C4

In Misleading UN Testimony, FRC & C-FAM Claim 'Legalizing Abortion Endangers The Lives Of Women'

Yesterday, Wendy Wright, the vice president for government relations at the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), posted a story on the group’s blog about an upcoming meeting on combating the practice of child sacrifice in Uganda. Wright, of course, thinks that the practice of kidnapping children to be sacrificed in ritual murder is “terribly close” to the work of abortion providers:

Uganda will host a conference this fall to create a plan to combat child sacrifice. Attacks have risen recently as the country’s economy is booming. People are hiring experienced [witch] doctors to kill children, believing it will bring health and wealth.

Sound familiar? It’s terribly close to the claim that abortion will improve women’s health and prospects for the future.

So it’s no surprise that when Wright delivered testimony to a UN commission Tuesday on behalf of C-FAM, the Family Research Council and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians, she used any number of misleading and false arguments to urge the UN to fight for maternal health in a way that does not include access to legal abortion.

In her speech to the Commission on Population and Development, Wright downplayed the danger and frequency of illegal abortions, misled about the risks of legal procedures, and denied a link between the criminalization of abortion and unsafe procedures. She even argued that “legalizing abortion actually endangers the lives of women.”

After recommending a number of ways to improve maternal health worldwide, Wright moved onto claiming that legalizing abortion actually endangers women.

There is no quick fix here. And legalizing abortion will not improve maternal health. Mortality from abortion, estimated at less than 15 percent of all causes of maternal death, decreases proportionately with all other causes of maternal death if the right improvements to maternal health care are made, regardless of the legal status of abortion.

This means that complications from abortions, whether legal or not, can only be dealt with through adequate investments in maternal health care. Making abortion legal does not improve maternal health in any way. It only makes it safer for the abortionist. It does not make it any safer to the mother or her unborn child.

Ireland and Chile, which have highly restrictive abortion laws, are world leaders in maternal health, with lower maternal mortality rates than the United States and other wealthy countries. Legalizing abortion actually endangers the lives of women by exposing them to health risks they would not encounter if they were to carry their pregnancies to term.

In fact, as Guttmacher reports [pdf], “there is clear evidence that restrictive abortion laws are associated with a high incidence of unsafe abortion and its health consequences, and abortions in these settings contribute substantially to maternal illness and death.” The group estimates that 47,000 women die each year as a result of unsafe abortion and notes that restrictive abortion laws do not reduce the number of women obtaining abortions.

Wright’s citation of Ireland and Chile as places with low maternal mortality rates despite restrictive abortion laws is also misleading. Data on the incidence of unsafe abortion in Chile is disputed and women in Ireland commonly travel to England, where abortion is legal, to obtain the procedure.

Wright then cited false, misleading, and disputed statistics to claim that it is actually legal abortion that is dangerous.

Abortions often result in immediate complications, like massive bleeding, infection and death – even in countries where elective abortion is legal. In the United States, abortions carried out after five months of pregnancy are more likely to result in the death of the mother than carrying the pregnancy to term.

Over 130 studies show that elective abortion results in an increased risk of pre-term birth in subsequent pregnancies. Women who abort have a greater risk of depression and suicide, as compared to women who give birth.

While Wright claims that “abortions often result in immediate complications,” even in countries where the procedure is legal, in fact surgical abortion conducted under proper conditions is one of the safest medical procedures. She then cites the risks of very late-term abortions, which constitute only one percent of the abortions performed in the United States.

Wright's claim that abortion leads to “a greater risk of depression and suicide” is also false. And while a study last year did find that there was a link in the past between repeated abortions and the risk of preterm birth, it also found that “with modern procedures the danger has all but vanished.”

Rick Wiles Hails Cliven Bundy Standoff: 'Blood Will Flow As Citizens Fight Back Against Tyranny'

On his Tuesday radio show, TruNews host Rick Wiles said that the militias defending Cliven Bundy’s illegal ranching are staving off President Obama’s attempts to incite mass violence and World War III.

The End Times broadcaster said that while he thought “that World War III would start in 2020,” he now thinks “events are moving so quickly and the situations inside the USA and abroad are deteriorating so fast that I am deeply troubled that we may not get through 2014 without seeing civil unrest, a financial panic and at worst, a war.”

“Civil unrest is brewing, the Obamanistas have tried a number of tactics to insult and infuriate the American people to respond with violence,” he said. “I expect dirty Harry Reid and his Washington sidekick Barry Soetoro will send federal agents back to Nevada this summer and my fear is that federal snipers will take out a bunch of cowboys and militia men.”

“When Americans see dead cowboys on the ground, a shock will go through the heartland of this country, a lot of red-blooded American patriotic men will know that the crackdown on freedom has begun and blood will flow as citizens fight back against tyranny.”

American Decency Association Says Children Seeking Adoption Are Better Off Without A Home Than With Gay Parents

The culture-war crusaders at the American Decency Association are now joining a slew of other anti-gay activists in arguing that conservatives have been too lenient towards the gay community and need to fight against LGBT equality even more fervently.

“[W]hile we’re wielding a knife in the gunfight, we’re leaving our gun in the holster,” the ADA’s Chris Johnson lamented in an blog post last week.

Johnson insisted that the Religious Right must maintain its opposition to gay adoption, arguing that a “needy child” seeking adoption will “be better off waiting to be adopted by a heterosexual family which can give them the benefit of both a mother and father.”

When the same-sex marriage proponent says "these two people love each other; why shouldn't they be allowed to stand in front of their friends and family and make it official?" our response is that marriage has always been defined as between as a man and a woman and the state's interest in marriage is to regulate the individual units of society in the way that's most productive to society.

When they say, "why can't this loving couple adopt a needy child who just wants a family?" we answer that, statistically speaking, the child will be better off waiting to be adopted by a heterosexual family which can give them the benefit of both a mother and father.

And these arguments are solid, but the problem is that if you tell two people who really do love each other, that making the state recognize their love will fray the fabric of society, you will always look like a spiteful villain.

That is not to say that we shouldn't make those arguments. If the only result was that we would be more resolute in our own support of God-defined marriage, that would be valuable enough to focus on those aspects - and that's beside the fact that some people's emotions may still be swayed by an intellectual argument.

The issue, in my opinion is that while we're wielding a knife in the gunfight, we're leaving our gun in the holster.

Tom DeLay Hails 'Americans Picking Up Arms In Nevada' To Fight 'Lawless' Obama And His 'Tyranny'

Speaking with Newsmax host Steve Malzberg yesterday, former House GOP leader Tom DeLay said that President Obama’s “lawlessness” is prompting people to take up arms in Nevada to defend rancher Cliven Bundy, whose refusal to abide by court orders or recognize the federal government has turned him into a right-wing hero.

DeLay told Malzberg that Obama is ushering in “tyranny” and that he is “just shocked by [Obama’s] complete disregard or love for this country and the people that live in it.”

Later, while discussing rules changes on clemency for non-violent drug offenders, he encouraged House Republicans to cut off funding to the White House: “Cut him off, cut off the funds, use the power of the purse coming from the House of Representatives, start holding hearings about his lawlessness, bring it to the American people through this next election.”

“This is getting so far out of hand we see Americans picking up arms in Nevada because of government tyranny, this is getting out of hand,” DeLay said. “When people are taking up arms that means that the federal government and people like Obama and Holder have gone too far.”

Pat Robertson Recalls Doctor Raising Patient From The Dead With Prayer

After the 700 Club ran a story on the importance of prayer for doctors and patients, host Pat Robertson told a story about how a board member of Regent University, the school Robertson founded, used prayer to bring a dead man back to life.

Robertson, who once led a faith healing service where he promised that people could have their deceased children brought back to life, said that the patient was brought back from the dead after the doctor put his hands over him and channeled the “power of God.”

The American Family Association Doesn't Understand How Bathrooms Work

Apparently, American Family Association head Tim Wildmon and spokesman Bryan Fischer don’t understand how bathrooms work. The two revealed their stunning ignorance in interviews yesterday with OneNewsNow, the news arm of the AFA, about a new bathroom regulation in Washington D.C.

As HRC explains, “the District of Columbia requires single-occupant restroom facilities in any public space (e.g., restaurants) to be gender neutral -- restrooms designed for use by one individual at a time may not have a specific gender designation with ‘male’ or ‘female’ signage or icons -- but does not require employers to have single-occupant restrooms instead of another type” (emphasis added).

But Wildmon and Fischer suggested that now women and men will be sharing the bathroom at the same time, forcing them to “approve sexual deviancy”:

The District of Columbia is enforcing a rule that favors the fraction of transgender people over the majority who know they are male or female.

A regulation on the books since 2006 is now being enforced, requiring removal of signage on single-stall public bathrooms designating it for men or women, in order to accommodate the transgendered community. Public places that don't comply could be charged with a civil infraction and fined $500.

OneNewsNow talked with Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis for American Family Association. "Well, once again we see an example of how the homosexual lobby is seeking to coerce and compel people of faith and goodwill against their will to accept and recognize and approve sexual deviancy," he says.

In addition, AFA president Tim Wildmon feels that because businesses that don't meet the terms of the regulation face possible fines, it places "yet another strain on American business owners so the LGBTQ community can feel validated."

"Time after time," Wildmon continues, "special rules apply to the LBGTQ community; but the equality for everyone seems to end there, as it's obvious that no thought has been given to the male and female customers of these businesses who prefer the privacy of a restroom specific to their gender."

Fischer points out that mental health professionals still consider transgenderism a mental disorder, "so they need to be helped rather than their deviancy catered to," he argues.

"... We believe that public policy ought to be based on science; it ought to be based on biology," he explains. "And the truth is that every single human being is a male or a female from the moment of their conception until the moment they die – and that ought to be recognized in our public policy."

He says gender differences ought to be respected and privacy considered as well as the fact that many women will be offended, if not struck with fear, seeing a man enter their bathroom.

AFA also criticizes the DC Office of Human Rights for asking residents and visitors to tweet the business name or office if they come across a single-occupancy public restroom displaying a gender-specific sign.

The Family Leader Cites Satirical Column To Warn of Gay Anti-Christian Holocaust

It’s not just Matt Barber who didn’t get that William Saletan’s Slate column calling for the “purging” of every single person who had donated to the Proposition 8 campaign was an obvious satire skewering critics of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich.

The Saletan column is still making the rounds among conservative activists, and today it's featured in a breathless blog post from the Family Leader, the Iowa conservative group run by Bob Vander Plaats that will be hosting a forum for Iowa’s Republican US Senate candidates later this week.

The Family Leader cites the satirical column to warn that “according to this well-read author, if you believe marriage is between a man and a woman and the natural/God designed parameters for sexuality, you must be purged. You must be eliminated.”

“Will the Church remain silent? They’re coming for them next,” the group adds.

Illustrating the post is a photograph of a concentration camp during the Holocaust.

Pat Robertson Fears Islamist-Atheist Takeover Of America

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson pointed to British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent description of the United Kingdom as a “Christian country” as a source of hope against the Islamist-atheist hordes attacking America.

“This nonsense about separation of church and state has gotten way, way beyond the bounds of what the Founders of our Constitution thought,” Robertson said. “We’re under assault by militant Islamists, militant atheists, secularists, those who want to destroy all of the fabric of faith in our society.”

Later in the program, the televangelist warned that “there are people representing the Muslim Brotherhood who are in the highest councils of the security apparatus of the United States of America advising our leaders as to how to deal with terrorism. Nonsense.”

Erik Rush Fears Federal Plot To Put Cliven Bundy In A FEMA Camp And Seize Control Of The Food Supply

Add Erik Rush to the list of conservatives who have fallen in love with Cliven Bundy. Rush writes in WorldNetDaily today that Bundy is America’s last hope in stopping the federal government’s “blatant efforts to control our food supply.”

Rush insists that arms are required for Bundy’s stand against the “diabolical Manchurian President,” warning that otherwise Bundy and his militia allies may be “slaughtered” by law enforcement offices.

“Do we wait until Department of Homeland Security operatives come around to arrest ‘domestic terrorists’ as designated by Harry Reid and ship them off to FEMA camps?” Rush asks. “[W]hen jack-booted government thugs appear at one’s doorstep, praying them away might not quite cut it.”

In the end, I believe all that is intended to remain will be megalithic agribusiness entities that will pay the same fealty to the federal government as those industries that have already been similarly corrupted.

If the federal government intends to control everything – which has become painfully evident – why are we ignoring its blatant efforts to control our food supply?

Senate Majority Leader (and as it would happen, land-grabbing wheeler-dealer) Harry Reid has called Cliven Bundy’s supporters “domestic terrorists” and misrepresented them as well as Bundy with regard to their view of federal authority. If President Obama embodies the diabolical Manchurian President, clandestinely working to destroy America (which he most certainly does), Reid embodies the imperious, smug, progressive elite whose concept of government is so antithetical to our nation’s founding principles that crimes against the Constitution are, for him, a matter of his daily routine.

If not Bundy, then who? If not now, when? If we won’t stand up for a small rancher’s grazing rights, then I would like to know where this imperceptible line, beyond which government encroachment will allow Americans to act, is. Not necessarily in the vein of armed insurrection, but in the fashion of Cliven Bundy’s supporters, even if they aren’t as organized as one of Beck’s rallies. Do we wait until a family is slaughtered because they opened fire on government agents executing an illegal raid on their home? Do we wait until Department of Homeland Security operatives come around to arrest “domestic terrorists” as designated by Harry Reid and ship them off to FEMA camps?

I am very much in agreement with Mr. Beck that American patriots must align themselves with God, as did the founders, and that prayer and peaceful assembly are integral to our struggle against tyranny. A cadre of Bible-toting, hymn-chanting prayer warriors at the Bundy Ranch probably would have been a stellar idea, in fact.

But I also know that Beck is an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment for a reason, and that when jack-booted government thugs appear at one’s doorstep, praying them away might not quite cut it.

Todd Starnes Attacks Government 'Jihad' Against Cliven Bundy

Fox News pundit Todd Starnes has championed lawless rancher Cliven Bundy’s armed standoff with the Bureau of Land Management, even going as so far as to claim that “they used to string folks up” for what the BLM did to Bundy.

In his radio alert yesterday, Starnes attacked the “government agents waging jihad” against Bundy, while dismissing the “legalese” surrounding Bundy’s extremist legal claims.

The Five Most Racist, Anti-Semitic Claims From The American Thinker's Puff Piece On White Nationalist Jared Taylor

Today, the American Thinker – an online magazine that also publishes the writing of Concerned Women For America’s Janice Shaw Crouse, World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder and “ex-gay” activist Robert Oscar Lopez, published a lengthy, fawning profile of Jared Taylor, the prominent white nationalist and founder of American Renaissance.

American Thinker writer Jeff Lipkes, whose last article for the publication explored the alt-birther theory that President Obama’s real father was communist organizer Frank Marshall Davis, asked Taylor to expound at length on “the concept of an ethnostate,” the doomed future of a diverse America, “the Jewish question,” and Taylor’s own “pure heart.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Taylor as “a kind of modern-day version of the refined but racist colonialist of old” who “projects himself as a courtly presenter of ideas that most would describe as crudely white supremacist.” We’ll just include that rather than going into Lipkes’ several paragraphs on Taylor’s “civility and dapper appearance.”

1. Racist Internet commenters give Taylor hope for the future.

Taylor spends a good deal of his interview with Lipkes lamenting the fact that people are leaving racist comments on his racist website. “How could people who generally agree with us be so uncivilized?” he asks. But then, later in the interview, he says that racist comments on other websites give him hope for the growth of “race realism” in the future: “More and more Americans are pointing out the obvious so long as they can remain anonymous,” he says.

“When people can post comments anonymously, they often write crude, offensive things they would never say to someone’s face. At first I was surprised and disappointed -- how could people who generally agree with us be so uncivilized? -- but every website has this problem. Most of our commenters learn good manners eventually; those who don’t get the boot.”

But if commenters don’t use vulgar language, they are free to say what they like about African-Americans, and of course the stories of heinous crimes are red meat to readers. While it may be cathartic for Whites to write things they are unable to say in public under the multicultural regime, the comments on the news stories undoubtedly lend credence to the familiar accusation of “hate-mongering.”

The crime stories sometimes inspire more interesting comments: accounts by readers of their own experiences with minorities and with the enforcers of multiculturalism. Blacks, just under 13% of the population, commit 52% of murders and still higher percentages of other violent crimes, and about 90% of all inter-racial violence is attacks by Blacks on Whites. So lots of readers have first-hand experience of the subject. Some have written about the transformation of their neighborhoods or towns. Other news stories generate more amusing anecdotes: tipping by Blacks in restaurants, adventures at the DMV, etc.

Still, the stream of abuse is depressing, and it troubles Taylor.

“I wish our commenters were better behaved. I agree that they are sometimes mean-spirited, and I wish nothing ever appeared on the site that was mean-spirited.”

Derogatory comments about Asians, less frequent, naturally, sometimes elicit counter-attacks by others. One of the divisions among readers seems to be between “White Nationalists,” who want to see the return of a White ethnostate, and color-blind “race realists,” who admire East Asians for their high IQs and test scores and low crime rates, and, occasionally, Hispanics for their work ethic. The defenders are are usually outnumbered and outgunned.

Taylor is both optimistic and pessimistic about the future.

On the one hand, he sees a growth of “race-realism.”

“There are two very clear signs of this. One is the comments sections of mainstream Internet news sites. More and more Americans are pointing out the obvious so long as they can remain anonymous.”

2. Taylor explains why "racially conscious whites" are ‘"suspicious of Jews."

When Lipkes asked Taylor about “the Jewish question,” Taylor responded that “racially conscious whites tend to be suspicious of Jews” because of their “effort to demonize any sense of white identity” and their “annoying” support for Israel. Lipkes goes on to speculate

On “the Jewish question,” Taylor seems to walk a tightrope.

Taylor acknowledges the animosity of a lot of his followers toward Jews: “Racially conscious whites tend to be suspicious of Jews for two reasons. First, Jews have been prominent in the effort to demonize any sense of white identity. Second, Zionist Jews support an ethnostate for Jews -- Israel -- while they generally promote diversity for America and Europe. This is annoying, but understandable for historical reasons.”

3. Taylor says he’s not a “white nationalist,” just supports “the concept of an ethnostate.”

Because “white nationalist” implies violent revolution…and Taylor seems himself more like Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt.

Is Taylor then a “White Nationalist”?

He rejects the term: “To me, it has an unpleasant whiff of gunpowder. One thinks of Basque nationalists and Kurdish nationalists. But,” he adds, “I entirely agree with the concept of an ethnostate that reflects the heritage and aspirations of a people.” He prefers the French word “identitaire ,” but there’s no English equivalent.

“There is no good term for racially conscious white people. This is because their views were taken for granted and needed no name. How did contemporaries characterize the racial view of Thomas Jefferson -- or those of Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt or of Woodrow Wilson? There was no word for someone with their views for the same reason there was no word for someone who expected the sun to rise in the East or who loved his own children more than he loved the children of strangers: Our language does not need words for unnecessary distinctions. My views on race are natural, normal, healthy, and entirely moral, just as Lincoln’s were.”

4. Taylor warns that a decline in the white population will lead to the collapse of America.

And laments that there is no party representing “race realists,” who he is confident would win “a majority of the white vote in the rural South.”

“The United States is one of the least democratic of democracies, in that our system practically bars the door against anyone not a Republican or a Democrat. Who is served by such an oppressive system? Why, the very Republicans and Democrats who pass our laws and the lobbies that cultivate them. It is this closed political structure, not a lack of racial identity, that prevents political progress.

“Imagine a system of proportional representation, and a list of attractive race-realist candidates. How many votes would we win? Fifteen percent? Twenty percent? A majority of the white vote in the rural South? As parliamentary democracies in Europe show, numbers like that have a powerful impact on policy.”

By 2034, if current trends continue, the United States will have a bare majority of whites, many of whom will be elderly. The working-age population will be heavily black and Hispanic. To give you an idea of what sort of country we will have, I could cite endless statistics on rates of crime, AIDS, diabetes, poverty, welfare dependence, etc. but I’ll cite just one figure. By the time they graduate from high school, blacks and Hispanics are reading and doing math at the level of theaverage white 8th grader. That will not have changed in 20 years, and it will mean we are well on our way to becoming another Brazil.

“We will have a painfully stratified society, run by a mixed elite that keeps the masses of poor browns and blacks at a safe distance. Our rulers will continue to mouth slogans about equality and redemption-through-diversity but their lives will be even more hypocritical than they are today. They will live in fortified enclaves, and will increasingly see America not as a beloved nation whose destiny they hold in trust but as a herd to be milked. In 20 years, their cynicism will have begun to dull the patriotism even of Southern whites.

Our increasingly Third-World and unproductive population will force more cities into bankruptcy, and the federal government will lurch from crisis to crisis. Our decline in world stature will not be graceful.

“There will still be pockets of white civility, but only for the wealthy. The middle class will shrink, as school quality declines and more and more whites are forced into low-wage service jobs. Marriage will increasingly be a relic practiced only by the elite, and more whites will copy the degenerate behavior of the black and Hispanic underclasses.

“We will slowly lose the public trust and moral infrastructure that prevents bribery, nepotism, kickbacks, and government looting. Politicians will begin to buy and rig elections, especially at the local level. Fewer people will feel they have a stake in society, so there will be less volunteer work or charitable giving.

“Too pessimistic? Show me trends that prove me wrong.”

5. Taylor says he's being persecuted by “elites” despite his “pure heart.”

Taylor’s views, according to political elites, their media allies, and the indoctrinated, are not only wrong, but evil.

“When I began this work 25 years ago, I was naïve enough to think that because I am right and have a pure heart, I could reach and persuade ever larger numbers of people. I did not understand the forces opposed to me or how fearful Americans have become."

Ann Coulter Warns 'De Blasio Wants To Hold Down Our Legs While The Central Park Five Rape Us'

Ann Coulter is pushing back on overwhelming evidence that “The Central Park Five” were wrongly convicted of rape in 1989, writing today that it is all a left-wing conspiracy to set rapists free.

In 2002, the ancient Robert Morgenthau, Manhattan district attorney, issued a report recommending that the convictions in the Central Park rape case be vacated. Justice Charles Tejada (Fordham Law 2009 Hispanic Heritage Award winner!) granted his request. Liberals are opposed to rape in the abstract, but when it comes to actual rapists, they’re all for them.

The D.A.’s report was based solely on the confession of Matias Reyes, career criminal, serial rapist and murderer. Reyes had absolutely nothing to lose by confessing to the rape – the statute of limitations had run – and much to gain by claiming he acted alone: He got a favorable prison transfer and the admiration of his fellow inmates for smearing the police.

While dumping on the police for screwing up the investigation, Morgenthau wouldn’t let the cops interview Reyes themselves, even though his “confession” was the sole evidence that he raped and brutalized the jogger by himself.



The media proclaim those five rapists innocent based on their own over-excited reports that the DNA found on the jogger matched that of Reyes, but none of the others!

Yeah, we knew that. It was always known that semen on the jogger did not match any of the defendants. (“DNA Expert: No Semen Links to Defendants,” Associated Press, July 14, 1990.)

Hallmark should have a greeting card: “Guess whose semen wasn’t found anywhere on the rape victim?” (Open card) “I’m so proud of you, son!”

Prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer expressly reminded the jurors of the missing rapist in her summation to the jury: “Others who were not caught raped her and got away.” Now we know who “got away.”



But now de Blasio wants to hold down our legs while the “Central Park Five” rape us, again.

GOP's Bad Bet: Right-Wing Lionization Of Cliven Bundy Backfires In Wake Of Racist Outburst

Cliven Bundy, the lawless Nevada rancher whom conservatives touted as a champion of freedom akin to Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., said at a press conference attended by the New York Times yesterday that slavery helped the “Negro” people feel free by learning “how to pick cotton” and stop going to jail, collecting welfare and having abortions.

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Likely Republican presidential candidates including Rand Paul and Ted Cruz hailed Bundy’s cause and Nevada Republicans, including Senator Dean Heller, rallied around Bundy and allied militia groups. Colorado GOP gubernatorial candidate and former congressman Tom Tancredo said Bundy was defending the “rule of law” against the “anarchist” President Obama even while the rancher was in defiance of several court orders.

As it is often the case, Fox News took the lead in creating the new GOP rock star by fetishizing the Bundy armed standoff as a triumph of ordinary patriots who, in the mode of the Founding Fathers, stood up to evil Big Government…seeming to forget the Founders also played a role in quashing Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. Fox commentators like Sean Hannity and Todd Starnes touted Bundy even as the rancher’s group was making violent threats against the government.

Fox also took the lead in hailing Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson after he claimed that black people were well treated and “happy” during the Jim Crow era and that problems in the black community are only a result of government welfare.

Gun groups, Tea Partyers, Religious Right activists, and the Koch brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity all joined Fox News in lauding Bundy as a hero who stood up to Obama.

No one should be surprised that a violent, militia-aligned, anti-government extremist turned out to be a racist nostalgic for slavery, and neither should anyone be surprised that Republicans jumped on his cause.

During the Iowa caucus campaign, two Republican presidential candidates signed a Religious Right group’s declaration which said the black family was stronger under slavery, and attacking government programs as slavery has become a common right-wing talking point.

Now that Republicans and Fox News commentators may move to distance themselves from Bundy, it will serve as a reminder for the next time the GOP decides to get in bed with an anti-Obama extremist for freedom’s sake.

All GOP Senate Candidates in North Carolina Deny Existence of Climate Change

Many Americans celebrate Earth Day by planting trees, organizing a citywide trash pickup, or talking about the consequences of climate change and the ongoing threat it creates for our planet. But on Earth Day yesterday, all four Republican candidates for Senate in North Carolina used the opportunity to deny that climate change is real. TPM reports:

Fittingly, all four Republican candidates in the North Carolina Senate race were asked on Earth Day if they believed climate change is a proven fact. And all four candidates said "no."

The question was asked during a GOP primary debate on Tuesday night. The candidates, House Speaker Thom Tillis, Rev. Mark Harris, Dr. Greg Brannon, and nursing practitioner Heather Grant, in response to the question, said "no."

This is not the first time Republicans have denied the existence of climate change and it will likely not be the last. But the fact that all four candidates agreed underscores the GOP extremism in the North Carolina Senate race and serves as yet another example of a political party increasingly divorced from reality.

PFAW

Sandy Rios Explains God Will Allow More Terrorist Attacks Against America Because He's A 'Gentleman'

Last week on her radio show, Sandy Rios of the American Family Association addressed criticism she received over her claim that the Boston Marathon bombing memorial opened up the country to more terrorist attacks.

She told one listener, Michael, that all Americans — not just Bostonians — are responsible for the looming attacks that she said will occur because the country has not paid enough attention God and is ignoring his moral laws.

Channeling her AFA colleague Bryan Fischer, who made similar remarks about the Sandy Hook shooting, Rios said that God won’t protect Americans in the face of terrorist attacks because he’s a “gentleman” and won’t go where he’s not wanted.

All of you who hate me, I am glad you are listening, thank God you’re listening. And this is what I said and I will repeat it. I didn’t say that [there will be] more terrorist attacks because the Boston mourners had ignored God. I did say that I think we are opening ourselves wide to more terrorist attacks because the nation is refusing to acknowledge God. We are mocking him, we are turning our back on him, we are saying, ‘Oh yeah, you said we should do things this way, you said it was a moral law, oh yeah, are you kidding me, we don’t mention you at ceremonies, we don’t pray in public places, we can’t let our kids talk about it in school, oh yeah, just get out of here God.’

And I guarantee you, Michael, he will, he’s a gentleman. The Judeo-Christian God doesn’t force himself on people or nations, he’s not like Allah, he doesn’t force his way, it’s your choice. So if you choose to ignore him, trust me he’ll be gone. And certainly if you demand that he leave, he’s not going to stay around. It’s your choice, and it’s the same way with all of us collectively as a country.

Liberty Counsel Fears It Will 'Soon Be Taboo To Be Heterosexual In America'

The anti-gay group Liberty Counsel is afraid that it will “soon be taboo to be heterosexual in America.”

The article the group links to concerns recent elections for central committee posts in the Illinois Republican Party where “six of the seven officials who signed on to a letter last year to hold a vote on removing [Pat] Brady as chairman” over “his statements supporting same-sex marriage” lost their races.

Not only does Liberty Counsel equate heterosexuality with homophobia, but the group’s vice president, Matt Barber, seems to think he will be killed due to gay rights laws.

WorldNetDaily's New Birther Conspiracy Just Got Crazier

WorldNetDaily super reporter Jerome Corsi is positively giddy about a court case in the UK in which a “self-proclaimed intelligence expert,” Michael Shrimpton, insists he will reveal proof that President Obama was born in Kenya and DNA evidence showing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not the president’s real mother.

According to Shrimpton, “the DNA samples were collected at a fundraising dinner from water glasses that were bagged after the dinner,” and “NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA.”

WND commentator Lord Christopher Monckton, a vocal birther who wants Obama imprisonedhas jumped on the Shrimpton case in hopes that it will vindicate the birther movement and is denouncing the “monumentally stupid and fatally misconceived hate campaign” against Shrimpton.

As Ben Dimiero of Media Matters writes, “Apparently WND is desperate enough to keep birther conspiracies alive that they are willing to highlight allegations that even they seemingly find implausible.”

WND has also reported on Shrimpton’s related conspiracy theory that a terrorist group planned to launch an attack on the London Olympics with a nuclear weapon stolen from a sunken Russian submarine.

But that’s not all, as Shrimpton even claims to have evidence showing that “a secret German intelligence agency” known as DVD is behind a major pedophile ring linked to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and is responsible for Madeleine McCann’s abduction. On top of that, Shrimpton claims that the purported German secret intelligence unit/pedophile ring worked with China to blow up the missing Malaysia Airlines plane with a submarine.

Corsi naturally interviewed WND “investigative reporter” Jack Cashill to corroborate Shrimpton’s Malaysia Airlines claim:

Shrimpton believes Madeleine McCann was murdered in or about December 2008, after she had been transported by German submarine to pedophile rings operating in Argentina and Chile.

Since 2008, Shrimpton in various published reports has tied EU President Jose Manuel Barroso and former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair to the international pedophile rings that abducted the McCann child.



Monckton observed that by forcing Shrimpton to defend himself in a jury trial in November, the Crown Prosecution Service could force disclosure of documents and testimony in a sex scandal that could conceivably involve government officials in the U.K. and the EU, assuming Judge McCreath allows Shrimpton to pursue the topic to establish a factual basis for his suspicions.

Shrimpton faces his own sex-related charges. He is appealing his conviction in a summary court judgment of a criminal misdemeanor charge for having on his computer pornographic images. The images were discovered by British police after government officials in conjunction with filing criminal indictments regarding the 2012 Olympics case seized from his home his computers and electronic equipment.

Shrimpton insists he did not place the images on his computer. He contends the government has no evidence that would link him to the source of the images.

On March 15, Shrimpton published in his blog at VeteransToday.com an article claiming a 636 Kilo class Chinese submarine brought down the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 using a Chinese-made copy of a Hughes Aircraft AIM-54A Phoenix missile, originally supplied to Iran in the 1970s.

The search for the missing Boeing 777 most recently focused on a wide expanse of the Indian Ocean to the west of Australia, but now befuddled searchers say they may have to start the investigation from scratch.

An investigation of past airline disasters suggests Shrimpton’s claim is plausible.



Cashill explained that while he might not agree with Shrimpton that the Chinese intentionally shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, he remained suspicious the Chinese might have shot down the airliner accidentally and were seeking to cover-up the incident.

Joe Miller Invites Extremist Gun Group To Help Launch His Alaska Senate Campaign

Just last week, we were compelled to write a post explaining that Gun Owners of America – which bills itself as a less reasonable version of the NRA – remains an influential force in American politics despite being run by Larry Pratt, a racist conspiracy theoriest with ties to white supremacists.

So we can’t really say that it’s a surprise that when Alaska Republican Joe Miller – the Tea Party candidate endorsed by Sarah Palin in 2010 – launched his second Senate campaign yesterday, he chose Gun Owners of America to help kick things off.

Miller’s launch event in Wasilla prominently featured a speech by Tim Macy, Gun Owners of America’s vice chairman, who the Alaska Dispatch reported “said his staff has been tracking Miller for years without his knowing it, in order to determine if he’s a true believer in gun rights and protecting the Second amendment.”

In an email in February, Miller proudly touted GOA’s endorsement. North Carolina Republican Greg Brannon also touted his GOA endorsement in a Senate debate last night.

As we noted last week, in any reasonable political party, GOA would be politically toxic given the views that its director, Larry Pratt, frequently shares in media appearances on behalf of the organization. For instance, shortly after a gunman killed 12 people at a movie theater in Colorado in 2012, GOA sent out a press release implying that it could have been an inside job. And there's more:

That Larry Pratt is an influential Republican lobbyist who is regularly quoted by mainstream news sources shows that it is basically impossible to be too extreme to be taken seriously in today’s right wing.

After all, back in 1996, Pratt was too extreme for even Pat Buchanan. Pratt stepped down from his role in Buchanan’s presidential campaign after his ties to white supremacists and promotion of the right-wing militia movement came to light. As Southern Poverty Law Center director Morris Dees said at the time, “He's got one foot in that far-right fringe and another foot in mainstream Washington, which makes him really dangerous."

That certainly hasn’t changed. In just the past couple of years, Pratt

Ted Cruz: Bundy Ranch Standoff 'Tragic Culmination' Of Obama's 'Jackboot of Authoritarianism'

In an interview with Texas radio host Chad Hasty yesterday, Sen. Ted Cruz said that the armed standoff between anti-government militias and the Bureau of Land Management at a Nevada ranch is the “unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government upon.”

Rancher Cliven Bundy failed to pay federal grazing fees for over 20 years because he refused to recognize federal authority over the land he was using. When the Bureau of Land Management started to remove Bundy’s cattle from federal land, militia members gathered at his ranch and staged an armed standoff with federal officials, which Bundy threatened could turn into a “range war” or another Waco. The agency eventually backed down in order to prevent violence, but militia members havestayed at the ranch and the event has emboldened the anti-government militia movement.

When Hasty asked Cruz about the Bundy standoff, the senator conceded that “the details of the Bundy matter may be complicated,” but insisted “the reason this issue is resonating…is that for five years, we have seen our liberty under assault. We have seen our liberty under assault from a federal government that seems hell-bent on expanding its authority over every aspect of our lives.”

“It is in that context that people are viewing this battle with the federal government,” he said. “We should have a federal government protecting the liberty of the citizens, not using the jackboot of authoritarianism to come against the citizens. And I think this is the unfortunate and tragic culmination of the path that President Obama has set the federal government upon.”

Pamela Geller Misrepresents Hate Crimes Reporting Bill To Warn Sharia Law Is Coming To America

As we reported yesterday, conservative activists are livid about a new bill to update a 1993 National Telecommunications and Information Administration report “on the current prevalence of hate crimes and hate speech in telecommunications,” which anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller said “is Sharia.”

While speaking to Janet Mefferd yesterday, Geller alleged that the bill will “silence” any “criticism of the left and of the Islamic machine,” while Mefferd called the legislation “creeping Sharia like crazy.”

The 1993 report [PDF] unmistakably denounced the very hate speech measures that Geller suggests are included in the bill: “NTIA endorses the belief, expressed by virtually every commenter, that the best remedy to hate speech is not government restrictions, but more speech, to disseminate views that challenge notions of hate and bigotry.”

Geller then cited the disputed claim that Matthew Shepard’s murder was not motivated by anti-gay animus to argue that the bill is like a “steaming pile of dung [packaged] in a Tiffany box with a little white ribbon.”

Mefferd: Boy, you know, this just is creeping Sharia like crazy. What is going on with this legislation? I understand the House version was actually filed back in December but now Senator Markey is on board with it.

Geller: We saw this coming, Janet, and you’ve been on top of it, really on the tip of the spear so I thank you for that, most press folks are ignoring it because it may very well be something that they would support because it would silence, as if we weren’t silenced enough, any criticism of the left and of the Islamic machine.



Geller: This is completely and utterly unacceptable because at the end of the day, this is the Sharia, that’s exactly what this is. Believe me, they’ll package it the way they packaged hate crimes. If you recall they used Matthew Shepard as a vicious gay killing when we then found out that it was really a drug deal gone bad with a previous lover, it doesn’t matter, this is the steaming pile of dung they package in a Tiffany box with a little white ribbon.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious