C4

Right-Wing Radio Host Says She Won't Go In A Taxi With A Somali Driver

Conservative talk show host Lisa Benson warned on Sunday that Somali refugees control the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and insisted that she will not ride in taxis with Somali drivers out of fears for her safety.

“There is an exclusive contract with the Somali community both for janitorial services and for taxi driving” — not exactly sure how an airport has an “exclusive contract” with an ethnic community, but she goes on — “the refugee community has unrestricted access at my airport to baggage, to planes, to many, many things.”

“Getting out of the plane last weekend I went to a taxi stand and quietly asked the attendant to put me in a cab, preferably not a Somali cab – that was my first mistake as I was trying to protect myself,” she said, suggesting that she would be a victim of an anti-Semitic attack if she was in a car with a Somali driver.

CAIR reported on Benson’s remarks and noted that “Benson’s Board of Advisors includes notorious Islamophobes such as Nonie Darwish, Steven Emerson and John Guandolo.” 

Gary Bauer Badly Distorts Poll Of GOP Voters To Claim 'Most Americans' Oppose Marriage Equality

It didn’t take long for Gary Bauer and Tony Perkins to misrepresent a recent poll their groups commissioned which found that “82 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independents believe marriage ‘should be defined only as a union between one man and one woman.’”

Speaking with Perkins on Washington Watch yesterday, Bauer claimed that the poll actually proves that most Americans opposed legalizing same-sex marriage: “While certainly, particularly among young people, there is some shift on this issue, most Americans still understand that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Bauer said of the Family Research Council/American Values poll.

In fact, the poll explicitly states [PDF] that it only surveyed Republicans and independents who typically vote Republican.

While the poll used heavily slanted Religious Right language when asking GOP voters if they “agree or disagree that politicians should support the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples,” Perkins and Bauer accused nonpartisan polling firms — which have consistently found that a majority of voters support gay marriage — of using misleading questions to trick people into supporting marriage equality.

“I think, Tony, we both agree that there is an effort underway here to use polls not to measure public opinion but to form public opinion and move it in the direction of the demands of the gay rights movement,” Bauer said. Perkins agreed: “Absolutely, and a lot of that is done by the way the questions are worded.”

“If there had been really been a massive shift among the American people to the redefinition of marriage, I don’t think we would see all over the country the gay rights movement vehemently opposing every effort that happens in any state to actually vote on the issue,” Bauer added, ignoring the fact that gay rights supporters in 2012 successfully led a marriage referendum in Maine.

Bauer later said that the polls are “cooked” in favor of gay marriage and insisted that gay rights advocates are afraid of having a “national referendum” on marriage rights … even though there is no mechanism in election law or the US Constitution to trigger a national referendum on any issue.

“One would assume if there had been a big shift of opinion, the gay rights movement would say, ‘Let’s have a national referendum, we’ll prove it to you.’ But the fact that they will spend millions of dollars to keep off of the ballot in states a reaffirmation of the traditional meaning of marriage I think is further evidence that they know the polling data, which is often being touted in contrast to the poll we’ve got today, are really in many cases — the numbers have been cooked in order to advance a particular social agenda,” Bauer said.

Cruz: Obama Provoked 'Constitutional Crisis' With Marriage Equality, Immigration, Drug Sentencing Moves

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas joined Frank Gaffney yesterday to discuss Cruz’s bill aimed at stopping Iran’s new United Nations ambassador, who had been involved in the Iranian hostage crisis, from entering the United States. The bill was passed unanimously by Congress and signed by President Obama, who had already refused to grant a visa to the Iranian official, but that didn’t keep Gaffney and Cruz from using the issue to criticize the president.

Like President George H.W. Bush had done with a similar bill, the president noted in a signing statement that the bill might not pass constitutional muster because only the president — not Congress — has constitutional authority to receive ambassadors, so he would have to take the bill as “advisory.”

This led Cruz to berate the president for his refusal to defend the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act in the courts (both Republican and Democratic administrations have refused to defend laws they believe to be unconstitutional), his executive orderdeferring deportations of some DREAMers, his widely misrepresented decision to grant the request of Republican governors to modify welfare-to-work requirements, and the attorney general’s move to broaden clemency opportunities for nonviolent offenders serving time for drug crimes.

When Gaffney asked if such actions “constitute a Constitutional crisis in our time,” Cruz responded, “That is exactly right.”

Cruz: You’re right, he did put out that signing statement, and if nothing else I have to praise him for his candor. Because one of the most dismaying aspects of the Obama administration has been that this president seems to regard all legislation as advisory. And so he said so explicitly here that the legislation was now written in the law books as part of the US code, but if he so desires he might ignore it sometime in the future. None of that surprises me because that has been the approach President Obama has taken to the entire rest of the US code, whether it has been immigration laws or marriage laws or drug laws or welfare laws or Obamacare, which he 30 times has ignored the text of the law and disregarded it.

Gaffney: Or rewritten it on his own authority. This raises the question – and I think you’ve very directly addressed it in the past, and I’d invite you to do so again – does this constitute a Constitutional crisis in our time as the result of the man simply departing from his oath, sworn responsibilities to uphold the Constitution, which clearly makes it the Congress’s role to enact legislation.

Cruz: That is exactly right.

Pat Robertson: Consider Divorcing Wife For Withholding Sex, She Was Probably 'Molested As A Child'

Pat Robertson told a 700 Club viewer today that he has “grounds for divorce” because his wife is not having sex with him regularly, speculating that she was “molested as a child” and needs serious psychological counseling.

The viewer told Robertson that he has “only been intimate with my wife a handful of times” and that “she has no interest in the bedroom,” adding: “I believe the Bible says withholding sex is wrong. Correct me if I’m wrong.”

Robertson agreed that the Bible condemns withholding sex and wondered whether the viewer’s wife has “psychological problems” resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

AFA Warns 'Homosexual Aggression' Has Banned Christians From '7 Common Careers'

In a fundraising email today, American Family Association president Tim Wildmon warns that the list of careers that Christians can hold in America “is quickly shrinking as homosexuals pro-actively seek opportunities to wreck the personal business and career of any Christian who declines to support the gay lifestyle.”

The email lists “7 common careers Christians may no longer hold in America,” which it says includes photography, broadcasting and teaching. Wildmon cites a few cases in which business owners have been sued for refusing to provide services to gay people and have sought broad exemptions from anti-discrimination laws that apply to businesses operating in the public square. He also cites the case of Craig James, who was hired by a regional Fox Sports network before being fired by the national network, which he claimed was because of his “personal religious beliefs.” Wildmon claims that James, who has since been hired by the Family Research Council , is a martyr who has been banned from broadcasting thanks to “homosexual aggression.”

7 common careers Christians may no longer hold in America

April 23, 2014

Many Christians choose self-employed careers because they want to be able to run their business according to the dictates of their faith and conscience.

That list is quickly shrinking as homosexuals pro-actively seek opportunities to wreck the personal business and career of any Christian who declines to support the gay lifestyle.

Don't be fooled. This is a focused effort to ostracize and humiliate faith-based businesses and their owners. Here are a few recent examples:

  • Photography - A Christian photographer in New Mexico was fined $6700 for politely declining to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. The Supreme Court allowed this fine to stand.
  • Baker - A Christian baker in Oregon is facing both civil and criminal penalties, including jail time, for politely declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony. Her business has closed.
  • Florist - Baronelle Stutzman, a Christian florist in Washington, is being sued by the state attorney general for politely declining to prepare an arrangement for a gay wedding ceremony.
  • Broadcasting - Craig James was fired by Fox Sports Southwest after only one day on the job for expressing his support for natural marriage while he was a candidate for the United States Senate.
  • Counseling - Jennifer Keeton was dismissed from the counseling program at Augusta State University for her religious reservations about the homosexual lifestyle.
  • Innkeeping - The Wildflower Inn in Vermont was fined $30,000 and forced to shut down its wedding reception business after politely declining to host a lesbian ceremony.
  • Teaching - Ms. Gillian John-Charles was kicked out of a doctoral program in education at Roosevelt University for expressing in class her belief that homosexuals aren't born gay.

What you can do about it…

AFA is improving the way we communicate, so you can get the latest information quickly and effectively engage the culture when our Christian brothers and sister come under attack from homosexual aggression.

Michael Bresciani Chides Gay People As Lower Than Monkeys

Christian Post blogger Michael Bresciani is out with another warning that the “gay agenda” and the purported rise of “perverted and libidinous behavior” is creating a “world that is plunging in unison to what we now well know will lead to – Armageddon.”

Insisting that “we are not the dung under the feet of Barack Obama,” Bresciani calls on conservatives to fight gay rights with the zeal of soldiers, adding that monkeys are more moral than gays: “Academics are assuring our children that they are the progeny of monkeys who are now on the cusp of conquering the stars. Yet, even the monkeys have not blurred gender distinctions nor do they indiscriminately destroy their young on a daily basis.”

Noting the backward slide into every prurient, perverted and libidinous behavior Americans can conger, is largely treated like scolding and rebuke rather than a call to return to the faith of our fathers.



This idea is now replaced with academically sanctioned dismissal of God, gay agenda indoctrination and mealy mouthed churches raising the white flag of apostasy and condescension. But not all!

Bill O’Reilley shrugs off the plunge into the gay “marriage” battle as social inevitability due to emergent acceptance of it into the fabric of our nation and yet, he still dares to refer to himself as a “culture warrior.”

Take a hint from your noble friends in the Wounded Warrior Project Bill - real warriors never give in or give up!



It will take a national revival to call God back to our side. First to forgive us, second to renew our commitment to righteousness and lastly to show our resolve to a world that is plunging in unison to what we now well know will lead to - Armageddon.

Academics are assuring our children that they are the progeny of monkeys who are now on the cusp of conquering the stars. Yet, even the monkeys have not blurred gender distinctions nor do they indiscriminately destroy their young on a daily basis. They exist without hoarding gold and silver or prepare for retirement. Is it time to tell the Darwinists that acting like monkeys is not proof of evolution?



Revival is a return to following only the voice of the Good Shepherd. We are not the children of O’Reilly; we are not the dung under the feet of Barack Obama and his horrible notion of ‘Change.’ We are not the dupes of indoctrination for academic fools who soothe themselves with tenure, turpitude and depravity masquerading as classical formal education.

CBN Hails Rand Paul For Wearing Blue Jeans

CBN’s chief political reporter David Brody fawns over every Republican politician he meets, and a recent blog post gushes over Rand Paul’s presidential prospects. You see, Brody explains, Rand Paul sometimes wears blue jeans, and his jeans “could take him into straight into The White House.”

“While other politicians are wearing a suit and tie, Paul is different,” he writes. “Paul’s choice of leg attire represents something. Whether the senator from Kentucky knows it or not, it’s his calling card to say he’s unique, different, and a trendsetter within the Republican Party.”

He goes on to hail Paul’s decision to wear jeans as a sign that “he’s leading” and “creating a new playbook and trying to create a new, younger, more diverse GOP voting constituency.”

Brody’s belief that Paul is radically transforming the foundering public image of the GOP is sadly not that unlike the general Republican playbook of changing the party’s appearance while not actually altering any of their ultraconservative stances.

Let’s be clear: Anyone who thinks Rand Paul can’t win the GOP nomination for president of the United States is foolish. He can. And if he wins, his “jeans” will be the reason. The jeans symbolize something that no other potential candidate for president possesses. Let’s explore.

You see, Rand Paul likes to wear jeans. While other politicians are wearing a suit and tie, Paul is different. At the recent CPAC event, all the other politicians went with the traditional look. Not Paul. Jeans were in order.

Some conservative commentators were upset. Peggy Noonan remarked that, “it’s not unusual for a man to wear jeans with a tie and jacket. They look like happy farmers, or cable TV anchors whose desks don’t show their legs. That being said, could we not wear grown-up suits when we are running for high office?”

But Noonan fails to grasp the deeper meaning.

Paul’s choice of leg attire represents something. Whether the senator from Kentucky knows it or not, it’s his calling card to say he’s unique, different, and a trendsetter within the Republican Party. His libertarian “genes” are represented in those blue jeans.

What we are witnessing is a man who has no desire to use the same tired old GOP playbook that’s been trotted out for decades. He’s creating a new playbook and trying to create a new, younger, more diverse GOP voting constituency.



So when he wears those blue jeans, it neatly fits in with his persona. After all, his libertarian “genes” fit perfectly inside those blue jeans. It’s non-traditional, just like libertarians. He’s not waiting around for others to figure out what the Republican Party needs to do and be. He’s stepping to the plate first. He’s leading.



He also understands that the traditional Republican orthodoxy of the past needs to change in order to win future elections. Does that mean those conservative principles need to change? No, of course not. But a fresh, different approach is needed.

And Rand Paul is going to do his best to walk that new path…in a pair of blue jeans that could take him into straight into The White House.

Kevin Swanson Speculates That Kacey Musgraves Would Have Been Killed For 'Promoting Homosexuality' In The 1960s

Kevin Swanson is not happy that country singer Kacey Musgraves won album of the year at the 2014 ACM Awards, warning that the singer is pushing the destruction of America and causing demons to dance in its ashes.

Swanson said on his April 10 radio program that if Musgraves had performed her song “Follow Your Arrow” any time between the 1880s and the 1960s, it would have prompted calls for her to be killed: “Let me say this, if she had sang [sic] that thing in a country bar in the 1920s or 1880s in Denver, Colorado, somebody would’ve called for a rope, ‘Get a rope!’ You know what would have happened, she would not have made it out of town in the 1880s, 1920s, 1940s or 1960s.”

“But things have changed, friends,” he lamented.

The Religious Right talk show host later explained that Muscraves’ “promotion of homosexuality” is undermining America.

“When you can turn a once-Christian nation into Sodom, that’s when the demons do their celebration, their dance in the end zone,” he said. “So she’s got to promote homosexuality and she’s got to promote the abandonment of the traditional church in the same song. That’s critical for the dismantling of the Christian faith in the heartland.”

Rick Scarborough Praises Lawless Rancher's Stand Against 'Tyrannical' Government's 'Gestapo Tactics'

On last week’s Tea Party Unity conference call, TPU founder Rick Scarborough praised lawless rancher Cliven Bundy for giving Americans “hope and courage,” likening the rancher and allied armed militias to the colonists who fought in the American Revolution.

While conceding that “clearly the man has some issues, he should’ve been paying his grazing rights,” Scarborough condemned the government’s “Gestapo tactics” against Bundy: “If people want to see what tyranny is, take a close look at that…. This is an illustration of where we’re headed if the American people don’t wake up to the tyranny that’s encroaching on our lives.”

“There’s a big pushback coming and it’s going on now,” Washington Times columnist Robert Knight added. “If you see the video of maybe one hundred riders on horses, most of them armed, riding up the road to help their neighbor against the federal assault, I don’t know about you but that reminds me of Lexington, these people meant business.”

James Robison Prays For 'Miracle' Uniting Tea Party And Religious Right Activists

Televangelist James Robison told listeners on last week’s Tea Party Unity conference call that the country is about to witness a merger of the Religious Right and the Tea Party that will bring God’s blessing back to America.

Robison said that the Tea Party doesn’t have “the numerical support” to win elections without the social conservatives, and “God is going to do something very great” to build a new “communications stream” that will unite the conservative movement and attract a bigger audience than the Drudge Report.

After praising his fellow speaker Rafael Cruz and Tea Party Unity — which was created by right-wing pastor Rick Scarborough for the very reason of bringing Tea Party and Religious Right activists together — as “answers to prayer,” Robison said he will be working to “get the message and the truth that flows from the heart and mind of God and the wisdom of God” to activists, while making sure that it won’t be “filtered down, misrepresented and ignored by a very biased, upside-down-worldview prevailing media.”

“We are creating a communications stream, a faith and freedom communications stream that the enemy will not be able to hinder,” Robison said. “Freedom is in the process of perishing, so this communication stream will bring together the leaders of the free market and the faith community and we will create a stream hopefully that will get more traffic than Drudge does.”

Robison later revealed that he’s working to “influence the influencers” by meeting with religious figures and “free market leaders like Foster Friess and many others of that caliber,” referring to the GOP mega-donor.

“They cannot win – the whole Tea Party has got to understand this – they cannot win, they cannot change legislation, they cannot correct our nation’s perilous course without the numerical support of the faith community,” he said.

He then warned that America is currently experiencing God’s judgment: “If you go to Joel 2 you’ll find the key for today. In the first part of that chapter you see the locusts coming in as a representative of all the forces of judgment for a nation that has gone away from the wisdom and counsel of God. And those locusts don’t break step, they don’t get out of line, all of these strange bedfellows come together and they move in total unison to consume the prosperity and the productivity of the land because people have left God out.”

“I believe we’re going to see the miracle,” he said,” and I have seen enough in the leadership areas in both the faith community and the free market community to believe we can witness this miracle.”

Rafael Cruz Falsely Claims San Antonio Banned Pastors From Preaching From The Bible

Speaking on a Tea Party Unity conference call last week, Rafael Cruz said that pastors in San Antonio can be fined for preaching from the Bible, a patently false claim but part of a larger Religious Right smear campaign against the city’s non-discrimination ordinance [PDF].

The ordinance added sexual orientation and gender identity to an existing city policy prohibiting discrimination, a move opposed by many Republicans, including Rafael Cruz’s son, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas. The debate over the recently passed ordinance featured several over-the-top reactions, including a rant from a city councilwoman who called homosexuality “disgusting.”

While speaking on the call with extremist pastor and TPU founder Rick Scarborough, who introduced Ted Cruz at the 2012 Values Voter Summit, the elder Cruz claimed that pastors who preach Romans 1 — which some pastors interpret as a condemnation of homosexuality — can be fined $500 a day, a claim with no basis in reality.

“All we have to do is turn on the news and every day we see more and more encroachment upon pastors from this administration,” Cruz said. “All they have to do is be aware of what’s happening around us and to be aware, for example, that in the city of San Antonio, if a pastor speaks on Romans 1, he could be even fined $500 a day until he retracts what he said.”

Scarborough went on to warn that the “lesbian mayor of Houston” will impose a similar “sanctions [on pastors] if they preach the Bible.”

Cruz also suggested in the conference call that “wicked” people are currently in charge of the government: “We’ve stayed at home and we allowed the wicked to elect wicked politicians to rule us. We get what we deserve, Rick. We need to get up the charge that God is giving us and move to the forefront and call this nation to repentance and call this nation to righteousness.”

Cruz has previously alleged that Satan controls the US government.

Religious Right Activists Can't Stop Lying About Hate Crimes Laws

WorldNetDaily today repeated long-debunked myths about the 2009 Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Law to stoke fears about a new Hate Crimes Reporting Act introduced in the wake of the mass shooting at two Jewish centers outside of Kansas City.

Barack Obama, when he was new in the Oval Office, signed a “hate crimes” law that created a two-tier system of punishment, increasing the punishment for a Christian pastor who attacked a homosexual but not for a homosexual who attacked a Christian pastor.

The reasoning was simple. The homosexual is in a protected class of U.S. citizens, but the Christian pastor is not.

Of course, that is not true, as the 2009 explicitly covers crimes “committed because of the actual or perceived religion.

The dishonesty continues:

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned the new law “creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in nonnormative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American.”

He pointed out that the legislation also creates possible situations in which pastors could be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence. For example, if someone hears the biblical description of homosexuality as a sin and uses that message as a reason for acting.

The Alliance Defending Freedom also blasted the “hate-crimes” bill, calling it “another nail in the coffin of the First Amendment.”

The Shepard-Byrd Act was signed into law in 2009, and yet there still hasn’t been a single case of anyone — pastor, politician or activist — prosecuted for speaking out against homosexuality.

As we have noted, the act “strengthens law enforcement's ability to fight violent crime - not vigorous debate, not sermons against homosexuality, not hateful speech, not the infamous ‘God hates fags’ protesters, not the spreading of misinformation that thrives on constitutionally protected right-wing television, radio, and blogosphere,” and the law clearly states that “nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller also entered the fray, warning that the new bill — which calls for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to update and existing report on “telecommunications influence on hate crimes” — will be used to silence opponents of Islam and enforce Sharia law.

The first amendment protects all speech, not just speech that we like. Or else who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? Hakeem? When I was a young girl, the Nazis were given permission to march in a predominately Jewish neighborhood. In those days, Nazi mean something. Morality was still very much in the American DNA. Good and evil was understood — unlike today, where the left has banished such terms. Despite the horror of a Nazi march, they were given permission, and those of us who were repelled by such a monstrous action understood why permission was granted because of the underlying premise — free speech. I didn’t worry that their Nazi ideas would take hold, as long as I could speak and others could speak in the free exchange of ideas. I knew I would win because my ideas were better. Individual rights was the greatest achievement of the enlightened.

Now we are here. Our free speech is threatened by islamic [sic] supremacists and their Democrat [sic] lapdogs under the guise of “hate speech.” The old “hate speech” canard. They will package this revolution against freedom in a pretty package — and will use the Max Blumenthal-inspired racist murderer, Glenn Miller. But do not be fooled.

It’s bad enough they have all but blacklisted the voices of freedom from media, political and national discourse. Shouting into the wilderness is not freedom of speech.

What next? Burning books? Perhaps just as long as it’s not the quran. And yet there is more hate speech in the quran than in Mein Kampf.

The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 (S.2219) is sharia.

Illinois Family Institute: Exposing 'Evil' Dan Savage Is Like Uncovering The Holocaust

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute – the state affiliate of the American Family Association – is very unhappy about Dan Savage’s appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher last summer.

Two weeks ago, Higgins urged her group’s members to watch a video of Savage’s “repugnant” appearance on the show. Today, in response to criticism from a reader who was offended by the Savage/Maher video, Higgins offered a long essay titled “ Random Thoughts on the Rapacious Rainbow Revolution.”

Higgins explains in detail why she felt obligated to share the “loathsome” video because “many conservatives do not fully realize the evil nature of the enemy we fight” and “merely describing it does not adequately convey how profoundly wicked it is.” She compares her sharing of the Dan Savage video to the showing photos of Nazi concentration camps and lynchings.

“I am not equating the enormity of the evil of the Holocaust and the American genocide of pre-born babies to that of the homosexuality-affirming movement,” she clarifies. “I am, rather, illuminating the necessity of occasionally viewing the evil in our midst about which humans have a remarkable capacity to delude themselves.”

She adds that she feels she must expose the horrors that LGBT people await in the afterlife: “As Christians, however, we should remain conscious of the fact that a life of unrepentant homoerotic activity will result in eternal separation from God,” she writes. “How do we measure the magnitude of temporal suffering relative to that of eternal suffering?”

“Christians should consider whether appearing to affirm that which God abhors is pleasing to God,” she adds.

I received an email last week from a Christian who was upset that I published the loathsome video of Dan Savage even though I provided ample warning that the content was offensive. It seems appropriate, therefore, to revisit the reasons we occasionally publish either obscene hateful emails we receive, excerpts from offensive novels taught in our public schools, or video reminders of infamous homosexual "anti-bullying" bully, Dan Savage.

We do not expose the dark realities of this pernicious movement in order to be sensationalistic or titillating. We do it because Americans are inundated daily with images and words about homoeroticism intended to desensitize, sooth, and confuse. These words and images are built on a foundation of unarticulated and/or unexamined false assumptions and lies that are persuading even Christians that wrong is right.

Unfortunately, many conservatives do not fully realize the evil nature of the enemy we fight. And merely describing it does not adequately convey how profoundly wicked it is. Without a fuller apprehension of the nature and extent of the evil, many Christians are complacent and silent. Often it is only an encounter with such evil that generates a proper response from Christians.

Why view photos from Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen? Why view photos of lynchings? Why view photos of aborted babies? Why view the photo of the young napalmed Vietnamese girl? Why view photos of animals caught in steel leg traps or baby seals bludgeoned to death? Aren't these images shocking and obscene?

I am not equating the enormity of the evil of the Holocaust and the American genocide of pre-born babies to that of the homosexuality-affirming movement. I am, rather, illuminating the necessity of occasionally viewing the evil in our midst about which humans have a remarkable capacity to delude themselves.

As Christians, however, we should remain conscious of the fact that a life of unrepentant homoerotic activity will result in eternal separation from God. How do we measure the magnitude of temporal suffering relative to that of eternal suffering?

Well, here are some other ideas on which Christians should spend some time ruminating:

· Christians should consider whether appearing to affirm that which God abhors is pleasing to God.

· Christians should consider whether affirming or appearing to affirm homoerotic activity, which the Bible teaches will prevent entrance into Heaven, is a loving act.

What dupes and cowards Christians are. What poor servants of the one who was willing to die for us. While Christ died a humiliating and horrifying death for us, we're unwilling to endure any degree of discomfort for him. As we welcome each sophistical lie with a secret sigh of relief for being offered a rationalization to justify either our silence or capitulation, we facilitate evil. Those who experience unchosen same-sex attraction are not evil. They are sinners just like every other human-save one-who has ever existed. We all experience myriad powerful, persistent, unchosen feelings. Our task as moral beings is to figure out upon which of these feelings it is morally legitimate to act. Christians do no service to God, women, children, men, or their country when they refuse to speak the truth about homosexuality. Instead, we help push America into the historical abyss.

Ergun Caner Loses 'Fair Use' Lawsuit In Failed Attempt To Silence Critics

Ergun Caner has lost his lawsuit against a blogger who criticized the Religious Right figure as a fraud, with a federal judge ruling last week that Caner’s case had no merit.

After the September 11 attacks, Caner built a career around his purported conversion from Islamic extremism to Christianity, but his testimony was later exposed as fictitious. Not only did he completely fabricate details about his background — including facts about his birthplace, upbringing, and his family — but he also spoke gibberish during his speeches, which he claimed was Arabic.

Caner led Liberty University’s theological seminary at the time but the university cut ties with him following the revelations and he now heads Brewton-Parker College, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.

A federal judge dismissed Caner’s lawsuit, a thinly veiled attempt to shut down criticism, against blogger Jason Smathers, as the Associated Baptist Press reports today:

Ergun Caner, president of Brewton-Parker College in Mount Vernon, Ga., filed a lawsuit last summer claiming ownership of two videos that Smathers posted of Caner speaking as an expert on Islamic culture in training for U.S. Marines preparing to deploy in 2005.

U.S. District Judge Terry Means, however, said Caner failed to make a case and that Smathers used the material fairly, as copyright law permits, for “purposes such as criticism, comment, [or] news reporting.”

“His sole purpose was to expose the inconsistencies in Dr. Caner’s biography and criticize a public figure,” the judge determined. If the unauthorized reproduction of his lectures caused Caner any financial loss, he continued, it was the result of “legitimate criticism” of his words.

The misuse of video “takedown notices” — the same method employed by another Religious Right activist who tried to shut down Right Wing Watch’s YouTube page — was one of the focuses of the trial. As the judge notes in his ruling [PDF], the blogger’s actions are protected as fair use.

In 2013, Dr. Caner filed a “takedown notice” with Viddler.com, claiming that the videos were posted without authorization and in violation of his copyright. Smathers challenged the removal of the videos, which ultimately resulted in the present lawsuit by Dr. Caner, alleging copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106,506.



Smathers claims that he posted he videos featuring Dr. Caner as a religiously based criticism of a public figure and, thus, his posting constituted fair use.

The Court notes that Dr. Caner has apparently conceded this issue since he has offered no argument in his response with respect to Smathers’s assertion of fair use.



Dr. Caner’s concession notwithstanding, the facts of this case support the application of fair use.

The affirmative defense of fair use is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107 and provides that “the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies . . . , for purposes such as criticism, comment, [or] news reporting . . . , is not an infringement of copyright.”



All of Dr. Caner’s claims of copyright infringement against Smathers are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Geller Accuses Obama of Using Easter Message To 'Proselytize For Islam'

Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller is, of course, very upset that President Obama dared to mention Islam in passing in his radio address commemorating Easter and Passover this weekend, and claims that the president attempted to “proselytize for Islam" when he listed Muslims, along with Christians, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs, as people who share a “common thread of humanity."

After speaking in detail about how he and his family would be celebrating the Resurrection of Christ and remembering “the grace of an awesome God, who loves us so deeply that He gave us his only Son, so that we might live through Him,” the president said:

The common thread of humanity that connects us all – not just Christians and Jews, but Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs – is our shared commitment to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

The inclusion of Muslims on that list infuriated Geller, who accused the president of using the address to “proselytize for Islam. On Easter. It’s sick.”

“Does Obama ever mention Christians or Jews or Hindus when he makes his long-winded Ramadan messages?” she asks.

As a matter of fact, in the president’s Ramadan message last year, he expressed a very similar sentiment:

For the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims, Ramadan is a time for thoughtful reflection, fasting and devotion. It is also an opportunity for family and friends to come together and celebrate the principles that bind people of different faiths – a commitment to peace, justice, equality and compassion towards our fellow human beings. These bonds are far stronger than the differences that too often drive us apart.
 

Concerned Women For America Opposes National Women's History Museum, Angry Website Doesn't Mention CWA Founder

Mystified by growing support in Congress for the National Women’s History Museum project, Concerned Women for America is now warning that the proposed museum will “indoctrinate those who visit the museum” into “leftist ideology.”

The group is especially peeved that the project’s website doesn’t include mentions of CWA founder Beverly LaHaye or Religious Right activists like Alveda King and Star Parker.

While the idea of celebrating women is admirable, the content of such a museum would create a shrine to the leftist ideology and would not provide an accurate portrayal of American women. It is for this reason we object to the National Women’s History Museum as currently structured.



• In 2010, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC) opposed the building of the NWHM on the National Mall and successfully requested Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) to place a hold on this bill.

• During the 112th Congress, CWALAC worked with Republican House leadership to ensure this bill did not come to the House floor for a vote.



• The NWHM does not accurately portray women’s history and for this reason we oppose the NWHM. The museum’s online exhibits tout the “progressive era” and feminism but do not acknowledge their ramifications, the destruction of marriage and the family. The online exhibits highlight the feminists’ view of “free love” (like Victoria Woodhull) but do not acknowledge their pro-life ones.

• The NWHM will indoctrinate those who visit the museum to a jaundiced view of women’s history. The NWHM website attached to this proposed museum references Margaret Sanger nine times and Victoria Woodhull over 20, while referencing Phyllis Schlafly once and not mentioning Beverly LaHaye at all. It also highlights Sandra Fluke, while ignoring Kay Coles James, Alveda King, and Star Parker.

Deace Implies Same-Sex Marriage Is As Impossible As Human Flight

Speaking with Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live this weekend, Iowa talk show host Steve Deace implied that same-sex couples who want to get married are like people who want to be able to fly.

Responding to a caller who asked what he should say to a friend who says “it’s not government’s job to legislate morality,” Deace responded that the friend has “bought into some postmodern thinking” where he doesn’t want to impose his idea of what’s “wrong and icky” on other people.

Deace compared this to fighting the law of gravity, implying that a gay person who wants to get married is like someone who jumps off a skyscraper because they think they can fly.

“I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly,” he said. “But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity.”

“It didn’t change because some judge said so,” he added.
 

Caller: I’ve got a buddy who’s semi-liberal and he says, his main premise is that it’s not government’s job to legislate morality. And I was wondering what you’ve got to say about that.

Schlafly: Well, practically ever law is legislating morality.

Deace: Phyllis is correct. Everything is morality. That’s a false objection. Question him further to find exactly out what that means. And I’m telling you, what I’m 99 percent positive that it will mean is that he’s bought into some postmodern thinking that says, ‘Well, yeah, I think this stuff is wrong and icky for me but I can’t impose my value system on somebody else.’

But of course, that’s a very slippery slope as well. I mean, someone might think, I have the right to fly and I’d love to fly and I have a desire to fly and I even found a judge that gave me a piece of paper that told me I have the right to fly. But when I fling myself off the top of a skyscraper, I run smack-dab into the law of gravity. It didn’t change because some judge said so. It still exists. So, chances are that’s a false objection from your friend because he’s bought into some postmodern thinking about over-judgementalism.

MRC Attacks The Media For Covering Sports, Non-Christian Faiths

Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center thinks media outlets are covertly attacking Christianity by reporting on sports and non-Christian faiths. Speaking Friday with Religious Right talk show host Janet Mefferd, Gainor complained that newspapers have “an entire section devoted to sports” but are devoid of mentions of religion.

When newspapers do cover religion, Gainor adds, the stories are “filled with lefty propaganda about faith that attacks Christianity.”

“That’s the lefty view of faith, we gotta show Hindu this, we gotta show Buddhism, we gotta talk about Scientology, we gotta talk about Wiccans.” he said. “No, why not try to be at least representative? If there’s 80-85 percent Christians [in the US population], it’s going to be 80-85 percent Christian, and then we will occasionally dabble in these other faiths, we’ll certainly include Judaism,” he said.

WorldNetDaily Now Hopes Edward Snowden Will Vindicate The Birther Movement

WorldNetDaily reporter Jerome Corsi, a leader of the birther movement, is enthralled by Michael Shrimpton, a British “self-proclaimed intelligence expert” who claims that Edward Snowden possesses evidence proving that Stanley Ann Dunham is not President Obama’s real mother and that Obama was actually born in Kenya.

In his article, “Obama’s Origins Resurface At Intel Expert’s Trial,” Corsi claims that Shrimpton has the latest birther bombshell: “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,” revealing that Obama was “born in Mombasa, Kenya, in about 1960” and “establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother.”

In a nearly empty courtroom at the Southwerk Crown Court by the historic London Bridge, a hearing took place in a criminal case that not only has national security implications for the United Kingdom, but, curiously, is woven into the increasingly bizarre fabric of the controversy over Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility.

When it came his time to speak, defendant Michael Shrimpton, a middle-aged London barrister by profession and self-proclaimed intelligence expert, politely issued to the judge a series of interrogatories that made clear he plans to launch a vigorous defense, representing himself before the court.

The criminal charges brought by the British government against Shrimpton under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 accuse him of falsely notifying the British government to prepare for a terrorist nuclear attack on the 2012 Olympics in London that the British government claims had no basis in reality.

It’s the same Michael Shrimpton who appears in a 2008 video that began re-circulating earlier this year on the Internet in which he claims to have been privy to shocking intelligence information on Obama’s origins. Shrimpton contends to this day that the CIA collected DNA from then-Sen. Obama and a grandparent, establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother.



Shrimpton says he was informed that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya, in about 1960, which means, he said, the information sits in British intelligence files, because that territory was under the British Empire at the time.



Shrimpton said it was his understanding that the DNA samples were collected at a fundraising dinner from water glasses that were bagged after the dinner.



In conversations with WND, nevertheless, Shrimpton doubled down on the claims he made in 2008 by asserting that 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.

Shrimpton made clear he intends to subpoena from the CIA and from British intelligence any records either agency may have on Obama’s DNA.

“I intend to stand by my allegations regarding the Obama birth certificate, knowing that U.S. intelligence agencies will prefer to characterize me as crazy and delusional rather than admit the CIA has the files I believe they have on Obama DNA,” Shrimpton insisted.

White Nationalists Demand Credit For Another Idea That's Gone Mainstream In The GOP

The white nationalist website VDARE is once again demanding credit for an idea that it has been championing for years that has now gone mainstream in the GOP.

Last year, we reported that VDARE writer John Derbyshire (formerly of the National Review) was annoyed that prominent Republicans were failing to credit racist VDARE writer Steve Sailer when they advocated a plan nearly identical to the ‘Sailer Strategy’: that is, the idea that the GOP can only survive by solidifying and growing its white base while alienating people of color. Sailer had been persistently advocating this tactic for over a decade when it suddenly came into vogue among conservatives who opposed the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform plan.

Now, another VDARE writer is upset that more and more immigration reform opponents are pushing another VDARE argument without giving the white nationalists credit. This time, the argument is that steady or increased legal immigration – with or without a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrations – will ruin the Republican party because immigrants are inherently liberal.

In a post on Friday, VDARE writer James Fulford highlights a recent study from the Center for Immigration Studies which argues that Republicans shouldn’t bother with immigration reform because immigrants will inevitably vote for Democrats. Fulford complains that neither the CIS report nor the conservative outlets covering it “manages to credit Peter Brimelow or VDARE.com for saying all this early and often, possibly because it they're scared of Media Matters and the SPLC.” As he notes, VDARE has been pushing the argument since as early as 2001.

The CIS report solidifies what has become a common talking point among even relatively mainstream anti-immigrant groups. CIS spokespeople repeatedly argue that the country shouldn’t “ import more” immigrants because they’ll never vote Republican anyway. Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum has also been pushing this line of argument and released its own report on the subject. Schlafly probably put the argument the most succinctly when she said in February, “These immigrants, legal and illegal, coming in don’t really understand our country and will probably vote Democratic .” She also suggested that Latino immigrants “don’t understand” the Bill of Rights and reject American values.

It’s no surprise that this idea originated in the racist underworld of VDARE. After all, the subtext of the argument is that the GOP should rely on what Pat Buchanan called a new “Southern Strategy” and dump any plans to expand its appeal beyond its mostly white base. As the “Southern Strategy” comparison makes clear, that involves both scapegoating immigrants and ignoring their voices in government.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious