nations.

Watch:

Former Komen Exec Karen Handel Fundraising Off Planned Parenthood Debacle

Remember two years ago when the Susan G. Komen For the Cure foundation abruptly dropped its grants to a Planned Parenthood breast-cancer screening program, setting off a national outcry, and prompting the resignation of the Komen official reportedly behind the decision?

The fallout of the debacle is still hurting Komen, which recently reported a 22 percent drop in income over the past year. But the decision to cut off grants to Planned Parenthood seems to be paying off for one person: Karen Handel, the former Komen vice president who was widelyreported to have been the driving force behind split.

Now running for Senate in Georgia, Handel has released a campaign video touting her role in severing Planned Parenthood from Komen and fighting back against the “left-wing groups” and “liberal media” that criticized her.

Back when the news first broke that Komen had dumped Planned Parenthood, Handel denied that the decision was motivated at all by her anti-choice politics, despite reports from sources in the organization that said she manipulated its rules to cast Planned Parenthood out.

The campaign video has a different take, framing Handel as an anti-choice crusader caught in a David vs. Goliath struggle. “As a strong believer in the sanctity of life, Karen Handel had to make a decision: keep quiet in the face of the liberal onslaught, or stand by her convictions,” the video announces.

In speeches and interviews, Handel has made the Planned Parenthood showdown a centerpiece of her biography. She even paved the way for her Senate run by releasing a book calling Planned Parenthood “thugs” and “bullies.”

Whatever Handel’s motivations or role in the Komen/Planned Parenthood split, the whole episode seems to be working out pretty well for her. The decision that Handel advocated for might have left Komen struggling financially, but Handel herself now has the perfect story to prove her status as an anti-choice activist martyred by the liberal media.

Inaction on Immigration Reform Leaves Families Hanging by a Thread

The following is a guest post by Cairo Mendes, a 2013 Fellow of affiliate People For the American Way Foundation’s Young People For (YP4) program.

When I came to the U.S. in 2002, I remember being told on the way home from the airport that I was undocumented. I was told that if anyone knew this, our whole family would be deported and we would lose out on the “American Dream.” That was over ten years ago, but as I write this I cannot help but hold back emotions – a mixture of anger, sadness, and confusion. I feel this way because ten years later, millions of people in our country – including my mother – continue to live in limbo, in the shadows. We continue to be treated as second class citizens.

When I recently received a call informing me that I would be covered under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) process, I was working at a factory, recycling wire. I remember the joy and relief I felt at that moment. For the first time I would be able to have a social security card and a work permit. I felt like maybe, just maybe, I too could be “normal” and get a driver’s license. Yet later that day, my happiness became bittersweet. My mom – my strong, heroic, single mother – would not be able to receive those same benefits. Still, when I got home later that day I realized how happy she was for me. It was then that I told her, looking straight into her eyes: “Mom, we will figure a way out of this. We will fight, we will march, and we will organize – we are going to figure out a way.”

When President Obama won reelection in 2012 after receiving 71 percent of the Latino vote (compared to Romney’s 27 percent), I felt for the first time that we were on the offensive. From the rhetoric coming from Washington to the energy within the immigrant rights movement in the weeks following the elections, immigration reform was finally a real possibility. But it has not been an easy road. Even though we were able to push the Senate to pass an immigration reform bill through our lobbying, organizing, and advocacy efforts, House leadership has – until very recently – been closed off to the calls for reforms, ignoring the cries of families throughout the country.

As a result, we ended 2013 with no bill delivered. The extreme right – small but loud faction of the Republican Party – managed to derail any efforts involving citizenship, and Speaker Boehner avoided putting the Senate bill up for a vote. His inaction could cost the Republican Party in the 2016 elections, since immigration reform is a top issue for Latino voters.

The Senate immigration reform bill is not perfect, but as families struggle to live day by day, comprehensive immigration reform is still a light at the end of the tunnel. It will make legalization – and hopefully citizenship – possible for many who have lived in the shadows until now, like my family.

This debate goes beyond stats about how many billions of dollars could be added to the economy as a result of reform. This is a moral issue. And it’s one that – if not resolved soon – will result in more deportations and more family separations that damage individual lives and diminish our country as a whole.

Because of Congress’ inaction, mothers and fathers are still being separated from their children and loved ones as 2014 begins.  We cannot wait – our communities need relief now.
 

PFAW

Agema: Stop 'Shoving This Idea Down Our Throat' Of The 'Homosexual Lifestyle'

If Dave Agema were to lose his post at the Republican National Committee over recent anti-gay and anti-Muslim comments, he could probably find a job at the American Family Association – a group that can’t seem to get enough of his bigoted remarks. After appearing on Focal Point with AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer, yesterday Agema spoke to the AFA’s governmental affairs director Sandy Rios on her talk show.

As Kyle has already pointed out, the embattled GOP activist holds a warped view of the First Amendment: “Agema, like so many anti-gay right-wing martyrs before him, seems to be operating under the delusion that ‘freedom of speech’ mean that they are entitled to say anything they want without receiving any criticism or suffering any consequence whatsoever.”

While speaking to Rios, Agema continued to insist that calls for him to resign from the RNC are direct attacks on his right to freedom of speech. He vowed not to resign, lest the culture keep “shoving this idea down our throat that we have to accept this homosexual lifestyle.”

When they use the rules of Saul Alinksy that basically you cut off support from your networks, isolate the person through cruel [sic] and ridicule and so forth, what happens is they fear. The biggest thing is right now we’ve got Hollywood, you’ve got the news media, you’ve got ignorant school courses, you’ve got the Grammys now that are shoving this idea down our throat that we have to accept this homosexual lifestyle.



The whole thing really boils down to the freedom of speech, I think that’s what is stopping me. I put it on my Facebook – an article on freedom of speech and how political correctness is taking away our freedom of speech and that is directed mostly by Hollywood and the news media are [sic] telling us what political correctness is and that’s I think what is really hurting this country.

Harvey: Homosexuality Is Just Like Anorexia

As Kyle noted earlier, Linda Harvey of Mission America joined the American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon and Ed Vitagliano today for a riveting discussion about homosexuality and Harvey’s new book, “Maybe He’s Not Gay: Another View on Homosexuality.”

But the informative conversation didn’t end with the anti-gay activists’ thoughts on “gaydar.” Later in the interview, they moved on discussing to how homosexuality is like anorexia, a theory that Harvey apparently lays out in her book.

Vitagliano agreed with Harvey’s assessment that just as anorexic people are “driven by an impulse not to eat” because they believe they are overweight, gay people are under the false impression that they are gay and so think they are attracted to people of the same sex. “It’s such a perfect and biblical view of a person who sees themselves as homosexual,” he said.

“Your body is made to eat, otherwise you will starve; with homosexuals, your body is not made for the kind of relations they have, it’s made for heterosexuality,” Harvey added later in the interview. “We’re basically all heterosexuals.”

She concluded that both people with eating disorders and gay people are “deluded” and on a path to “self-destruction.”

Paranoia-Rama: 'Homo-Hunting,' Progressive 'Kristallnacht,' & Beyoncé's Demons

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

Nazism has come to America, and its first victims will be Dinesh D’Souza, the super-rich and the people of Montana.. or so we are told in this week’s edition of Paranoia-Rama.

5. Beyoncé Is Possessed By Demons

Earlier this month, we learned that Beyoncé is somehow contributing to sex trafficking. But leave it to Bryan Fischer to inform us that Beyoncé is also under the control of demons, specifically a demon that goes by the name “Sasha Fierce.”

4. Obama Declares War On Montana

We already knew that the Environmental Protection Agency is behind a secret anti-gun plot, but now it turns out that the EPA is also attempting to “depopulate Montana” by “seizing millions of acres of land from their present American owners and transferring its ownership to their indigenous population in areas known as Indian Reservations.”

If Montanans don’t bow to the EPA and leave their state, we won’t be surprised if they end up in a FEMA coffin!

3. Gay Rights Advocates To Blame For Looming ‘Homo-Hunting’ Season

Far-right pundit Erik Rush predicts a coming wave of violent “homo-hunting” attacks on gay people, and the only people to blame are gay people themselves. Rush explains that gay rights advocates like Sally Kohn have so upset people with their “obnoxious” behavior and “anal fisting labs in grade school” that eventually people will react with violence against their gay neighbors.

2. Progressive Kristallnacht Against The 1% Is Imminent

The poor, persecuted, $380,000 watch-wearing 1% have finally found someone who will speak up for their historically underrepresented group, and that person is venture capitalist Tom Perkins. In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Perkins found “parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its ‘one percent,’ namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the ‘rich.’”

“Kristallnacht was unthinkable in 1930; is its descendant ‘progressive’ radicalism unthinkable now,” he concluded.

After offering a classic non-apology apology for the patently offensive letter, Perkins played the victim and naturally won support from Glenn BeckFox Business and the Wall Street Journal.

1. McDonnell and D’Souza Are Being Persecuted!

Conservatives from Matt Drudge to Ted Cruz suggest that politics is behind the prosecutions of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell, indicted for accepting illegal gifts, and conservative author Dinesh D’Souza, who has been indicted for making straw donations to failed Republican senate candidate and college pal Wendy Long.

Claims that the indictments were motivated by anti-GOP politics rather than actual evidence are so absurd that they sound as if they come from InfoWars host Alex Jones.

In fact, Jones offered his own commentary and agreed that the McDonnell’s and D’Souza’s legal troubles are signs of Obama’s “reign of terror.” “This is like Nazi Germany, this is what happens, this is how freedom fails,” Jones said.

Rubio Unconvincingly Explains Why He Blocked Openly Gay African-American Judicial Nominee

Earlier this month, the White House returned to the Senate 54 federal judicial nominees who Senate Republicans had refused to vote on in the previous year. But one nominee was conspicuously absent from that list: Judge William Thomas, a Florida state judge who had been nominated to sit on a federal trial court.

At first, Thomas’ nomination seemed like a slam dunk: He is an experienced, respected judge who was nominated in 2012 with the support of both of Florida’s senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Marco Rubio. He also would have been the first openly gay black man to sit on the federal bench.

Then, mysteriously, Rubio changed his mind. Taking advantage of a Senate Judiciary Committee policy that allows any senator to block a committee hearing on any nominee from his or her home state, Rubio unilaterally refused to allow a hearing on Thomas. For months, the senator refused to explain why he was blocking Thomas’ nomination, until finally this summer a spokesperson cited “questions about [the nominee’s] judicial temperament and his willingness to impose appropriate criminal sentences.”

Rubio’s office provided two examples of instances in which they believed that Thomas didn’t impose “appropriate criminal sentences.” In both cases, Thomas imposed the highest sentence sought by the prosecution; in both cases, prosecutors praised his handling of the trials. Rubio's staff also claimed that in one of those cases, a grisly murder trial, Thomas “broke down in tears” when sentencing the defendant to death; news reports make clear that the judge's tears came when he was describing the brutal crime. As Chris Hayes put it, none of these complaints “pass the smell test.”

Now, finally, Rubio himself has gone on the record for the first time about why he blocked Thomas’ nomination. In an interview with Michael Putney, political reporter for the Miami-area Local 10 news, Rubio, looking visibly uncomfortable, repeats his office’s talking points about the two criminal cases they allege Judge Thomas imposed insufficiently harsh sentences in. “We are looking for judges that can accurately apply the law, particularly at the federal level,” Rubio said, never quite explaining how Thomas failed to do that.

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

This isn’t the first time that Rubio has blocked a Florida judicial nominee for less than convincing reasons. Rubio similarly changed his mind about Florida nominee Brian Davis – who is also African-American – at the behest of Sen. Chuck Grassley . Under pressure from local activists, Rubio eventually changed his mind again and allowed Davis’ nomination to go forward.

As Hayes said, it seems like the most likely explanation is that Judge Thomas was merely an “innocent bystander” in Rubio’s desperate race to win back the right-wing support he lost during his short-lived advocacy for immigration reform – an effort that so far isn’t panning out so well.

Operation American Spring Organizers Joke About Putting Obama In Guantanamo Bay

 Last week, retired Col. Harry Riley was a guest on Patriot Nation with Mark Hoffman to talk about his upcoming rally, Operation American Spring. On May 16th, Riley and his supporters will head to Washington D.C. with hopes to oust President Obama.

Col. Riley, who claims he is modeling his movement on the Arab Spring, is confident that  between 10 to 20 million people will join him in camping out in front of the White House until President Obama resigns. Calling it a “movement to action,” Col. Riley told Hoffman that he is “expecting something to happen. We will demand something to happen!”

Towards the end of the interview, Riley mentioned that he believes President Obama will not even be at the White House when the “patriots” march in. “He always sneaks away,” Riley snickered. “Maybe we can move him over to Guantanamo.”

Garrow: Put Obama 'In Chains And Under Arrest'

Jim Garrow writes today that reports of a massive proficiency test cheating scandal in the Air Force’s nuclear weapons corps are just lies created by the Obama administration to cover up the president’s plan to nuke America.

According to the right-wing activist and serial fraudster, the media is refusing to report that three nuclear officers heroically stopped Obama from killing 90 percent of Americans with an EMP attack, which Obama ordered to help George Soros make money.

He adds that Obama also wanted to nuke the country in order to realize the goals of Agenda 21 — a non-binding document on sustainable development goals — because we all know how nuclear attacks are great for the environment.

“Hitler would be proud,” Garrow says of Obama. “Why is he still sitting in the Oval Office and not in chains and under arrest.”

Hiding Attempted Murder:

"I told you so", seems so trite when we face the illusion and dis-information of the Obama regime. No mention of the attempted destruction of America by the use of an EMP device? No mention of the heroes who refused to allow it to happen and took a bullet for us, that ended their careers. But we hear about the 2 Generals and an Admiral being relieved of duty for "moral pulchritude" and phony charges. When the first 34 officers who backed these 3 heroes up were dismissed, again we heard crickets about the truth. The Obama spin was repeated verbatim as if it were reality. And now the other 92 officers get shown the door.

Let me be clear. Obama in his unflappable attempt to become the dictator of all he surveys and to assure that the elite would survive after an attempt to make America "sustainable", is following the demand of the United Nations Agenda 21. This Nazi outrage outlines in it a recommended population control and depopulation of a majority of those alive today. Obama nearly killed an eventual 300 million Americans, as the experts tell us would die within two years in the aftermath of a successful EMP hit on America. 90% of America wiped out? Hitler would be proud of this kind of success.

The aim now is to shut down our missile defense. Close one door, Obama opens another. Why is he still sitting in the Oval Office and not in chains and under arrest?

Family Research Institute Applauds Uganda Anti-Gay Bill, Calls Homosexuality Worse Than Murder

Paul Cameron’s Family Research Institute is upset that Marvin Olasky of the Religious Right-aligned WORLD magazine dared to criticize Uganda’s draconian anti-gay bill, which recently passed parliament but has been blocked by the president, at least for now.

In a response on its website, Cameron’s group took issue with Olasky’s claim that the bill is “harsh and unlikely to be effective,” saying that harsh measures are needed to curb homosexuality…just like murder:

Laws against murder are harsh and unlikely to be effective (in completely stopping murder). But such laws educate as to what is ‘correct’ and serve as a disincentive to commit murder. Just because we cannot specify how many lives were saved by a particular law hardly means the law was ineffective. Surely the fact that people still commit murder, rape, or theft would not cause Dr. Olasky to label them as “ineffective” and not worth having.

The FRI said that gay people must be treated as lawbreakers as there is no difference between them and pedophiles.

“Dislike of homosexuality, general avoidance of those who practice it, and trying to keep our kids safe from gay predators are hardly ‘problems’ for Christians,” the group added. “How do we show ‘godly love and kindness toward active child molesters?’”

Cameron’s organization capped off its defense of the Uganda bill with this anti-gay rant:

Homosexual practitioners may get pleasure from indulging their sexual desires, but that is far outweighed by diseases leading to a shortened lifespan combined with interpersonal violence, instability, and a life of destructive meaninglessness. Additionally, they are a burden to us all in that they 1) consume more than they contribute, 2) disproportionately disturb social order, and 3) produce few children themselves while molesting the kids of others.

Homosexuality violates God’s first commandment to ‘be fruitful,’ and is at the very heart of Biblical denunciation of rebellion against God (see Deut 32 and Romans 1). Homosexual lust led to the painful incineration of 26 brave Ugandan Christian boys and young men. It cannot be ignored without substantial intellectual and moral peril. Arguably Christianity’s greatest preacher, John Chrysostom, called it the worst sin, worse even than murder. While every sin in Scripture is not to be carried into public law, if this sin is not, what would Olasky nominate and how would he justify it?

6 Things To Know About Potential Iowa Senate Candidate Bob Vander Plaats

Bob Vander Plaats, head of the right-wing group The Family Leader, told The Hill yesterday that he is still weighing a run for U.S. Senate in his home state of Iowa to replace retiring Democrat Tom Harkin.

We’re not entirely convinced that the Religious Right activist isn’t just putting his name out there to get attention – one Iowa GOP strategist said in 2010 that he had “never witnessed an ego the size and proportion of Bob Vander Plaats” – but he certainly has the connections to raise money and early polls show that he would at least be a contender for the Republican nomination.

Vander Plaats, who lost three consecutive gubernatorial elections in the last decade, is a small-time kingmaker for socially conservative national Republicans. Vander Plaats helped to spearhead Mike Huckabee’s and Rick Santorum’s presidential caucus victories in 2008 and 2012 and hosted a 2012 Republican candidates’ forum that attracted every major presidential candidate except for Mitt Romney.

His biggest political victory to date was in 2010 ,when he ran a successful recall campaign against three state supreme court justices who had ruled in favor of marriage equality the previous year. An attempt to oust another justice two years later was a bust.

Vander Plaats insists that he isn’t too extreme to win a general election in the swing state. “I don’t think I’m an extreme in America in regards to valuing human life, the foundation of family with one-man, one-woman marriage, and religious liberty,” he told The Hill.

We’ll believe that when we see it. Here are just six of the most extreme right-wing items on Vander Plaats’ resume:

1. Suggested African American Families Were Better Off Under Slavery

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Vander Plaats took advantage of Iowa’s outsized influence to convince Republican candidates to participate in a debate hosted by his group and to sign the group’s “Marriage Vow.”

The pledge — signed by Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry — suggested that African-American families were better off under slavery than in present day: “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

The language was eventually removed, but now Vander Plaats has moved on to comparing marriage equality to slavery and the Dred Scott ruling.

2. Favors Russia’s Anti-Gay Crackdown

After launching a campaign to encourage stronger conservative leadership, Vander Plaats hailed Russian president Vladimir Putin as a great leader for his criminalization of “homosexual propaganda.”

While Vander Plaats commends Putin’s anti-gay crackdown, the conservative crusader hasn’t mentioned if he thinks Putin’s bold leadership includes his suppression of dissent, human rights activism and religious freedom .

3. Uses Toxic Anti-Gay Rhetoric

Vander Plaats has likened homosexuality to second hand smoke, a point emphasized by a Family Leader seminar demonstrating that homosexuality, like smoking, represents a “public health crisis.” He defended the comparison, saying, “If we’re teaching the kids, ‘don’t smoke, because that’s a risky health style,’ the same can be true of the homosexual lifestyle.”

Vander Plaats has even linked homosexuality to the national debt and said that an anti-bullying youth conference dishonors God because it tackles the issue of the bullying of LGBT youth.

According to Vander Plaats, same-sex marriage is akin to polygamy and incest and any marriage equality law is unconstitutional because it “goes against the law of nature.”

4. Loves A Good ‘Faggot’ Joke

Exhibiting great leadership, Vander Plaats burst into laughter in response to a joke about “fags” marrying. When asked why a homophobic joke made him crack up, Vander Plaats explained he was merely trying to “love people” and “speak the truth in love.”

5. Wants to Outlaw Pornography

Vander Plaats wants to outlaw pornography, a principle which he attempted to have presidential candidates endorse in his 2012 “Marriage Vow.” In his 2006 gubernatorial campaign, Vander Plaats cited the work of prominent pornography-ban advocate Judith Reisman.

6. Promotes Birther Conspiracies

A big fan of Donald Trump’s “bold” birther crusade, Vander Plaats remains unconvinced that President Obama has a birth certificate proving his U.S. birth.

Tea Party Convention Speaker: Gun Laws Could Lead To American Genocide

In a speech at a South Carolina Tea Party convention earlier this month, gun activist Jan Morgan warned that tightening American gun laws could lead to genocide.

“Gun control has never been about guns. It’s about control,” said Morgan, who runs the group Armed American Woman. “In the twentieth century, folks, 170 million people have been annihilated by their own governments after being disarmed. So, don’t let anybody tell you that disarming America is going to make us a safer place.” The myth that gun control led to the genocides in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union has been thoroughly debunked.

Video: Brian Brown Says Anti-Gay Movement Represents 'True Civil Rights'

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown spoke Tuesday night at an anti-marriage equality rally at the Utah state capitol, where he claimed that the anti-gay movement represents “true civil rights.” There have been several news reports about the event, but YouTube user Drew Stelter posted video of Brown’s speech.

In the speech, Brown pushed the narrative that conservative Christians are being persecuted by the increased acceptance of gay rights. While he acknowledged that there might be people of many faiths in the crowd, he made it clear exactly who his audience was: “I would say that it’s pretty likely that those of us here share some respect for our savior, Jesus Christ.”

Brown went on to compare the movement against marriage equality to Christians who fought against the Roman empire, slavery, and those at the head of the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. “Throughout history, people of faith have stood up against gross injustices, stood up for true civil rights,” he said, adding later: “We stand up for the civil rights for all when we stand up for the truth about marriage.”

You Don't Say: Republicans Admit Anti-Immigrant Movement Driven By Racism

Buzzfeed’s John Stanton today managed to get Republican lawmakers on record admitting that the movement to stop immigration report is at least party driven by racial animosity. One Southern Republican member of Congress, who requested anonymity, told Stanton outright that “part of it…it’s racial.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham put it a little more delicately, referring to “ugliness around the issue of immigration.”

While it’s unusual to have Republican members of Congress saying it aloud, it’s hardly a secret that today’s anti-immigrant movement was built by xenophobia and remains in a large part driven by it.

Overtly racist remarks by members of Congress like Steve King and Don Young or by fringe nativists like William Gheen or Judson Phillips could be written off as distractions if they were not part and parcel of this larger movement.

Just look at the three central advocacy groups working to stop immigration reform. The misleadingly named Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the movement “think tank” Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and Numbers USA were all founded by John Tanton, an activist who hardly hid his racist views, support for eugenics, and white nationalist ideology. (Sample Tanton argument: “I've come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.")

But it’s not just these groups’ history that’s problematic. While most have tried to distance themselves Tanton’s extreme nativist rhetoric, they have turned instead to racial code language to imply that immigration undermines American politics and culture.

Dan Stein, the president of FAIR, has warned that immigrants take part in “competitive breeding” to supplant native-born whites and that "[m]any of them hate America, hate everything the United States stands for. CIS president Mark Krikorian has pointed to “illegitimate” children and “high rates of welfare use” as reasons why Latino immigrants will never vote Republican and therefore shouldn’t be “imported” into the United States.

These arguments linked to two threads common in the anti-immigrant movement: that immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, will never be prosperous, productive members of society, and that they will never vote Republican, so Republicans shouldn’t bother to try to appeal to them.

The first of these arguments was famously illustrated by a Heritage Foundation study last year that purported to show that immigration reform would cost the country trillions of dollars, an inflated number based on the premise that future generations of immigrants would never help to grow the economy or give back financially to the country. The fact that the report was co-written by a researcher who believes that Latinos have intrinsically lower IQ only served to underline the point that the study was making.

The second line of argument was most clearly put by Eagle Forum founder and conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, when she said that Republicans should drop their attempts at reaching Latino voters and focus instead on turning out white voters because “there’s not any evidence at all that these Hispanics coming in from Mexico will vote Republican.” The next week, CIS sent out a press release echoing Schlafly’s argument . Pat Buchanan made a similar plea to revive the “Southern Strategy” by ginning up animosity among white voters toward Latino immigrants. It’s no coincidence that this theory that Republicans can maintain a whites-only coalition in an increasingly diverse nation was first laid out by white nationalist writer Steve Sailer.

These two themes were what was behind a FAIR spokesman’s comment last week that allowing undocumented immigrants to work toward legal status would collapse the two-party system and lead to “tyranny.” Similarly, CIS analyst Steven Steinlight recently claimed that immigration reform would be the “unmaking of America” because it “would subvert our political life by destroying the Republican Party” and turn the United States into a one-party state. As evidence, he cited the fact that “Hispanics don’t exemplify ‘strong family values.’”

You don’t have to talk about “cantaloupe calves” to build a movement that relies on and exploits racial animosity. The anti-immigrant movement has mastered this art.

Rios: Obama Has 'Otherworldly,' 'Supernatural Power'

On her radio show yesterday, American Family Association governmental affairs director Sandy Rios reacted to President Obama’s State of the Union speech by warning that the president has a sinister “supernatural power” that is captivating the American people.

Responding to a caller who warned that “there’s a black cloud over our national capital” that is bringing down America, Rios said that there is a “spiritual” element to the political battle: “I do think what we’re facing here is otherworldly, there is a supernatural power to this president that I can’t—that I think most of us have picked up, those of us who believe in God and believe that there are other forces at work here, but we don’t know what God’s mind is on this.”

Previously, Rios claimed that Obama is no different than Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong.

Birther Leader Joseph Farah: I Am Not A Birther!

WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah, one of the most outspoken champions of the birther conspiracy theory, is desperately trying to cover up his birther history as he encourages the Canadian-born Ted Cruz to run for president. In a WND column today, Farah insists that he never even came close to suggesting that President Obama was born outside of the U.S.:

Now I have seen dozens of blog postings and “news stories” about my commentary, and they all pretty much say the same thing – suggesting or outright stating that I peddled a theory that Obama was born abroad. This is patently untrue.

In the hundreds of thousands of words I have written and spoken on this subject, I have never theorized Obama was born abroad.

Actually, Farah in several WND editorials suggested that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, based on a discredited claim that the president’s grandmother said he was born in Kenya. WND has also published many “news” articles and columns indicating that Obama was born outside of the US.

The WND editor adds that the Canadian-born Cruz is eligible to be president simply because he loves America and is much more patriotic than President Obama or even Hillary Clinton. He goes on to accuse everyone but himself of hypocrisy on the issue of presidential eligibility:

I’m actually being called a “hypocrite” today for saying I don’t have any concerns about Ted Cruz’s eligibility. Here’s why I don’t: The man has been forthcoming and released his birth certificate – even before his candidacy. It’s a Canadian birth certificate, as we all expected. It lists his parents – one a Cuban citizen who later became a U.S. citizen and the other an American citizen who conferred U.S. citizenship on her son. Cruz is in the process of renouncing his Canadian citizenship. He loves and reveres the U.S. Constitution as much as his Cuban-born father does. This is different than, say, Sen. Marco Rubio. Neither of his parents were U.S. citizens when he was born – neither of them able to confer on their son what the founders deemed “natural born citizen” status. The fact that he was born in the U.S. is of lesser, if any, significance.

Cruz has released all his papers without being asked – even before seeking the presidency. If someone else wants to make the case that he is not eligible, I’ll listen skeptically and respectfully.

Some of the attacks on my column have even suggested I “endorsed” Cruz for president. Listen, I like the guy, but he’s not even running yet. I like many potential candidates. It will be some time before I endorse anyone. To my mind, I’m satisfied. I do not see any potential for divided loyalties for Ted Cruz, which was the founders’ principle reason for including the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution. If he ran against Hillary Clinton, I’d enthusiastically support him. He’s much more of an American than Hillary could ever be.

But I’m not here to defend Ted Cruz’s eligibility. I’m here to say that America needs one standard of eligibility – not one for Republicans and another for Democrats, not one for conservatives and another for liberals, not one for people we like and another for people we don’t like.

FRC Agrees Anti-Gay Activists Are Just Like Dred Scott

Whenever you hear about a member of the Virginia House of Delegates saying something ridiculously offensive or introducing a radical anti-gay or anti-choice law, there’s a pretty good bet that that delegate is Bob Marshall. 

So it was this week when Marshall attacked state Attorney General Mark Herring for refusing to defend Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban in court by comparing himself and fellow anti-gay activists to Dred Scott. While we weren’t surprised to hear Marshall making an over-the-top statement comparing himself to an enslaved person denied citizenship because of his race, we weren’t necessarily expecting the Family Research Council to trumpet their “good friend” Marshall’s remarks. But then we got this email from the FRC touting “The Marshall Plan…on Marriage”:

Days after announcing his refusal to carry out his most basic duty -- upholding the state constitution's marriage amendment -- Herring is facing more than criticism. Thanks to Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R), he may also be staring down some weighty repercussions. This week, Del. Marshall, a good friend to FRC, filed a complaint with the Virginia State Bar over Herring's refusal to enforce the will of 57% of the people. "Herring has put all of us in the position of Dred Scott, who had no right to counsel in federal court. An attorney general has a duty to support those laws that are constitutional, and an attorney general has just as strong an obligation and duty to defend laws that he has concluded are unconstitutional..."

Marshall is the “good friend” of FRC who once said that children with disabilities are God’s punishment for abortion, reacted to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, by lamenting that “it's a distraction when I'm on the battlefield and have to concentrate on the enemy 600 yards away and I'm worried about this guy whose got eyes on me,” and led the effort to defeat the nomination of an openly gay judge, questioning how he would rule in a "bar room fight between a homosexual and heterosexual."

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious