Buried in a National Catholic Register report on the biannual meeting of U.S. Catholic bishops this week is the surprising revelation that Brad Wilcox, one of the researchers behind Mark Regnerus’ infamously flawed study of same-sex parenting, admitted to attendees that most social scientists have found “no difference” between “a stable same-sex family and a stable heterosexual family.”
And when a Washington state bishop compared same-sex marriage to cohabitation, Wilcox responded that data suggests “when same-sex marriage is legalized and it is given cultural support, it will be as stable as heterosexual marriage" and that married same-sex couples “are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their relationships.”
Following his talk, Wilcox took a number of questions from bishops on the floor of the meeting. Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput asked why, if marriage is so valuable for economic success, same-sex marriage is being legalized in so many states.
"Most of the scientists would say that there's no difference ... between a stable same-sex family and a stable heterosexual family," replied Wilcox, noting that those scientists might consider stability the "key factor, not other issues that might relate to a child's well-being."
Yakima, Wash., Bishop Joseph Tyson asked why same-sex marriage is not considered by the studies Wilcox cited to be as dangerous as cohabitation.
"I think that the assumption ... is that when same-sex marriage is legalized and it is given cultural support, it will be as stable as heterosexual marriage," Wilcox replied.
"Is there data to back that?" Tyson asked.
"The data suggest that same-sex couples -- and this is really preliminary -- are more likely to have stable relationships when the legal regime is more supportive of their relationships," Wilcox replied.
This acknowledgment of mainstream social science’s assessment of gay and lesbian parenting is important coming from someone who helped to shape the Regnerus study, the discredited attack on same-sex parenting that is still cited widely by marriage equality opponents. We wrote last year:
Documents obtained by the American Independent this year revealed that the Witherspoon Institute was closely involved in Regnerus’ work through the go-between of W. Bradford Wilcox, a professor at the University of Virginia who at the time ran Witherspoon’s program on family, marriage and democracy, which had recruited Regnerus to conduct the study on LGBT parents. Regnerus in turn hired Wilcox on contract to assist him with data analysis on the study. Along with working with Regnerus on his skewed interpretation of the data, Wilcox urged Regnerus to release the study in time to influence the U.S. Supreme Court in its upcoming marriage equality cases. (Regnerus later signed onto an amicus brief seeking to influence both cases, which extensively cited his own research).
Wilcox’s remark echo the Proposition 8 trial testimony of David Blankenhorn, in which he acknowledged the stability provided by marriage for same-sex couples. Blankenhorn later became a full-fledged marriage equality advocate.
UPDATE: The bishops’ group has posted video of the conference. It’s clear from the video that Wilcox isn’t completely on board with the social science on same-sex marriage, but does acknowledge the consensus among his colleagues.
Interestingly, Wilcox did not mention same-sex marriage at all until it was brought up in the question-and-answer session.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
Religious Right activists claimed this week that they are losing their “right” to not see gay people, even going so far as to compare their situation to the Holocaust.
5) It Ain’t Easy Being Straight
American Family Association president Tim Wildmon thinks straight people have it rough in America. In an email to the AFA’s members this week, Wildmon complained that heterosexuals are being pushed into the closet and forced to watch gay people kiss “mouth to mouth” on TV.
“Straight America is scared to death of offending or potentially offending gay, lesbian and transgender people and their powerful movement. It’s really embarrassing to watch,” he wrote, objecting especially to “Michael Sam’s mouth to mouth kiss of his lover on EPSN [sic].” Wildmon insisted that while he was grossed out by the kiss, he felt pressured by the media to enjoy it:
Sam and his boyfriend, Vito Cammisano, decided to go "in your face," both to themselves (literally) and to those watching the draft on television including millions of young boys no doubt. After first kissing without debris, Sam then decided to put some cake in his mouth and go back after Vito for some more affection.
It was gross. But then I'm an old-school prude who doesn't believe men should be having sex with other men, so that is the reaction you would expect from people like me. I believe that kind of behavior is immoral, unhealthy and unnatural. If people want to live this lifestyle, that is their choice, but this idea of forcing people who disagree with it to applaud or else be shouted down, fined by the government or lose your job has gotten way out of hand.
“Now it is clear the sports world is also bowing the knee to GLBTQ,” he added. “We must get more Christians to wake up and fight back or we will lose our country” to public displays of “man-to-man mouth kissing.”
4) Gays Taking Away Freedom By Celebrating Pride Month
On a similar note, Linda Harvey of Mission America said this week that LGBT Pride Month celebrations have violated her freedom. She didn’t say which freedoms she lost exactly, but she definitely felt oppressed!
“Such conduct is nothing to be proud of,” she wrote in WorldNetDaily. “Their alleged freedom means loss of liberty for you and me.”
Harvey, who wants the government to ban such celebrations from taking place, warns that “this movement is causing collateral damage in America. Are we willing to open our eyes and see where this is going? More pride means less freedom for Christians. That means loss of virtue and a farewell to America’s soul. Isn’t it time for America to stop the parade?”
3) Holocaust Against American Christians Approaching
In case you thought the outpourings from Wildmon and Harvey were enough, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said this week that he’s pretty sure gay rights advocates will “start rolling out the boxcars to start hauling off Christians” to concentration camps any day now.
In keeping with the theme, Southern Baptist Convention official Russell Moore worried about the prospect of pastors soon “going to jail” and Liberty Counsel attorneys Mat Staver and Matt Barber offered their own Nazi Germany analogy.
2) Blame Obama (And Facebook) For Las Vegas Shooting
No one should be surprised that Alex Jones claimed that the murder of three people in Las Vegas by two far-right activists hoping to launch an anti-government revolution was actually a false flag operation by Obama.
What is slightly surprising is that the InfoWars host claimed Facebook was in on the maneuver too:
1) Agenda 21 In Iowa
Right-wing conspiracy theories and absurd allegations about how the United Nations’ Agenda 21 will take away private property rights and force people into cities have truly gone mainstream in the GOP, with the latest musings about the non-binding environmental plan coming from the Iowa lawmaker who just won the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate.
Joni Ernst, a Republican state senator, suggested in a 2013 speech that the United Nations will use Agenda 21 to have Iowans thrown off “their agricultural land” and “consolidated into city centers.”
WASHINGTON – Right-wing groups that oppose advances in marriage equality and reproductive justice have increasingly embraced a new tactic to push their agenda: the claim that opposition to them on policy amounts to oppression of their religious beliefs. A new report from People For the American Way exposes how the anti-gay, anti-choice Religious Right uses false and misleading stories to portray itself as a victim of religious persecution and intolerance.
The report, “The Persecution Complex: The Religious Right’s Deceptive Rallying Cry,” illustrates how Religious Right activists and elected officials have attempted to portray the increasing unpopularity of their stances on a number of cultural issues as evidence of oppression of their religious faith and represent themselves as the only holdouts in a society that is turning its back on moral values.
“Religious Right leaders hold themselves up as the victims,” stated People For the American Way’s President Michael B. Keegan. “This is a powerful talking point, even if not true. We need to expose these distortions for what they really are—an attempt to protect the Right’s ability to discriminate and push its policy preferences on the rest of us.”
The report explores a number of myths that have become widespread on the Religious Right, despite having little or no basis in reality:
None of these stories is true.
These unfounded stories feed into a narrative that portrays conservative Christians as the victims of LGBT rights, reproductive justice, religious pluralism and secular government. This narrative, in turn, has fueled the legislative and legal efforts to turn back any progressive advances.
“Using the resonant rhetoric of religious persecution, bolstered by often-bogus stories of purported anti-Christian activities, the Religious Right has attempted to tip the balance away from pluralism and accommodation to a legal system that allows individuals and businesses to broadly exempt themselves from policies they disagree with,” the report states. “Even when that means trampling on the religious rights of others.”
Read the full report here.
Last week, after a couple motivated by far-right ideology killed three people in Las Vegas, we wrote about the Right’s efforts in 2009 to quash a Department of Homeland Security report on violent right-wing extremism .
Right-wing groups pounced on the report because it dared to note that violent right-wing extremists — people like Timothy McVeigh and the Hutaree militia and abortion clinic bombers — are motivated by right-wing issues. The Right eventually made such a fuss that the DHS pulled the report — utterly infuriating the conservative Republican analyst who had written it, who noted that his small team studying “non-Islamic domestic extremism” was later cut down to just one person.
But the myth that the Obama administration declared all Christian conservatives and Tea Partiers to be potential terrorists has lived on in the right-wing myth machine.
The story came up again earlier this month when Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt joined conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on Infowars.
Jones asked Pratt about a Washington Times report about a 2010 Pentagon directive — an update to a series of similar directives crafted under previous administrations — outlining how and when the military can use force to quell domestic unrest “in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible.”
Jones, of course, read this to mean that it is “official and has been confirmed” that the military is “training with tanks, armored vehicles, drones” to “take on the American people, mainly the Tea Party.”
“Well, he’s certainly not thinking that Muslims are a threat,” responded Pratt, “so he’s turning to his political opponents, declaring that they’re the enemy and ignoring the fact that Muslims from time to time have a tendency to go ‘boom.’”
Pratt then cited the 2009 DHS report to claim that the Obama administration has “fingered veterans as potential terrorists, people who believe in the Second Amendment, who are pro-life, who want to work for limited government.”
“I guess the idea of limited government really would terrorize a socialist,” he said, adding, “The enemy is freedom and they really are doing what they can to extinguish it.”
In an appearance on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” yesterday, Sen. Jim Inhofe deliberated whether President Obama is a terrorist supporter or a buffoon, and decided that he president is intentionally “supporting the enemy.”
“Never in my political career in my memory did it ever occur to me that we would have a president of the United States who would be doing things supporting the enemy,” the Oklahoma Republican said. “Our system isn’t set up for Congress to deal with this kind of a situation.”
Inhofe told FRC president Tony Perkins that he is even comfortable leaking information from classified briefings: “All of these hearings, these classified briefings like the one we had this morning, I almost don’t mind talking about what they said because they are all so orchestrated, they always have five or six people from the administration, all of them agreeing with the president.”
“People now are calling in on a regular basis and saying, you know what I knew this administration was incompetent but I believe this goes beyond incompetence, I believe some of it’s intentional, either they are working intentionally to undermine America or they simply have no clue whatsoever,” Perkins said.
Inhofe suggested that he agrees with Perkins that Obama is deliberately harming America.
“If I were to agree with that, I’d lose all credibility in going on because that is the first thing they’d accuse me of,” Inhofe responded. “But I’d have to tell you, those people have every reason to believe what they are believing now. This couldn’t just keep happening over and over again.”
The Family Research Council is not happy about the decision by the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to fly the LGBT pride flag this month.
Yesterday on his radio program, “Washington Watch,” FRC president Tony Perkins denounced the embassy’s decision.
“The rainbow flag over Israel — the last time they were flying that over Sodom and Gomorrah it didn’t work out so well,” Perkins said. “This administration is not just ignoring or indifferent to traditional values, it is hostile to them, it is hostile to the very things that made America great.”
Perkinbs also spoke to a caller who said President Obama is “Satan personified” and a “terrorist” who “threatened” House Speaker John Boehner “and his family” to keep him in check.
Perkins kept the allegation alive, telling the caller that “there could be something to that, I don’t know, I don’t think it’s come to that” while noting that “this president and his policies” have “dismantled the country morally and culturally.”
Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s comparison of homosexuality to alcoholism this week was widely regarded as a major political misstep … except, of course, by the fervently anti-gay pundits on MattBarber’s website BarbWire.
BarbWire senior editor Jeff Allen writes today that Perry’s comments defending the Texas GOP’s support for ex-gay therapy “demonstrate his resolute refusal to back down to the bullies of Big Gay” and should “inspire a few other Republicans to grow a spine.”
“That’s what presidential poise under pressure looks like,” Allen writes, also hailing the gay-baiting TV ad that Perry ran during the 2012 Iowa caucuses.
Of course, Perry finished in fifth place in the caucuses and later dropped out of the race.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Perry’s comments resulted in a “smattering of groans and hisses” from the crowd. Perhaps his fearless fortitude, displayed while speaking in the hostile territory of the “gay” Mecca of San Francisco, will inspire a few other Republicans to grow a spine — but don’t hold your breath.
During his last presidential bid in 2012, Perry also emphasized his Christian faith in a campaign advertisement entitled “Strong” that debuted late 2011 in Iowa. The spot condemned the military’s perilous repeal of the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy which prevented open homosexuals from serving in the military.
“I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian, but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when ‘gays’ can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school,” Perry declared in the advertisement. And he also pledged to stand against the “liberal attacks on our religious heritage.”
Fortunately, Gov. Perry’s latest remarks demonstrate his resolute refusal to back down to the bullies of Big Gay. That’s what presidential poise under pressure looks like.
Maybe it was all a dream! How else, Pat Boone wonders in his WorldNetDaily column today, could America not see that “a secret cabal of Communist manipulators” had trained a “young black/white college student, originally school in Indonesia” to be a cunning politician after getting him "admitted to Columbia and then Harvard”?
Boone writes that following a stint as a community organizer, this “young anti-American man” in “an astonishing coup, was ‘elected’ president of the United States” despite the “absence of a valid birth certificate.”
The “audacious charlatan” governed with the help of his “fellow Marxists, socialists and Muslim activists,” Boone writes.
I don’t dream much, but when I do, it’s usually dramatic – and memorable. Did you ever have a dream so vivid, so stark, that it seemed real, even after you woke up?
That’s what happened to me last night. I had just finished reading Tom Fitton’s electrifying book “The Corruption Chronicles,” a factual, documented masterpiece. My dream was actually a nightmare, a horrifying, surreal vision of contemporary life in America that was so sickening and unbelievable that I woke up in a cold sweat. And the worst part is that I still, to this minute, can’t decide if it was a dream – or real!
I dreamed that a spell was cast over the whole United States, affecting almost all of its people, especially those of voting age.
A secretive cabal of Communist manipulators, trained in the malevolent disciplines and Machiavellian methods of Saul Alinsky, had taken an interest in a young black/white college student, originally schooled in Indonesia, who’d sought out Marxist professors (as he revealed later in his own autobiographical book) at Occidental College.
In this young Marxist they felt they had a potential candidate for high elective office, first at the state and then possibly on the national level. He had a good mind, was glib and articulate and, according to a fellow Marxist at Occidental, was surprisingly angry. He was ready to foment a total overthrow of what he called “the colonial oppressor of Third World countries”!
This cabal had lots of money, so they got the young man admitted to Columbia and then Harvard, where he somehow was maneuvered briefly into the president’s chair at the Harvard Law Review. He never wrote anything of record (except calling the Constitution “a flawed document”) or distinguished himself in any way, but it looked good on a future resume.
Then, in my dream, this young anti-American man had brief jobs as a “community organizer” in Chicago, utilizing the disruptive, divisive and deceptive tactics he’d learned from Alinsky, and then went in a blinding scramble from state senator in Illinois to the U.S. Senate for a couple of low-profile, near invisible years … and then, in an astonishing coup, was “elected” president of the United States!
I say “elected” because the electoral process was so corrupted by another Marxist organization named ACORN that the outcome would always be questioned.
Four years went by, he was re-elected, and systematically went about wrecking the constitutional structure of the nation, piling up trillions of unpayable debt on the hapless taxpayers, bamboozling and intimidating both houses of Congress, shredding American influence all over the world, appointing fellow Marxists, socialists and Muslim activists to 33 “czarships” (unconstitutional regulators answerable only to him and not to Congress), and in countless ways overturning and abandoning the rule of law in the country.
At this point, I woke up trembling, in a cold sweat, furious but weeping for my country. Surely it couldn’t be true; America could never let this happen! Our Congress would surely have acted long before an audacious charlatan could have literally taken over the government and bankrupted a nation, economically and morally! Surely they … surely the courts … surely the Constitution … surely the press … surely the millions of people on every level of American life would have risen up and … and … the smoking guns were everywhere, in plain sight, right out on the table. Any one of them would disqualify a man from the presidency! How many would it take?
In fact, Paul opposed the Senate immigration reform bill even after it was amended to include a border “surge” amendment, because he said the amendment — which Sen. John McCain said would give the U.S. the “most militarized border” since the Berlin Wall — didn’t go far enough. As the bill was being debated, Paul also played into right-wing fears by claiming that undocumented immigrants were being given greater rights than American citizens.
In an interview with the anti-immigrant website WorldNetDaily yesterday, Paul’s spokesman Brian Darling insisted that while Paul appeared on a conference call with a conservative immigration reform group this week, he did not “advocate for the passage of anything.”
Darling also disputed a press release from the pro-immigration group, the Partnership for a New American Economy, which announced that Sen. Paul was “throwing his political weight behind an establishment lobby effort to get Congress to reform the country’s immigration system this year.”
He told WND that Paul’s staff “never approved any Partnership press release that said Rand Paul was going to push for immigration reform legislation this year, and we specifically asked them not to put that in any press release.”
So there you have it: Paul supports immigration reform with words, but won’t vote for a reform bill or propose one himself.
“Sen. Rand Paul never embraced amnesty on the call,” his office stated in an email. “Sen. Paul has never advocated for amnesty in any other forum and he voted against the Senate immigration bill.
“As a matter of fact, Sen. Paul offered an amendment on the immigration bill last year to strengthen border security by forcing annual votes in Congress before any benefits from the bill were authorized,” the statement said.
A press release issued by Partnership for a New American Economy announced Paul joined Norquist “to talk about immigration reform and the Senator’s ideas to strengthen border security, reform existing immigration laws for employers and attempt to find common ground on smaller immigration related matters.”
The Washington Times published a story Wednesday on the conference call with the headline “Rand Paul throws weight behind immigration reform effort.” The Times said Paul, on the heels of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning primary defeat, “on Wednesday waded deeper into an issue that has proved perilous to some of his GOP colleagues, throwing his political weight behind an establishment lobby effort to get Congress to reform the country’s immigration system this year.”
Brian Darling, a spokesman for Paul, told WND the Times story mischaracterized Paul’s position.
“He didn’t go on any call to advocate for the passage of anything,” Darling said. “He was just there to talk about his views on the issue, which he’s talked about a million times before.”
Darling told WND the Partnership for a New American Economy had sent a version of its press release to him, and it was supposed to be changed.
“The one I saw was totally different from the Partnership’s press release that I approved,” he said. “I did see one version of it, and the version they published is different. The version that said Rand Paul was on the call to push for immigration reform this year was not approved. Not only was it not approved, we flagged that and told them, do not publish that in any press release.”
He said Paul’s office “never approved any Partnership press release that said Rand Paul was going to push for immigration reform legislation this year, and we specifically asked them not to put that in any press release.”
On his radio program last month, after pointedly noting that “some people have questioned what exactly the president’s religious faith is,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said that “we’ve never known who this guy is” and agreed with a caller who said the president isn’t motivated by patriotism.
On his May 11 program on the station KCMO, while discussing the abduction of hundreds of schoolgirls in Nigeria, who just a few days earlier the president had sent a team of American specialists to help find, Kobach took a call from a listener who — channeling Newt Gingrich — explained her theory that Obama and his allies “don’t care much about Christians getting killed…because Christianity is considered a vestige of colonialism.”
“And white European people are mostly Christian and so there’s a kneejerk, idiotic sort of reflex response,” she said, adding that the media is biased toward Obama because he is black.
“You have to wonder what goes through the president’s mind when he makes these decisions to act or not to act,” Kobach speculated later in the conversation, adding, “it could be the neocolonialism that you began your point with.”
“We’ve never known who this guy is or where his heart is” and “still don’t know what motivates” him, he continued.
When the caller responded, “Well, whatever it is, it ain’t patriotism,” Kobach agreed, saying “Yeah, that seems to be the case.”
Caller: I think that the reason he doesn’t, that Obama and the whole bunch of them don’t care much about Christians getting killed — or Jews, needless to say, I mean Israel has been not important to the Obamaites — is because Christianity is considered a vestige of colonialism, which we all know is ‘bad, bad, bad, bad, bad in every way.’ And white European people are mostly Christian and so there’s a kneejerk, idiotic sort of reflex response.
And, you know, that’s the lady who called about the conspiracy. And unfortunately, there doesn’t even need to be a conspiracy, as you said, the libs just dominate the media and nobody has to pressure them to do or say anything. I mean, that’s just literally how they feel: ‘Obama, black, equals good.’ So, you know, that’s that.
Kobach: You have to wonder what goes through the president’s mind when he makes these decisions to act or not to act, but it certainly seems…
Caller: You don’t have to wonder. It’s what the most recent polls is.
Kobach: Well, that may be. I don’t know. It could be polling, it could be the neocolonialism that you began your point with.
Caller: It all works together.
Kobach: It could be — who knows what he’s thinking. But that’s the thing, we’ve never known who this guy is or where his heart is. George Bush, for all his faults, you knew who George Bush was. He’s an open book, you didn’t have a sense that George Bush would come out with something that would surprise us. Obama, I still don’t know what motivates President Obama. It’s a strange thing. But I digress.
Caller: Well, whatever it is, it ain’t patriotism.
Kobach: Yeah, that seems to be the case.
Last week, I saw a screening of “Obvious Child,” the new rom-com starring Jenny Slate in which the main character gets an abortion and makes some dark jokes about it and, surprise, ends up okay.
A couple of the questions at the Q&A following the screening with Slate and the film’s director Gillian Robespierre were about the anti-choice reaction to the film. A few days before the film hit wide release, there hadn’t been much, except for a few initial whimpers of dissent when the film screened at Sundance.
But that’s starting to change as anti-choice groups get wind of the movie and find it to be promoting “evil” and putting America “beyond redemption.”
Arina Grossu of the Family Research Council told the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal this week that she was “appalled that the evil of abortion is now the subject of a ‘romantic comedy.’ “
Arina Grossu, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, told The Daily Signal that she is “appalled that the evil of abortion is now the subject of a ‘romantic comedy.’
Grossu, who has not yet seen the film, has a different take.
“The movie attempts to gloss over the gravity of abortion,” she said. “But no amount of acting or short-lived laughs can take away the reality that abortion is a grave moral evil that kills one person and wounds the other.”
Jillian Kay Melchior, writing in the National Review Online, bashes the film for “making such a difficult physical and metaphysical decision into a cheap joke, with dead babies as the punchline.”
Obvious Child is kind of funny sometimes but not that funny — which is not the film’s main problem. Obvious Child is reprehensible because, through tasteless and unsubtle humor, it trivializes something that’s of grave importance for pro-choice and pro-life women alike.
Robespierre does no favor to women by making such a difficult physical and metaphysical decision into a cheap joke, with dead babies as the punchline. In trivializing abortion so radically, she infantilizes women and undermines the feminism she purports to endorse.
LifeSiteNews went with sarcasm: “Finally, a movie that presents the murder of an innocent as the laugh riot it is!”
And Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center took the long view, warning, “If America laughs at this, America is beyond redemption.”
The feminist film critics can exhale now. Someone has finally concocted their dream movie: an "abortion comedy." Because apparently nothing sounds funnier than an unplanned one-night stand and a courageous destruction of God's most beautiful and most innocent creation.
It's called "Obvious Child." Feminist lingo sells this monstrosity.
Rolling Stone magazine described one scene of allegedly hilarious "empowerment" between female characters. "You're going to kill it," Donna's best friend Nellie says before a standup comedy set the night before her abortion. "Tomorrow I am," Donna replies, and "the two unravel in sheepish giggles.
If America laughs at this, America is beyond redemption.
Of course, to sell the movie, they oddly claim this abortion-advocating movie doesn't have an agenda. "Our film is not an agenda movie in any way," Slate told Rolling Stone. "The whole point is that women have this procedure, and they should have it safely, and it's a part of life. It doesn't have to be this giant obelisk sticking out." That is not an agenda, no siree.
A little murder is a part of life. A little life matters not at all.
Feminists like these movie-makers don't see a moral dilemma. They see abortion as a natural part of the daily grind. You wake up, you get an abortion, you have a cheeseburger. The critics call this a "refreshing matter-of-factness" about abortion.
It can also be described as feminist nihilism. The selfishness and autonomy of the woman is paramount, and the accidental baby is just cannon fodder. When the murder of the innocents is celebrated as comedy, civil society is destroyed.
Of course, with the exception of Melchior, none of these critics seem to have actually seen the movie that Bozell claims will destroy America.
End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles is pretty sure America is about to collapse, and it may come as soon as this year.
“The takedown of the constitutional republic of the United States of America is in full motion in 2014, this is it,” Wiles said yesterday on TruNews. “The Illuminati Free Masons are determined to dismantle the original republican form of government in order to finalize the transformation of this country into a godless, pagan cesspool of Free Mason fascism.”
He added that officials in “the Obamanista communist regime in the White House” are attacking “the American people from every direction: homosexual rights, gun confiscation, illegal immigrant amnesty and so on.”
After the American Family Association urged members to refuse to open any letter which used a Harvey Milk commemorative stamp, Atlantic’s The Wire tried to see if the AFA, along with Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, would accept a $5 donation enclosed in such an envelope.
While The AFA said they declined the donation, the other two anti-gay groups both processed the donation.
AFA spokesman Bryan Fischer used the opportunity to compare Milk to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer: “Speaking to The Wire, AFA’s Director of Issues Analysis Bryan Fischer said that the very existence of the Harvey Milk stamp was akin to ‘honoring Jeffrey Dahmer on a postage stamp designed to honor the culinary arts.’”
How much do anti-gay groups hate the new Harvey Milk stamps from the U.S. Postal Service? One organization refused to even open a mailed donation to their cause using one such stamp as postage. Staying true to their announcement that they would boycott all mail with the Milk stamps, the American Family Association told The Wire that the organization had mailed back our attempted $5 donation to their anti-gay group unopened. Speaking to The Wire, AFA's Director of Issues Analysis Bryan Fischer said that the very existence of the Harvey Milk stamp was akin to "honoring Jeffrey Dahmer on a postage stamp designed to honor the culinary arts." That's because Fischer and the AFA, citing a line from a biography of Milk, believe that Milk was a sexual predator. "He is not somebody that should ever be honored on a postage stamp," Fischer said.
In an email to The Wire, AFA Special Projects director Randy Sharp said that the group marked our $5 donation "'Return to Sender' and returned it to the post office the next day." We still haven't received the rejected donation at Wire HQ, but Sharp included photo evidence (above) of the unopened donation on its way to a somewhat-expected round trip. Since announcing their boycott in late May, Fischer told us that the organization has received "several dozen" pieces of mail with Harvey Milk stamps on them. Unlike our attempted donation, few of those letters came with a return address. "There has been a juvenile effort to tweak us on this," Fischer added. The unopened, orphaned letters are currently sitting in a box in the AFA's offices.
Two other anti-gay groups (who, to be perfectly clear, did not pledge to boycott the stamps) are indeed accepting mailed donations with the Milk stamp, based on our experiment: Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council both processed The Wire's mailed $5 donations to their organizations, based on the records of this writer's slightly lighter bank accounts. Focus on the Family declined to comment on the stamps and on their newest donors; we'll let you know if the Family Research Council returns our request for comment.
President Obama is the chosen one … “the chosen destroyer of America,” that is.
Writing today for Renew America, conservative talk show host Laurie Roth rants against “radical Communist/Islamist” Obama’s plans to “destroy America,” “control the entire world” and “enslave” us all through his coming Islamic caliphate.
Obama doesn't have a dream to destroy America and make her disappear, but rather to enslave, control, and manipulate the people and all our assets. All those who resist his agenda will be destroyed. His stated views written and spoken for his whole "fake out" career have been to be the leader of an international movement and control the entire world with international laws.
Step one is to seize and redistribute all wealth, make America a mass of amorality, and crush real morality inspired by the God of the Holy Bible. Obama is a radical Communist/Islamist and has always hated what the real America represents. Christians, conservatives, and patriots must go, so must her spirit and real history of greatness.
Obama intends to make this transformation happen through clear and thought-out methodology. He has never just had a dream or philosophy he operates from, but detailed plans and international Islamic support. He has always mysteriously had billions of dollars in backing. It is most clear that Obama, from birth, was the chosen destroyer of America. Believe what you want, but the large sea of facts support this, from the massive millions spent to hide all Obama's documents – falsifying his birth records, use of false social security cards, and hiding college records. Think about it a second. Have you ever heard of any U.S. president ever spending millions to hide every detail of his life from the people?
We see Obama organizing and enforcing a tectonic shift through the Islamic lead caliphate, with the goal of controlling the entire world one day. We have watched Obama side with Islamic dictator after dictator – exposing again and again his real faith in Allah and Muhammad, not the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ. Think of the endless amount of corrupt and criminal dictators and terrorist groups he has boldly backed – Zelaya, Morsi, giving aid, and comfort to the Taliban, employing Muslim Brotherhood members through out his staff on and on it goes. He always sides against the Christians and Jews and for Islamic radicals.
Before It’s News is a bizarre conspiracy theory website that makes WorldNetDaily look like the Washington Post: recent stories include “Pentagon Preps Mass Civil Breakdown Plan As America Falls Apart And Obama’s Dictatorship Begins,” “ET Invasion Has Already Occurred and Governments Do Not Want Us To Know” and “America WILL BE Shaken With A QUAKE From HELL SOON.”
That’s why it comes as such a surprise that a “mainstream conservative think tank” like the Family Research Council today promoted a bizarre Before It’s News article suggesting President Obama is filled with the “spirit of the Antichrist.”
“President Obama's LGBT Month has brazenly gone international: the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv is flying the Rainbow Flag,” Bynum said.
The story claims the decision to raise the “flag of the LGBT Mafia” is proof that “the spirit of the Antichrist” is behind President Obama’s “deep-seated hatred of God, the Holy Bible and the Christian faith.”
Obama loves to spit in the face of scripture
In what could accurately be described as Obama’s greatest slap in the face to the Holy God of Israel, the LGBT flag was raised over the US Embassy in Israel. This is not done to support the LGBT Mafia. This was done to show Obama’s contempt for the Holy Jewish Scriptures. The book of Leviticus condemns in no uncertain terms men lying with each other.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” Leviticus 20:13
Todd Starnes from Radio Fox News reported today that “the U.S. ambassador to Israel hoisted a gay pride flag over the American embassy in what is believed to be a groundbreaking moment. “Proudly flying the colors,” Ambassador Dan Shapiro wrote on the embassy’s Facebook page. He posted a photograph showing a rainbow colored flag flying alongside the American flag outside the embassy in Tel Aviv.
And God destroyed Sodom.
“For the first time in history, the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv has raised the Pride flag together with our American flag,” Shapiro wrote. “We are proud to join with the municipality of Tel Aviv-Yafo and its residents in celebrating LGBT Pride Week.”
So the Obama Administration publicly endorses and affirms the gay rights movement. Meanwhile, American military personnel are being ordered to remove Bibles from their desks and Bible verses from their walls — lest they be accused of publicly endorsing or affirming Christianity.” (end report)
Did you catch that last part? Barack Obama has ordered the US Military to remove all traces of their Christian faith, but defiantly hoists the flag of the LGBT Mafia to fly in Israel and nearly equal with the American flag. These are the actions of someone with a deep-seated hatred of God, the Holy Bible and the Christian faith.
This is the spirit of Antichrist. The prophecies are beginning to be fulfilled.
Paul Gosar, the Republican congressman from Arizona who recently called for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder, told WorldNetDaily’s Greg Corombos yesterday that Holder should be impeached over Benghazi, immigration, Fast & Furious, Guantanamo Bay and “violating criminal smuggling laws.”
He also pointed to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary defeat as a reason that congressional Republicans should pursue Holder’s impeachment: “This is growing by leaps and bounds. People are fed up, we saw the election last night, people are scared and they are angry.”
Religious Right leaders love to claim that Christians are threatened in the U.S., the subject of a forthcoming PFAW report on the Religious Right’s persecution complex. The latest example comes from the just-completed annual conference of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Russell Moore, who heads the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, hosted Rick Warren, David Platt, and Samuel Rodriguez for a June 9 panel on religious freedom in America through the lens of the Hobby Lobby case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to an account by Tom Strode in the Baptist Press, Rodriguez, who heads the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, warned, “Today’s complacency is tomorrow’s captivity. The firewall against secular totalitarianism is religious liberty and religious pluralism.”
“Secular totalitarianism” in this context is the requirement, being challenged in the Hobby Lobby case, that for-profit businesses provide insurance coverage that includes contraception methods to which the company’s owners have religious objections.
“The justices will decide whether “there is the freedom to dissent and the freedom to accommodate these conscientious objections in the governing of people’s lives and the running of their businesses,” Moore said. “This will have everything to do with everything that your church does for the next 100 years.”
Moore of course is ignoring, or rather obfuscating, the clear constitutional, legal, and policy distinction between churches, who are exempt from the requirement, and for-profit corporations, whose claim to a religious conscience is at the core of the Hobby Lobby case.
Rodriguez and Warren agreed that religious liberty is the civil rights issue of the future. And panelists spoke as if Christians are on the verge of being jailed for their beliefs:
“I’m spending all of my time right now making sure that we stay out of jail,” [Moore] told the audience. “But there is one thing worse than going to jail, and that’s staying out of jail and sacrificing the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Warren responded, “This issue may take – just as it did with Martin Luther King – it may take some pastors going to jail. I’m in.”
The idea that pastors are going to be thrown into jail is a ridiculous argument that Religious Right leaders have used to oppose hate crimes legislation and laws against anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. This kind of rhetoric is not only ridiculous, it is also irresponsible and damaging. As People For the American Way Foundation’s Twelve Rules for Mixing Religion and Politics says in explaining that religious and political leaders should not “cry ‘wolf’” about religious persecution:
Inflammatory charges about religious persecution can lead to an angrier and more divisive political arena. If you believe your political opponents are actually out to take away your religious freedom, shut down your church, and literally criminalize Christianity—goals that some Religious Right figures attribute to political liberals—you have little reason to treat your opponents civilly or engage in a search for constructive common ground or compromise. Creating that kind of environment is not good for our country.
It is possible to have a vigorous debate about political issues and about the separation of church and state without resorting to falsehoods about religious persecution.
The panel wasn’t a total bust, apparently. Unlike some Religious Right leaders, who claim that religious liberty protections apply only to Christians – or to a particular subset of Christians – news reports indicate that Rodriguez, Warren, and Moore said Christians should promote religious liberty for everyone in the context of religious pluralism. We don’t say this often about these guys, but we agree.