Yesterday, as the Minnesota Senate voted 37-30 to allow same-sex marriages in the state, PFAW and friends expressed their support for marriage equality through signs, chants, and songs:
Yesterday, as the Minnesota Senate voted 37-30 to allow same-sex marriages in the state, PFAW and friends expressed their support for marriage equality through signs, chants, and songs:
Rep. Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, has what you might call a loose grip on the truth. In just the last year, for instance, he has cited a sham study to attack Obamacare, warned about the health and economic impacts of gay rights, and declared that “there is not one woman” without access to birth control.
He has also shown a penchant for Tea Party “America is doomed” rhetoric, such as his warning last year that the Affordable Care Act “removes the very freedom and liberty that our founders fought for at its very core” and will destroy “the America that you and I love.”
Price combined these two traits in an interview with conservative bloggers at Red State today, in which he completely made up facts about the stimulus bill and the deaths of dimplomats in Benghazi in order to argue that the Obama administration has “led to what many people have called a government that no longer has the consent of the governed.” This missing trust, he says, is what “allows a democracy to stand.”
Price started out by claiming that funds in the 2009 stimulus bill were spent on “things that didn’t improve the economy, that didn’t turn things around, that didn’t decrease unemployment.” In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and many leading economists found that the bill did, in fact, do all three of those things.
Well, it’s because they’ve been deceived. The American people have been deceived by this administration and by what their policies were. And it all started with the stimulus bill, that was a non-stimulus bill that took hundreds of billions of dollars, nearly a trillion dollars, and spent it on things that didn’t improve the economy, that didn’t turn things around, that didn’t decrease unemployment, in spite of the testimonials of the president and those in his administration. So that was the first part.
And then came all of the healthcare debate over a year and a half, culminating in Congress passing a bill that the American people didn’t want at that time and still don’t want. It has led to what many people have called a government that no longer has the consent of the governed, and it’s that trust that’s so absolutely vital between the people and their government that allows a democracy to stand. And so, it needs to be recovered, and that’s why I call on the president immediately to get out in front on these issues, come clean, admit where the errors were made and the mistakes were made.
He then moved on, of course, to Benghazi, repeating the completely debunked right-wing myth that the Obama administration told Special Forces to, as Price puts it, “stand down and don’t go protect Americans.”
It’s hard to say that the cover-up is always worse than the deed, when you have four Americans who were murdered without the administration doing anything to go to their aid and protect them. Not because the assets weren’t there or the opportunities weren’t there, but because somebody in the administration said, ‘It’s time to stand down and don’t go protect Americans.’ This is incredibly important, again, it gets to that huge trust issue. But it does keep snowballing because the administration refuses to come clean, the president refuses to take responsibility for what happened. This is absolutely unconscionable.
And I think now, with the IRS and with Benghazi as it is, and now with the AP story that we’ve just gotten out, that the Department of Justice tapped and got records, phone records, from 20-plus AP reporters, now the mainstream media is brought into the fray, and they realize that this administration is wayward and, as somebody has described, drunk with power. And that we will now see a much more critical view of the administration from the press.
After insisting that President Obama’s gun policies are “intended to make sure that people will be slaughtered by the thousands and the hundreds of thousands,” Alan Keyes is now warning that Obama is encouraging the “targeted slaughter” of African Americans by supporting legal abortion.
Keyes, who was Obama’s opponent in the 2004 US Senate race, told conservative commentator Stan Solomon last week that “a lot of black folks are waking up and realizing that there is a terrible tragedy that is playing out in the person of Barack Obama,” whom he claimed African Americans have “come close to worshiping instead of God.”
He went on to say that Obama is “implementing the agenda of death and murder” and “represents the open maw of a charnel house into which the future hopes of the Black-American community are to be fed.”
In his latest syndicated column, Buchanan argues that Hispanic Americans exhibit “underclass behavior” and warns of the dangers of “racially mixed communities.”
“With the immigration bill granting amnesty to 12 million illegals, an open door to their dependents and a million new immigrants each year, almost all from the Third World, America in 2040 is going to look like Los Angeles today,” he writes.
Buchanan also attempts to back up Richwine’s theories about racial differences in IQ, pointing to global rankings among “Hispanic nations” in math, reading and science. He is forced to undercut his own theory, however, but leaving the most prosperous Spanish-speaking nation, Spain, out of his bogus statistics.
The 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA, which measures the academic ability of 15-year-olds worldwide, found the USA falling to 17th in reading, 23rd in science, 31st in math.
Yet, Spain aside, not one Hispanic nation, from which a plurality of our immigrants come, was among the top 40 in reading, science or math.
But these folks are going to come here and make us No. 1 again?
Is there greater “underclass behavior” among Hispanics?
The crime rate among Hispanics is about three times that of white Americans, while the Asian crime rate is about a third that of whites.
Among white folks, the recent illegitimacy rate was 28 percent; among Hispanics, 53 percent. According to one study a few years back, Hispanics were 19 times as likely as whites to join gangs.
What about Richwine’s point regarding “social trust”?
Six years ago, in “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century,” Robert Putnam, author of “Bowling Alone,” wrote that after 30,000 interviews he found that ethnic and racial diversity can be devastating to communities and destructive of community values.
In racially mixed communities, Putnam wrote, not only do people not trust strangers, they do not even trust their own kind.
“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down,’ that is, to pull in like a turtle … (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 they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”
With the immigration bill granting amnesty to 12 million illegals, an open door to their dependents and a million new immigrants each year, almost all from the Third World, America in 2040 is going to look like Los Angeles today. Yet, it was in L.A. that Putnam found social capital at its most depleted and exhausted.
If Richwine is right, America in 2040 will be a country with whites and Asians dominating the professions, and 100 million Hispanics concentrated in semiskilled work and manual labor.
The issues Richwine raises go to the question of whether we shall survive as one nation and one people.
In his daily email yesterday, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins attacked a bill that would prohibit adoption programs that receive federal funding from discriminating against same-sex couples. This bill, he says, “would intentionally deprive children of a mother” and expose children to “the serious risks [of] being raised in a homosexual home.”
Now, some in Congress want to get in on the act with a bill that would intentionally deprive children of a mother. Under this legislation, the government would punish any adoption agency that gives priority to married, heterosexual couples. The bill, co-sponsored by Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), would cut off the federal funding of any agency -- including faith-based charities -- that seek the safest and most nurturing home for kids. If it passes, the official policy of the U.S. government would be to penalize organizations who take the well-being of children into account in adoption placement.
This is how backwards we've become as a society! As we've seen in the Boy Scouts membership debate, America's focus is no longer the well-being of children but on the "well-being" of a small but politically powerful minority. There's an abundance of social science data supporting the common-sense belief that children do best when raised by a married mother and father. Because of that, there's every rational basis for agencies to prefer such households over those headed by same-sex couples in adoption.
In the largest peer-review study ever done on same-sex parenting, Dr. Mark Regnerus found that the emotional, financial, academic, and physical outcomes of kids raised in homosexual homes rated "suboptimal" or "negative" in almost every category. "There's nothing worse than being brought up by two gay dads," said homosexual actor Rupert Everett. And Dr. Regnerus proves it. In outcome after outcome, he shows the serious risks to being raised in a homosexual home -- not the least of which are poverty, depression, and abuse.
A jury today found Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell guilty in the deaths a woman and three infants in a squalid, nightmarish abortion clinic. Anti-choice groups have been closely following the trial, attempting to link Gosnell’s crimes to the very existence of legal abortion. They have exploited the Gosnell trial to push for state-level “TRAP” laws meant to close abortion clinics with unnecessary regulations. Now, anti-choice groups are targeting legal abortion in Washington, DC.
Reacting to the Gosnell verdict, the Family Research Council and the Susan B. Anthony List both singled out a bill, sponsored by Republican Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, that would ban abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah also plugged the bill in an interview with Janet Mefferd about Gosnell. The bill, similar to several that have been considered in state legislatures, is based on the disputed claim that 20 weeks is the point at which a fetus can feel pain. Such procedures are rare, accounting for just 1.5 percent of abortions.
DC has long been a convenient target for Republican lawmakers looking to expand school vouchers, eliminate needle exchange programs, stop gun control measures…and, of course, infringe on abortion rights. Thanks to a 2011 budget deal, for instance, the District is currently barred from using its own local tax dollars to help low-income women access abortions – a policy that has been in effect off and on for 25 years.
Of course, Franks’ DC bill is completely unrelated to the Gosnell trial. In reality, abortion performed in proper conditions are one of the safest medical procedures provided in the United States. Gosnell’s clinic, which was the last refuge for many low-income women, illustrated the horrors of the unsafe, back-alley abortions that are all too common in parts of the world where abortion is illegal.
Last year, when Franks introduced a similar bill, he refused to let D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton testify against it in committee.
Star Parker is out with a new column congratulating Mark Sanford for winning his race for Congress, calling him a “consistent, principled, and courageous conservative” who has “pulled in two streams of conservatives – the economic conservatives and the social conservatives” throughout his political career.
The ringing endorsement of a politician who used taxpayer dollars to pursue an extramarital affair which led to divorce and censure by the legislature is particularly rich because Parker has made a career railing against the left for supposedly promoting promiscuity and weakening the institution of marriage.
At last year’s Values Voter Summit she derided Sandra Fluke as a “national icon for sexual promiscuity” who needs to learn from her own “sexual rampage,” and she told James Dobson in an interview that “sexual promiscuity” along with “sexual irresponsibility and immorality” are responsible for the country’s economic crisis.
Parker’s salute to Sanford as a “seasoned, principled, and exciting conservative politician and leader” even includes a dig at Jason Collins: “Perhaps if Sanford's adultery were a gay affair liberal's would be more understanding.”
Put me down as happy to see former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford coming back to Washington. Earlier this week he handily defeated Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a special election for a House seat he himself once held.
He has always been a consistent, principled, and courageous conservative. And he has always done it with showmanship and clarity that gets the points across to voters.
He unfurled this showmanship in this campaign of redemption, in which he was combatting not just his opponent, but also his deeply tarnished image as result of serious ethical transgressions during his second term as governor.
The story is well known. While governor, Sanford conducted an adulterous affair, disappeared to visit the woman in Argentina, lied about his whereabouts, and misused state funds in making the trip.
He survived to serve out his second term as Governor, but departed as what seemed to be permanently damaged political goods.
Those personal transgressions have, of course, been raw meat for those on the left.
According to Alexandria Lapp, executive director the House Majority Pac, which poured some $450,000 into ads and mail against Sanford, "The House Republican Caucus has added yet another ethically challenged embarrassment who will be an albatross around the neck of every Republican forced to answer for Sanford's embarrassing and reckless behavior."
The irony does not drip but pours forth like a tsunami when liberals start talking about morality and ethics.
A few weeks ago Washington Wizards basketball player Jason Collins announced that he is gay. This was an event of such apparent import that he received a congratulatory phone call from the leader of the Democrat Party, President Obama, and an official tweet from first lady Michelle. Both expressed their pride and joy about Collins' courageous coming out.
The plight of Carolyn Moos, the woman with whom Collins was living for eight years, and to whom he at one point was engaged, was apparently of no interest to the Obamas, despite the President's supposed great concern for women's affairs, nor was the deceptive life that Collins lived with her.
Moos, 34, expressed distress at eight wasted prime years with Collins, who she said she never had a hint was gay and living a double life, and with whom she actually believed marriage and children were in the cards.
Perhaps if Sanford's adultery were a gay affair liberal's would be more understanding.
When the National Republican Congressional Committee pulled their support from Sanford's race following the news that he trespassed in the home of his former wife (to watch the Super Bowl with his son), support came in from both FreedomWorks PAC and the National Right to Life PAC.
Sanford's persona pulled in two streams of conservatives – the economic conservatives and the social conservatives – that many see at odds with each other.
A seasoned, principled, and exciting conservative politician and leader is exactly what Republicans need today.
Welcome back to Washington, Mark Sanford.
One of the most fascinating things about last week’s conservative infighting over the Heritage Foundation’s immigration reform study was how it revealed the careful balance that “mainstream” groups like Heritage must maintain with the more radical elements of the conservative base.
The Heritage study’s coauthor, Jason Richwine, resigned after his paper trail of racist pseudo-science came to light. Groups like Heritage and the Center for Immigration Studies are generally exceedingly careful to try to insulate themselves from charges of racism – instead of explicitly talking about race, they talk about “multiculturalism and diversity,” “patriotic assimilation,” “professional ethnics” and “high rates of welfare use.”
All of which drives radical anti-immigrant groups crazy. The White Nationalist group VDARE, for instance, is livid that Richwine was booted from Heritage.
In a VDARE blog post Saturday, VDARE editor Peter Brimelow writes that “Beltway immigration patriots” who are “terrified to death of any sign of Political Incorrectness” will ultimately be powerless to stop comprehensive immigration reform. Instead, he writes, they will ultimately be dependent on people like himself and on xenophobia – or, “the very Incorrect sentiments of national identity etc.” – among the grassroots. These sentiments, he writes, were responsible for defeating immigration reform in 2007.
"Anyone could have predicted it. Richwine didn’t mind taking on taboos or talking to taboo people. That’s how immigration reform foes talk amongst themselves. That’s not how they’re going to stop the bill."
Actually, my observation is that the small community of Beltway immigration patriots are terrified to death of any sign of Political Incorrectness and have substantially internalized this inhibition.
But it doesn’t matter anyway, because what will really stop “immigration reform” a.k.a. the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge is grass roots opposition—as in 2007. And that is motivated by the very Incorrect sentiments of national identity etc.
Nevertheless, the Richwine saga has to make you wonder where America is headed.
Brimelow is no stranger to the nexus of mainstream and radical on the Right. Last year, Brimelow was invited to speak on a Conservative Political Action Conference panel about “how the pursuit of diversity is weakening American identity” –at which he was joined by Rep. Steve King of Iowa.
Garrett Epps writes today in The Atlantic about how the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, still dominated by far-right George W. Bush nominees, has been instrumental in “the long, doleful transformation of the First Amendment from an individual right of conscience into a shield against business regulation.”
We've read of the violence done to the National Labor Relations Board by the D.C. Circuit's December decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB. Having read that opinion repeatedly, I believe it does violence to the Constitution as well. The D.C. Circuit last year voided a Food and Drug Administration regulation requiring graphic warning labels on cigarette labels as a violation of tobacco companies' "free speech" rights -- to me, another grave misstep. And I feel the same way about the Circuit's decision this week in National Association of Manufacturers v. NLRB. In this case, three Republican nominees held that the First Amendment's right against "compelled speech" protects employers against an NLRB regulation requiring them to post a government poster notifying workers of their rights. The decision is another step on the long, doleful transformation of the First Amendment from an individual right of conscience into a shield against business regulation.
We posted an infographic yesterday that shows just how ideologically skewed the D.C. Circuit is. George W. Bush made a concerted effort to pack the court with judges who shared his right-wing ideology (including John Roberts, who went on to be one of the top two most pro-corporate Supreme Court Justices in the past 65 years). In contrast, President Obama is the first president since Woodrow Wilson to not place a single judge on the court during his full first term.
Retired Gen. Jerry Boykin – anti-Muslim crusader, Religious Right folk hero, and Family Research Council Vice President – was one of the speakers at Liberty Counsel’s recent Awakening conference. Boykin, who has accused Barack Obama of turning the U.S. into a “Marxist nation,” told Awakening attendees that the country is “on the precipice of total destruction” and he blames the church for not standing up and being “the dominant influence on our society.”
The Bible tells us, woe unto you who call good evil and evil good. And that’s exactly what we’re doing in America today. We’re calling good evil and evil good, and we’re paying the penalty for it because we’re losing our nation. Our values are changing so rapidly. We’re on the precipice of total destruction if we don’t turn this around and I mean that. I’ll say it again, we’re on the precipice of total destruction if we don’t turn our value system around….The question that we have to ask ourselves, and I ask you to ponder this, where is that church that Alexis de Tocqueville talked about in America today? Where is that church that should be the dominant influence on our society, that should influence everything that we do, the way we think, the way we act. Where is that church today? … Across the nation the church has been silent. The church is not the dominant influence in America today. It doesn’t shape our values because the church has been silent, where we’re now calling good evil and evil good even inside the churches across America today, and it’s killing us as a nation.
Ken Hutcherson is very angry that a fellow Christian Post contributor, Dave Thompson, lauded Jason Collins for coming out and is lamenting that many church leaders “have denied the grace of Christ for gay couples.” Hutcherson, who said that Satan was behind Collins’ decision to come out as gay, criticized Thompson for having “stated that Jason Collins is brave.”
“Your defense of homosexuality is without merit because it has destroyed every civilization it has touched and that is shameful,” Hutcherson writes, “Like gambling, porn, alcohol and drug abuse, and sex addition, homosexuality destroys the family like nothing else, and eventually the soul that God turns over to a reprobate mind.”
Your defense of homosexuality is without merit because it has destroyed every civilization it has touched and that is shameful. Let's stop with the rhetoric and speak in the truest sense of love, and that is what I am about to do.
Like gambling, porn, alcohol and drug abuse, and sex addition, homosexuality destroys the family like nothing else, and eventually the soul that God turns over to a reprobate mind. (Romans 1: 24-30)
Mr. Thompson, in your desperation to justify this sin of 'choice,' you have stated that Jason Collins is brave and you commended him for his stand. You have also stated many conservative pastors agree with you.
Oh please, as we say in Alabama, do you think I fell off the turnip truck to believe such a ludicrous statement? Sir I may have been born at night, but not last night. …
Those who have no concern for his salvation are exploiting Jason Collins. I would be the first person to invite Jason to our church, because we would not condemn him, but love him in the truest sense, being followers of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And yes, we would help him to understand the true love of Jesus Christ, and not the false hope you would give to him.
Michas, it turns out, is an expert in the sinister connection between Common Core education standards, Agenda 21 and Obamacare, the proponents of which, she has discovered, have the “ultimate goal” of setting up “internment or re-education camps for those that will not comply with their sick agenda.”
In particular, Michas tells Sher, “the comparison of Nazism and Common Core are uncanny.” In fact, she says, “If this isn’t Nazism, Communism, Marxism and all the ‘ism’s,’ I don’t know what is.”
“I know this sounds insane,” Michas adds, “but sadly, it is a reality we are facing today.”
It’s difficult to summarize her arguments, but here are some excerpts:
Sher: Christina, thanks so much for being here with me, today. You are doing an extraordinary job of bringing the truth about what is happening in the government public school system in the USA…and it isn’t pretty.
During his brutal reign in Russia, in which he established the Soviet Union or USSR, created the Secret Police, established Siberian prison camps, killed thousands of peasants when they did not work as hard as the ruling Communist elites demanded or if they questioned anything these same Communists did, Vladimir Lenin also, said: “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” He was referring to the Luciferian Communist Party’s child education--aka indoctrination--system.
“Common Core” appears to have all of the earmarks of the old USSR’s programming system for children with several new innovative and chilling twists. It is also firmly tied to Agenda 21--the land-grabbing and human suppression and depopulation program.
Christina: The comparison of Nazism and Common Core (CC) are uncanny. One such comparison is that Nazism had Leaders and Master Teachers in the National Socialists Teachers League that visited schools and kept data files on Teachers. The Obama Administration funded 10,000 Master Teachers (MT’S) to train Teachers on CC and the MT’s will keep data files on students and Teachers. Students were taught to spy on parents and teachers. CC will have students as young as 5 participating in the evaluation of Teachers.
In Nazism, the curriculum was rewritten to provide a Nazi (government) approved curriculum. Common Core curriculum is being rewritten to provide a global approved curriculum. Nazism kept huge data files on students and teachers and Common Core will data mine the students with over 400 different data points on each child, their family and teachers from pre-kindergarten to workforce…
And one final comparison is Nazism had strong Teachers’ Unions (NSTL). We have but to look at how powerful the Teacher’s unions are in our country and only growing stronger in power and influence under this current Obama Administration’s unholy alliance with them at America’s expense and the expense of the education of our children.. The quality of the educational standards of our children has suffered at the hands of these Teachers’ Unions. Common Core is no different. Our children will suffer at the hand of a government controlled education system. They will no longer be able to have dreams and goals but only those that the government wishes them to have (UNESCO –A21). If this isn’t Nazism, Communism, Marxism and all the “ism’s”, I don’t know what is.
The worst part is they are lying to parents and teachers about what Common Core really is and the effects it will have. Teachers don’t even realize that their jobs are in jeopardy for, if they do not conform, they will be removed. But, then again, were not the people of Russia, Germany etc. all deceived until it was too late??
From reading these quotes and excerpts, we can see how Common Core ties into Agenda 21’s global goals for the New World Order. Control!! Control!!
The ultimate goal of UNESCO, via the nationalization of our education system is to create “ good global, sustainable citizens who will be “managed” by a Global Government. The ultimate goal is to have a “managed citizenry”, a managed economy, and a managed environment once again returning to Mother Earth worship.
This is where eugenics and William (Bill) Ayers, Obamacare, the Nationalization of our Economy, Energy, Health and Education systems comes into play. Ayers is a major driver behind Common Core and sadly is a very radical Professor today that has had much influence on students thinking … He and other key players including the Clinton’s, Bushes’, Gore, Gates, Soros, Rockefeller, Warren Buffet, Obama and his minions, etc. Understand that one cannot “manage” most of adult America today. The ultimate goal of these radicals from the UN, the US and other nations is to set up Internment or Re-education camps for those that will not comply with their sick agenda. You either are “retrained” or you will have to be eliminated.
The Healthcare Bill will take care of the “useless” senior population via “managed care”. The government will have free reign with the youth. You cannot change a nation unless you change how it thinks and operates…Hence, the lesson learned from Lenin, Stalin, Marx et al, “get the children and you change generations”…
I know this sounds insane, but sadly, it is a reality we are facing today. Don’t take my word for it, do your research.
Noson Leiter of Torah Jews for Decency and one of the Religious Right’s favorite rabbis appeared yesterday alongside Rick Scarborough for a Tea Party Unity conference call.
Leiter, who blamed Hurricane Sandy on New York’s marriage equality law, said that the “end game” of the gay rights movement is “child molestation.”
“They are after our kids,” Leiter said, “They are after the bibles and guns that Americans cling to but they are also after us and after our kids.”
He warned that while gay rights advocates “will not rest until all of their opposition is totally eliminated,” ultimately they will lose because “the Lord will vanquish evil.”
The end game is that we are the target. It’s not that they are stepping on all of our rights and basically advancing the cause of child molestation in order to get to some other goal, that is part of their goal. The nature of radical pederasty basically involves the victimization of kids. The acceptance of NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association, that organization which has been traditionally accepted by mainstream homosexual activists in their marches historically, that reflects more than just the radical fringe, that reflects the unstated agenda, ultimately that’s what these people are after: they are after our kids. They are after the bibles and guns that Americans cling to but they are also after us and after our kids. If we don’t understand that we understand nothing; when we understand that and we know what the enemy is after then we can properly formulate a strategy of exposing it and addressing it. This is not going to stop, there is an existential struggle between not homosexuals but the homosexual activists who will not rest until all of their opposition is totally eliminated, co-opted and converted to their side. And that will not happen; we are on the winning side. The Lord will vanquish evil and hopefully it will be speedily in our days.
Leiter pointed to the Dignity for All Students Act, an anti-bullying bill in New York, as proof that “much of the homosexual agenda is predicated on predatory practices targeting youth” and pushing the “spiritual and emotional child molestation” of children.
He mentioned that he is working with ex-gay activist Greg Quinlan to stop legislation in New Jersey limiting the practice of ex-gay therapy on youth, which he asserted would have children be “molested by the state.”
Leiter went on to list a whole litany of claims that reveal the “terrorist and barbaric tactics” of gay rights supporters: arguing the children of same-sex parents are at risk for “molestation and trafficking” and live in “cruel” households, military service members are deterred from “complaining about homosexual advances” in the ranks and that conservatives are now the targets of “homo-terror.”
Much of the homosexual agenda is predicated on predatory practices targeting youth. I would suggest people look at the information on the Dignity for All Students Act in New York state, the homosexual indoctrination in schools is a major issues that could be attacked on that basis. It’s like spiritual and emotional child molestation, that’s a term people may want to use. There are bills in California and proposed in New Jersey and New York seeking to ban reparative therapy, as Greg Quinlan referred to it as the Jerry Sandusky bill that we just testified against this week in New Jersey. That basically takes away the opportunity of victims of child molestation to get the help they need, the reparative therapy they need to repel unwanted sexual feelings of same-gender attraction. These kids are to be condemned to a lifetime of thinking that they are homosexual when they really are not because the left does not want them to have that autonomy, that freedom of choice to opt for the therapies that can help them. So basically they are allowing children to be molested yet again; after they’ve been molested once they’re going to be molested by the state if this type of legation stands. That’s another example of how we can attack the barbarism in the radical homosexualist movement.
Transgender legislation, facilitating child molestation via increased access to victims like New York state’s ‘bathroom bill’; supporting homosexualist terrorism under the guise of fighting hate like the SPLC targeting the FRC, facilitating that homo-terror attack on the FRC a while ago; targeting businesses like Chick-fil-A for their expression of biblical faith; homosexual adoption, which victimizes the most defenseless by exposing them to the hazards of molestation and trafficking and other aspects of the homosexual upbringing including the cruel deprivation of the father and mother-led family; homosexuals in the US military, infringing on religious liberties of servicemen and chaplains and fostering an environment more hostile to complaining about homosexual advances; the branding of non-politically correct groups of Jews and Christians as dangerous extremists in a recent US Army presentation; the attack in Washington state on a florist for not delivering flowers to a so-called homosexual wedding. These are all examples of terrorist and barbaric tactics and strategies and policies of the homosexualist movement.
Robert Rector, the lead author of a Heritage Foundation study on the economic impact of immigration reform that has been slammed by fellow conservatives, defended his work on the Sandy Rios show on AFA Radio today.
Rector claimed that his critics “haven’t really pointed to any flaws” in his study and that if it had been “about anything other than immigration and open borders, they would all applaud this study.”
Of course, critics of the Heritage report from both the left and the right have pointed to a number of major flaws, most notably the authors’ failure to consider how legalized immigrants would help the economy to grow. This major departure from the conservative doctrine of “dynamic scoring” did not sit well with many on the Right, including the author of a previous Heritage immigration study, who wrote:
Unless they expect readers to believe all this household income (a) generates no productive work (e.g., makes product, mows lawns, nurses the sick, and starts businesses that hire other Americans) and (b) is 100% remitted abroad, consuming nothing in the U.S. macro economy, then the report is misleading.
Rector’s defense? He points out that his report is “80 pages” long and contains “literally hundreds of equations.”
Rios: I think Heritage has such a fine name, I can’t see that they’ve done much of a dent in your reputation yet.
Rector: Not at all. And as I’ve said, with Grover Norquist, who’s for example attacking me, if this study was about anything other than immigration and open borders, they would all applaud this study. But as soon as you start talking about immigrants, then this study is flawed. And also, the people who are attacking this haven’t really pointed to any flaws. They’ve said, well, maybe the number of immigrants is low.
Two years ago, the Iowa Religious Right group The Family Leader caused a bit of a stir when it convinced Republican presidential candidates Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann to sign a “marriage pledge” that, among other questionable provisions, stated that African-American families were better off under slavery than they are today.
Just a few months later, all the major Republican presidential candidates save Mitt Romney participated in a “Thanksgiving Family Forum” hosted by the group.
And apparently the Family Leader’s president Bob Vander Plaats hasn’t learned much from the “marriage pledge” episode. In an interview today with Business Week about Sen. Rand Paul’s chances with social conservatives, Vander Plaats says Paul’s “leave it to the states” position on marriage equality is unacceptable because gay marriage, like slavery, is something “you don’t leave up to the states.”
Vander Plaats said Iowans may tolerate Paul’s comments on abortion exceptions because he’s also authored a bill that would define life as beginning at conception. His views on same-sex marriage are another matter.
“We are definitely going to have visits with Rand on some of those things,” said Vander Plaats, who disagrees with Paul’s view that the legal status of same-sex marriage, like drug crimes, should be left up to the states.
“You don’t leave slavery up to the states, nor should you,” said Vander Plaats. “It’s either right or it’s wrong.”
The mainstream media’s favorite racist commentator, Pat Buchanan, is predictably upset by a Census report this week that in last year’s election, black voters turned out at higher rates than white voters for the first time in history.
In a WorldNetDaily column yesterday, Buchanan laments the fact that African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2012 and that even more people of color are immigrating to the United States.
His solution, of course, is not for the GOP to try to appeal to non-white voters. Instead, he suggests that Republicans focus exclusively on turning out white voters by re-implementing what he sarcastically calls the “evil Southern Strategy” that helped catapult Richard Nixon to office. Buchanan implies that this time around, instead of stirring up racial resentment against black Americans, Republicans should work to pit white voters against “illegal foreign aliens."
“Is the way to increase the enthusiasm and turnout among [white voters] for the GOP to embrace amnesty and a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal foreign aliens?” he asks. “Or is it to demand the sealing of America’s borders against any and all intruders?”
Who are these folks? Perhaps half are Hispanic, but 90 percent are people of color who, once registered, vote 4-to-1 Democratic. One would not be surprised to hear that the Senate Democratic Caucus had broken out into chants of “Go, Marco, Go!”
Who are these folks? Perhaps half are Hispanic, but 90 percent are people of color who, once registered, vote 4-to-1 Democratic. One would not be surprised to hear that the Senate Democratic Caucus had broken out into chants of “Go, Marco, Go!"
Setting aside the illegals invasion Bush 41 and Bush 43 refused to halt, each year a million new immigrants enter and move onto a fast track to citizenship. Between 80 and 90 percent now come from the Third World, and once naturalized, they vote 80 percent Democratic.
This brings us back around to the Electoral College.
After Richard Nixon cobbled together his New Majority, the GOP carried 49 states in 1972 and 1984, 44 states in 1980 and 40 in 1988. In four elections – 1972, 1984, 1988 and 2004 – the Republican Party swept all 11 states of FDR’s “Solid South.”
Such were the fruits of that evil Southern Strategy.
But when conservatives urged Bush 1 to declare a moratorium on legal immigration in 1992 and build a security fence, the politically correct Republican establishment fought tooth and nail to keep the idea out of the platform.
From these Census figures, white folks are losing interest in politics and voting. Yet, whites still constitute three-fourths of the electorate and nine in 10 Republican votes.
Query: Is the way to increase the enthusiasm and turnout among this three-fourths of the electorate for the GOP to embrace amnesty and a path to citizenship for 12 million illegal foreign aliens?
Or is it to demand the sealing of America’s borders against any and all intruders?
The Huffington Post clips this exchange from yesterday’s meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting yesterday, which pretty much encapsulates the gridlock that Republicans have inflicted on the Senate during the Obama administration:
HuffPost’s Jennifer Bendery summarizes the exchange between Texas Republican John Cornyn and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee:
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Cornyn was arguing for more immigration judge slots in Texas when he got called out by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) for gumming up the district court nomination process. Immigration judges are different from district court judges, but Whitehouse questioned why the Senate should add more immigration judgeships in Texas if Cornyn isn't trying to fill empty district court slots there.
"I don't see why you need additional judges when there have been multiple vacancies that have been left without nominees for years," Whitehouse said. "I have an issue with that."
Cornyn said his answer to that was "simple:" It's Obama's fault.
"The president's got to nominate somebody before the Senate can act on it," Cornyn said.
But the process for approving a new district court judge, per longstanding tradition, begins with a senator making recommendations from his or her state to the president. The president then works with that senator to get at least some of the nominees confirmed -- the idea being that those senators, regardless of party, are motivated to advocate for nominees from their states. The White House may look at other nominees on its own, but typically won't move forward without input from home state senators.
That's when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) stepped in to remind Cornyn what he already knows: that if he wants to see movement on district court nominees, he needs to make recommendations to the president.
"Based on 38 years experience here, every judgeship I've seen come through this committee during that time has followed recommendations by the senators from the state," Leahy said. "You have to have recommendations from the senators, especially since I've been chairman, because ... as the senator from Texas knows, if senators have cooperated with the White House and the White House sends somebody they disagree with ... I have not brought the person forward, even when it's been importune to do so by the White House."
Cruz tried to absolve himself of the matter altogether, saying he just got to the Senate in January.
In short, Cornyn was blaming President Obama for gridlock that Cornyn himself has created. In fact, Texas has eight current federal judicial vacancies, one dating back as far as 2008. All are on courts so overworked that they have been labeled “judicial emergencies.” Thanks to Cornyn and Cruz, not one of those vacancies has a nominee.
And in July, one more vacancy will open up in a district court seat based in Fort Worth. When it comes open, Fort Worth will be reduced to just one active federal judge for the first time in over two decades.
The Texas Board of Education member who is leading the committee to review CSCOPE, a curriculum that has been the target of several right-wing conspiracy theories, told a Republican women’s group that his committee will “look at whether or not [CSCOPE lessons] treat the roles of men and women in a traditional way.”
Republican Marty Rowley also told the group that CSCOPE had “a definite leftist bent” but that it is not as left-wing as Common Core, promising to block “any opening or opportunity for Common Core to weasel its way into Texas.”
The comments were first spotted by Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network, who notes that right-wing activists in Texas have consistently criticized textbooks “for including information on birth control, line drawings of self-exams for breast cancer and other content they found morally objectionable.”
“As folks began to look at those lessons what they began to see was there was a definite leftist bent to some of those lessons, particularly in the area of social studies and it became of great concern to folks, myself included,” said Rowley, R-Amarillo, during the Midland County Republican Women meeting Wednesday.
Rowley represents Midland as the District 15 SBOE member and was recently appointed chairman of an ad hoc committee to review the CSCOPE social studies curriculum this summer.
“We have some specific criteria that we’re looking at (regarding the CSCOPE lessons). We’re going to look at whether or not they treat the roles of men and women in a traditional way. That’s part of the operating rules and things that we’re looking at,” Rowley said. “We’re going to look at whether or not they treat American exceptionalism in a particular way and whether they enforce the belief that America is an exceptional nation.”
“I’ve looked through (the Common Core Standards) and it’ll curl your eyebrows. It’s not something you’ll enjoy reading. You think CSCOPE’s to the left, you ought to read Common Core,” Rowley said. “My concern is if we just say do away with this entire curriculum that 75 percent of our school districts use, they’re going to go shopping for something else. I don’t want to create any opening or opportunity for Common Core to weasel its way into Texas.”
Mike Gonzalez, the Heritage Foundation’s vice president of communications, has had a rough week. He was tasked with defending a Heritage report about the economic impact of immigration reform that was statistically faulty, co-authored by a white supremacist and bashed by other conservatives.
The controversy over the report, however, has overshadowed an op-ed that Gonzalez wrote for the Denver Post last week that pins at least some of the blame for the Boston Marathon bombings on what he sees as a new trend in American schools of teaching “multiculturalism and diversity” rather than “love of country.”
But we know one thing for sure: He wasn't taught that assimilation into American society was desirable. As I'm finding while researching a book on Hispanics — indeed, what I experienced as a young Cuban coming to this country in the early 1970s — we no longer teach patriotic assimilation. By that I mean love of country, not just its creature comforts.
We teach the opposite, in fact — that we're all groups living cheek by jowl with one another, all with different advantages and legal class protection statuses, but not really all part of the same national fabric. In other words, we teach multiculturalism and diversity, and are officially making assimilation very hard to achieve.
If Dzhokhar and his brother Tamarlan are guilty of the acts of terrorism they are accused of because they succumbed to Islamist radicalism, then they are monsters who are personally responsible for turning against the land that welcomed them. Tamarlan has paid with his life, and Dzhokhar will be dealt judgment.
But as we grapple now with the thorny question of immigration, how to handle the millions of people who started to arrive at mid-century in a massive immigration wave, we could do worse than look at the affairs in Boston for a clue on whether our current approach works.
Over the past few days, many people pondering the question of how the Tsarnaevs could have acted the way they did have discounted that lack of assimilation could be the case, emphasizing that the brothers Tsarnaev lived in Cambridge, "one of the most diverse and inclusive places in America."
The problem is indeed with an "inclusive" approach that considers it wrong to teach love of a country so generous that it takes in two foreigners from a far-away land, gives them refuge, welcomes them in and gives them a free education. To have done so might have precluded the radical brain washing that led to the bombing.
This absurd argument is basically the one put forward last week by Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian.
This afternoon the Minnesota House passed a bill allowing same-sex couples in Minnesota to marry. It is expected to be taken up by the Senate on Monday, and Gov. Mark Dayton has pledged to sign the legislation if it reaches him. If successful, Minnesota would be the twelfth state – and the third in one month – to pass marriage equality legislation.
“I personally want this to pass, but I also think it’s the right direction for Minnesota and where the future is headed,” said Minnesota House Speaker Paul Thissen on Tuesday, according to the Star Tribune.
Jake Loesch, communications director for Minnesotans United, shared a similar sentiment:
“Marriage is a simple freedom, it’s something that all Minnesotans deserve and it’s about the love, the commitment, the responsibility that two people share.”