C4

Rep. John Shimkus Pushes Phony Internet Scandal To Warn Of Threats From 'Totalitarian Regimes'

Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) is citing debunked right-wing claims that President Obama handed over the Internet to foreign powers in order to attack the Obama administration. 

Speaking yesterday with Frank Gaffney, one of the first conservative activists to push the discredited claim, Shimkus wondered if “we risk a totalitarian regimes taking over” the Internet, speculating that governments that “shut down social media” will gain control over Internet access in the US.

Gaffney agreed and said Obama’s policies are “very detrimental to freedom of expression.”

Cory Gardner Wonders If Senate Is 'Politicizing' Torture Report To Help Mark Udall Win Re-Election

Colorado Republican congressmen Cory Gardner suggested yesterday that the US Senate is “politicizing” a report on illegal torture during the Bush administration in order to help Gardner’s opponent, Sen. Mark Udall, win re-election.

J.D. Hayworth, a former GOP congressman who now hosts America’s Forum on NewsmaxTV, speculated that the Senate Intelligence Committee only voted to release portions of the report on torture to “save Mark Udall’s Senate seat” and “set himself up politically for re-election” — a baseless allegation that Hayworth admitted was only grounded on his personal “instincts.” Gardner agreed and said that the report could jeopardize military service members.

In that case, Republicans must be involved in the conspiracy to help Udall since several GOP members of the committee voted to advance a summary of the report’s findings.

Kris Kobach Claims Voter Fraud Is Real Because Widows Vote For Their Late Husbands 'All The Time'

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach – the mastermind behind anti-immigrant and voter suppression legislation throughout the country – joined radio host Joyce Kaufman yesterday at an event hosted by the anti-immigrant group FAIR, where he currently holds a top legal position.

Kobach has been on a media blitz recently defending Kansas’ strict voter ID law, which requires people registering to vote to present a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship, a requirement that has left tens of thousands of Kansans with incomplete registrations .

Kaufman, who is based in Florida, told Kobach, “I can’t imagine how many widows are voting for their dead husbands.”

“Yeah, it happens all the time,” Kobach replied, going on to explain that people who die or move out of state often stay on a state’s voter rolls.

Kobach’s conflation of out-of-date voter rolls with fraudulent voting is common among advocates of voter suppression laws. While fraudulent voting is extraordinarily rareincluding in Kansas – Kobach has used the threat of such fraud to push faulty voter roll purges in states across the country.

Kobach went on to claim that those who cite the disproportionate effect of voter ID laws on people of color are in fact themselves making a “racist argument.” “You’re telling me that because of a person’s skin color, he’s less able to find his birth certificate?” he asked. “That’s just crazy to make that argument.”

In fact, numerous studies have shown that voter ID laws disproportionately affect minority communities and are often passed in response to an increase in minority voting.

Kaufman: I can’t imagine how many widows are voting for their dead husbands in communities like I lived in.

Kobach: Yeah, it happens all the time. There are basically three sources of people on our voter rolls who are not supposed to be there. One is people who die and they stay on the voter rolls. The other is people who have moved out of state, but they’re on the rolls in both states. And the third is aliens, people who were never entitled to vote in the first place. And we’re trying to do something about in Kansas, but you can imagine how the folks on the left complain and say, ‘Well, you can’t do that.’ Well, yeah we can do that and we’re going to do that.

Kaufman: And it’s not bigoted.

Kobach: It’s not at all!

Kaufman: You’re not doing it to close the doors on minorities.

Kobach: Yeah, exactly. And I think it’s outrageous the argument some make that it hurts minorities. It’s almost a racist argument! You’re telling me that because of a person’s skin color, he’s less able to find his birth certificate? That’s just crazy to make that argument.

Peter LaBarbera Demands Liberty University Fire Openly Gay Choreographer

Americans For Truth About Homosexuality head Peter LaBarbera is demanding the notoriously anti-gay Liberty University fire theatre artist Geoffrey Goldberg, who was hired to choreograph the school’s production of Mary Poppins, because he is gay. On Voice of Christian Youth America’s Tuesday edition of Crosstalk, LaBarbera and host Vic Eliason ganged up on Liberty University and demanded Goldberg’s ouster.

Liberty University has responded to news reports by saying that Goldberg is an “independent contractor supplied to the university through a third-party association who has never been employed or applied for employment” at the school. 

LaBarbera name-dropped fellow anti-gay activists at Liberty including Mat Staver, Matt Barber and Rena Lindevaldsen, and urged the school to “do the right thing” and part ways with Goldberg. He even demanded Liberty and other universities refuse to allow “open homosexual advocates as students” and called on Grove City College to fire professor Warren Throckmorton over his criticism of ex-gay therapy and anti-gay laws in countries like Uganda.

Not to be outdone, Eliason worried about “percentage of homosexuals that have invaded the arts such as drama” in order to “capture the minds of individuals.”

Eliason: Christian News carried this story with the headline, ‘Liberty University Hires Open Homosexual Advocate To Choreograph Its Upcoming Broadway-Style Mary Poppins Production,’ what more do you know about this thing?

LaBarbera: I don’t know a lot about this one. Apparently he was a contractor and I think that the woman who spoke out on his behalf probably did not have the clearance of the university before she did that. I know the people I’ve worked with at Liberty and I hope they fix this problem because this is such a great organization, it’s done so much good work. Jerry Falwell did such tremendous work, Ronald Reagan would never have been president without Jerry Falwell, the founder of Liberty University.

The bigger story Vic is the one that didn’t get much play which is: Liberty University and other Christian universities who call themselves Christian, will they allow open homosexual advocates as students? In the old days if a student was out there celebrating sin, there would be consequences. But apparently that doesn’t happen much. We have other examples of course of universities gone bad. Good golly, Grove City College has some wonderful professors but they also have Warren Throckmorton who is pretty much a de facto gay activist now; a professor at Grove City College, which calls itself Christian and advertises in World Magazine and other Christian places, they have Warren Throckmorton who is pretty much a gay activist the way he advocates for homosexuality.

Eliason: It’s alarming when you see the percentage of homosexuals that have invaded the arts such as drama. But drama ends up being a tool to persuade the minds of people. It becomes a tool to do some mind-bending or to capture the minds of individuals. They’re starting now and you can see using Open Core [sic] and right on through the core idea of training children from right on up government-controlled education, and now we see what’s happening at the options of a university that could have put the brakes on this and said no, we’re going to look for someone who is really a representative of the lifestyle that we’re doing here. Does not Christianity have people of talent enough to do the choreography of a dramatic presentation without having to go to someone who openly endorses same-sex marriage?

LaBarbera: I think they do and I hope that Liberty does the right thing. Mat Staver, Matt Barber, Rena Lindevaldsen are just wonderful people and I think Liberty really has to watch it because of course the homosexual activists want to undermine Liberty, of course they want to undermine Christian institutions.

The AFTAH president went on to condemn gay rights advocates as the “Gay-KK” and “Gay-Stapo,” warning that the movement is a “homo-Marxist” effort based on “idiocy” and “tyranny.”

Eliason: I’ve heard of people talk about homo-fascists but you’ve got another term that’s been brought forward which is a little bit different.

LaBarbera: Well I’m using homo-Marxist and homo-fascist. Homo-fascism suggests this bully mentality, this idea that the homosexual activists know what is best for everybody and they’re going to take people down, anybody who gets in their way, undemocratic, that’s where that came from and now it’s really starting to gain popularity. Other pejorative sort of joking terms like the Gay-KK and the Gay-Stapo, but I’m also using homo-Marxist and here’s why I think it is actually more accurate.

The Communists, the Marxists, they’re the ones who had this radical egalitarianism, they thought they were going to make everybody equal and what did it do, it led to tyranny. Look at the homosexual lobby, they’re trying to pretend that homosexual behavior is somehow equal to the real deal, they call it marriage equality, that somehow two men getting ‘married’ is equal and deserves the same benefits and rights and standing in society as real marriage, and of course that’s idiocy, that’s nonsensical.

The interview concluded with a truly bizarre rant by Eliason calling transgender people and women construction workers “disgusting” and attacking “the Islamics, who can grow a beard now, which who knows it can get caught in a barbed wire fence, that wear a turban to designate who they are, I wonder if they’re trying to look for sympathy so that no one would shoot a guy with a turban on. I don’t understand.”

Eliason’s group is based in Milwaukee County, where in 2012 a white supremacist murdered six Sikhs, whose adherents wear turbans, at their Oak Creek temple.

LaBarbera: If they allow transsexuals into the military, you’re going to see guys and women joining the military just to get their body-altering, these terrible sex-reassignment surgeries paid for by the taxpayer.

Eliason: Mutilation, if you please.

LaBarbera: Mutilation, right.

Eliason: I can only imagine the confusion that would be there if here is some guy dressed in a big skirt trying to look feminine climbing into the left seat in a bomber or into a jetfighter and getting his dress all snarled up trying to climb in. We’re talking about guys running jackhammers and making bunkers and things like that, if there’s anything disgusting it’s to see, and I mean this kindly but women are made of God to be very special, and one day I was driving down the street and I saw this, well this lady was pretty hefty, but she was operating a jackhammer and what it did to her was absolutely astounding, it was wicked, it was a violation of the very purpose of the wonderful gift of femininity.

If we’ve got people here now suddenly all on the altar of being able to — it’s not just the transgenders [sic], now if you feel like you’re feminine one day and feel like you’re masculine the next day, you can change back and forth, switch-hitter. And of course we have to be fair, so we have also turned the option to the Islamics, who can grow a beard now, which who knows it can get caught in a barbed wire fence, that wear a turban to designate who they are, I wonder if they’re trying to look for sympathy so that no one would shoot a guy with a turban on. I don’t understand.

Rep. Lamar Smith Bashes DREAMers Who Want To Join Military, Claims Obama 'Aiding And Abetting' Immigrant Crime Spree

In an interview with anti-immigrant radio host Joyce Kaufmann yesterday, Republican Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas expressed dismay at undocumented immigrants joining the military and cited a disputed study to claim that the Obama administration is “aiding and abetting crimes in America by intentionally releasing illegal aliens back into our communities.”

The interview took place at an annual event hosted by the extreme anti-immigrant Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Smith, apparently citing a flawed study from the anti-immigrant Center for Immigration Studies, claimed that the Obama administration “has released tens of thousands of criminal aliens”  and is “putting those folks back on the street” to go on and “commit crimes from murder on up and down.” The administration is “absolutely guilty of aiding and abetting crimes in America by intentionally releasing illegal aliens back into our communities,” he insisted.

Barletta also reacted poorly to a congressional proposal to allow DREAMers who enlist in the military to earn a path to citizenship. “Can you imagine illegal immigrants suddenly being eligible to put on a uniform and defend our borders?,” he asked incredulously.

We have a situation where they’re supporting efforts to give amnesty to illegal immigrants who join the military. Can you imagine illegal immigrants suddenly being eligible to put on a uniform and defend our borders?

You know, you have an administration who has released tens of thousands of criminal aliens, illegal aliens either charged with or guilty of crimes. They’re putting those folks back on the street. And we’ve got a list now of tens of thousands of additional crimes these folks have committed. Again, that is totally the responsibility, it’s more than the responsibility of the administration, they’re absolutely guilty of aiding and abetting crimes in America by intentionally releasing illegal aliens back into our communities. And they commit crimes from murder on up and down. And inexcusable, it could have been prevented, this administration has to take responsibility for their actions.

As Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Council explains, Smith's claim about the administration putting "tens of thousands of criminal aliens...back on the street" is far from the truth:

The claim in the CIS report that ICE has simply chosen to “release” 68,000 “criminal aliens” through the exercise of “prosecutorial discretion” is inaccurate. Being released by ICE is not the equivalent of being set free. It often means being released with an ankle bracelet or under an order of supervision, or issued a notice to appear in court. Just as importantly, many of the immigrants being released have committed minor, non-violent offenses that do not constitute a threat to public safety. These details were conveniently left out of the CIS analysis.

In fact, research has shown that immigrants commit crimes at a much lower rate than the native-born population.

 

 

Rep. Lou Barletta Says There's 'Nothing More Dangerous' Than Immigration Reform, Ties It To 9/11

Every year, the anti-immigrant group FAIR holds an event called “Hold Their Feet To The Fire,” which invites radio hosts to broacast from Washington, DC, and interview lawmakers and conservative activists.

This year, Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania, one of the staunchest anti-immigrant members of the House, showed up on FAIR’s radio row to call president Obama a dictator, associate undocumented immigrants with the 9/11 terrorists, and declare that “there may not be anything more dangerous” than comprehensive immigration reform.

Barletta told Secure Freedom Radio’s Frank Gaffney that President Obama has put us “on a road to where we’re now electing a dictator.” He took particular exception to the president’s support of immigration reform: “There may not be anything more dangerous than what he’s doing, to give amnesty to millions of people. “

Gaffney: To the extent that the president is, at best, selectively enforcing the law and in some cases rewriting the law or ignoring it altogether, do you agree with those who describe this as a constitutional crisis?

Barletta: Oh, there’s no question about it. This has been a slippery slope that this administration has taken, that the president has taken, walking over the Constitution and taking us down a path that, quite frankly, I don’t know if we’ve ever been this far down a road before, on a road to where we’re now electing a dictator who will try to pick and choose what laws and challenging Congress to try to stop me.

And there may not be anything more dangerous than what he’s doing, to give amnesty to millions of people. We know for a fact that there are people who have come here illegally who want to harm America.

In an interview with Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman, who came under fire for anti-immigrant extremism when she was briefly the chief of staff to Rep. Allen West, Barletta compared the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country to the 9/11 terrorists.

Referring to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s comment that many undocumented immigrants come to the US as an “act of love” for their families, Barletta said, “You know, sometimes we need to remind everyone about September 11. The pilots of those planes, it was an act of love to a different God that took American lives. And not everyone who is here illegally is all here for an act of love for their families.”

Kaufman agreed, adding that the Boston Marathon bombing – perpetrated by legal immigrants – was “another act of love.”
 

Ann Coulter Tells Jewish People To Oppose Immigration Reform Because Latinos Are Anti-Semitic

Ann Coulter is upset that Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson has endorsed immigration reform, even as the House GOP continues to block reform legislation from a vote, and in her latest column suggests that immigration reform will increase rates of anti-Semitism and allow an “open-door policy toward terrorists.”

After depicting Latinos as disproportionately anti-Semitic, Coulter writes that Adelson will become a target of terrorists.

Adelson is a big backer of amnesty, telling the Wall Street Journal: “It would be inhumane to send those people back, to send 12 million people out of this country. … So we’ve got to find a way, find a route for those people to get legal citizenship.”



Adelson might want to hang onto that Israeli citizenship, in case his preferred policy of amnesty ever does go through: His low-wage workers don’t have especially enlightened views of the Jewish people.

The Anti-Defamation League has been taking polls on anti-Semitism in America for decades. In 2013, the ADL reported that – “once again” – foreign-born Hispanics had the highest rates of anti-Semitic views: 36 percent compared with 14 percent of all Americans and 20 percent of African-Americans. This was an improvement over 2011, when 42 percent of foreign-born Hispanics were found to have anti-Semitic views.

How might America’s support for Israel be affected by having a populace that’s 30 or 40 percent Hispanic?

The importation of more than a million poor people to America every year also has the effect of admitting a fair number of terrorists. Among them: Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, Mohammad Hassan Hamdan, Nidal Hasan, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Najibullah Zazi, Sulejman Talovic, Peter Odighizuwa, Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, dozens of Somali terrorists living in Minnesota, Omar Abdel-Rahman and the 9/11 terrorists.

I would think that this country’s open-door policy toward terrorists would be of some concern to the owner of any Las Vegas casino – a well-known terrorist target.

They won’t be coming to kiss Adelson’s ring.

But the ADL — a prominent supporter of immigration reform doesn’t mention whether the “foreign-born Hispanics” category represents undocumented or naturalized immigrants. The Jewish Telegraph Agency notes that “among Latinos, the attitudes are seen as a holdover from Latin America, where traditional Catholic anti-Semitism persists and anti-Semitic attitudes are higher than in America. Once they acculturate to the United States, Latino anti-Semitism declines: Among first-generation immigrants, about 40 percent hold anti-Semitic attitudes; among those born here, the number falls to 20 percent.”

Seeing that anti-Semitism is a persistent problem not only in Latin America but also in Europe, Coulter’s argument would undermine her case for restoring racist laws favorable to European immigrants.

Senate Invokes Cloture on Friedland Nomination

The Senate voted today to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michelle Friedland to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Friedland was first nominated by President Obama on August 3, 2013 to fill a seat designated as a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of the US Courts.

“Today’s vote is an important step towards addressing our country’s judicial vacancy crisis,” said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. “It’s especially important that the Senate move forward to confirm Circuit Court judges, who often have the final say on some of the most important issues that Americans face.”

Friedland’s nomination has been one of many nominations caught up in Republicans’ blanket obstruction of all judicial nominees over the past several months, and President Obama was forced to renominate her this year. After today’s vote, Friedland still faces 30 hours of potential “post-cloture debate,” unless Republicans allow the Senate move forward on the nomination more expeditiously.

“It’s time for the GOP to stop its campaign of obstruction and allow timely, yes-or-no votes on all of the nominees on the Senate’s calendar, and, in particular, the vitally important circuit court nominees,” said Baker. “Despite the recent change in the Senate’s rules, Republicans have continued to obstruct the confirmation of President Obama’s well-qualified judicial nominees. These delay tactics from Republicans don’t just hobble what could be an efficient, effective process; they deprive Americans of the fully functioning justice system they deserve.

“We applaud Senator Reid’s focus on clearing the backlog of these nominees. It’s important that we continue to move forward despite the GOP’s obstruction. Confirming the 31 nominees currently on the Senate’s calendar would fill more than one third of the nation’s current judicial vacancies.”

###

Michele Bachmann Claims Hillary Clinton 'Bought And Paid For' Testimony Undermining Benghazi Conspiracy Theories

Last week, we reported that Rep. Michele Bachmann is out with a new conspiracy theory about the Benghazi attack, which she laid out to the extremist website WorldNetDaily.

According to Bachmann, because ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell’s congressional testimony contradicted her own Benghazi conspiracy theory, Morell must be lying and working on behalf of Hillary Clinton. “[I]f Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA,” she said. “That’s what this is all about.”

Not only did Morell’s testimony undermine Bachmann’s conspiracy theory about Benghazi, but so did official reports on the incident, including the House GOP’s own report.

Yesterday, Bachmann took to The Janet Mefferd Show to claim that the reason Morell's testimony didn’t support her conspiracy theory was because his testimony was “bought and paid for” by Hillary Clinton and her allies.

Barack Obama’s failed national foreign policy and Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy led directly to the debacle at Benghazi. They need to answer for their failed foreign policy, they couldn’t afford to do that six weeks out from a presidential re-election and so they had to concoct a preposterous story. Hillary Clinton can’t get out of it, but it appears that she has bought Michael Morell’s false narrative and her consulting group or at least sympathizers to her in that consulting group have bought and paid for Mike Morell’s testimony. And what the American people saw again is a preview of what the story will be to help out Hillary Clinton in her quest to be the next president, but it’s not going to work.

Tea Party Activist: 'Gay Supremacy Is Becoming A Monster That Carries Greater Evils Than White Supremacy Ever Did'

Mary Baker, leader of Conservative Moms for America and a speaker for the Tea Party Express, is warning in a blog post for Tea Party Nation that “gay supremacy is becoming a monster that carries greater evils than white supremacy ever did.”

Her post, which Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips emailed to members today, also makes the absurd claim that white supremacy was “quickly put down” in America and argues that the gay rights activists are motivated by “hate” and bent on their opponents’ “utter annihilation.”

Baker explains that gay rights advocates are worse than white supremacists because “I could disagree with the beliefs of white supremacist and still hold to Biblical views about life, marriage and sexuality. Many people in America fought against their own kind in order to rid us of this hateful group but Gay supremacist have bullied every sector of our nation and now sit as the giant bully against all Americans who disagree with their radical agenda.”

When white supremacy tried to make a mark in American history it was viciously attacked quickly put down by the people of our nation . But Gay Supremacy is becoming a monster that carries greater evils than white supremacy ever did. White Supremacy was focused on how a group of people felt about another group of people. They created various barriers for those they hated and their views about their superiority to others provided the frame work for the citizens of this nation to search their hearts and understand that God has created every person in His image. However Gay Supremacy's hate reaches much farther than a specific group of people. Their [sic] is no common ground that can be reached. Their [sic] is no searching of the heart or consideration of God's principles. Their hate is generated only by self centeredness [sic] and hate for anyone who disagrees with them.

Any person who disagrees with their evil beliefs will be viciously attacked and destroyed. I could disagree with the beliefs of white supremacist and still hold to Biblical views about life, marriage and sexuality. Many people in America fought against their own kind in order to rid us of this hateful group but Gay supremacist have bullied every sector of our nation and now sit as the giant bully against all Americans who disagree with their radical agenda. Christians are not bigots because we don't embrace immoral lifestyles. Currently gay supremacist point their anguish at Christians but anyone who stand opposed to the Gay supremacist is game for utter annihilation.

Our state government must now take the lead in protecting the religious freedoms and right of expression of the citizens of their state from this new enemy the Gay Supremacist.

Allen West Threatens To Join Third Party Over Jeb Bush's 'Act Of Love' Immigration Remarks

Speaking with conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday, former congressman Allen West said he may consider joining a third party over the issue of immigration reform.

After Mefferd asked West whether he would consider joining a third party, the one-term Florida congressman lashed out at his home state’s former governor Jeb Bush for stating in an interview that immigrants who entered the country illegally did so as an “act of love” for their families.

“I believe that when we get to the point when the parties have failed the American people, absolutely,” West said. “The American people are getting fed up with what they see and what they hear each and every day. Case in point, look at our former governor of Florida down here, Jeb Bush who just came out and said illegal immigration is an act of love. An act of love is to take care of the American people who are suffering high unemployment, their wages are being depressed; they don’t need to be told, ‘Hey you need to step out of line and we’re going to fast-track these people.’”

“One side wants votes, the other side wants cheap labor,” he added.

Right Wing Watch Follows 'The Will Of Satan' And Makes People 'Throw Up'

Far-right pundit Gina Miller is not pleased that Right Wing Watch reports on her extremist and conspiracy theory-laden writing. In a column today – also released as a podcast! – Miller declares that we at Right Wing Watch and our parent organization People For the American Way are “guardians of deception” and Satan’s “foot soldiers.”

Claiming that PFAW and RWW follow “their spiritual mentor the devil,” she writes that Right Wing Watch works to “misrepresent” conservatives in order to defend “the Godless, degenerate, tyrannical agenda of the Left” and fulfill “the will of Satan” Miller especially takes issue with the Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism: “Don't get me started on that. Just try to run down the table of contents and the introduction without throwing up a little in your mouth.”

She ends her column with a bit of trolling: “I can already see the snarky report on this column at Right Wing Watch: ‘Gina Miller believes Right Wing Watch is a tool of the devil!’ And for the record, yes, I most certainly do.”

The forces of the "Left" are the forces that seek to do the will of Satan. The army of human foot soldiers of the Left is fully on-board with every Godless campaign in existence. They work to kill God-ordained freedoms wherever they're found. They aggressively support the murder of pre-born babies. They proudly push the degeneracy of the sodomite agenda, working to tear down marriage and abolish our God-given rights to free association, expression, speech and religion. They hate private property and the rights attendant with it. Here in the United States, they are working to tear down our national sovereignty, to deconstruct our constitutional republic and replace it with tyrannical, centralized command-and-control governance. They support lawlessness in the illegal alien invasion. The list goes on.

The network of leftist organizations is vast, powerful, wealthy and deeply entrenched in our nation and world. One of the many groups that are part of this incestuous network is People for the American Way (PFAW), a deceptively named, radical leftist organization spawned in 1981 by Norman Lear (yes, that Norman Lear) through the "legal" money-laundering, hard-left Tides Foundation.

I recently stumbled on the fact that my columns are now being monitored by Right Wing Watch, an arm of PFAW, which, like it and Tides, is a highly political, "non-profit" dot-org group.



Those of us who are trying to conserve the moral foundation and freedoms of the United States are falsely labeled extreme, intolerant and a risk to the nation we seek to preserve. It is only in the deeply deceived mind of the radical Left that truth, morality and freedom (not license) are perceived as "extreme," "intolerant" and a threat. And, yes, these things are a threat, but not to the well-being of our country. They are a threat to the Godless, degenerate, tyrannical agenda of the Left, so the people of the Left misrepresent us and our organizations. All they have with which to "defend" their indefensible positions are the same thing their spiritual mentor the devil has: lies.



PFAW is heavily involved in the election process and has partnered with other leftist groups like the ACLU, NAACP the AFL-CIO and various racial advocacy groups in promoting the Democrat Party. It works to impose radical environmentalist policies on our nation. It fully supports amnesty for illegal aliens, and it helped instigate the nationwide amnesty immigration rallies back in 2006. And, of course, it is a strong supporter of Islamism, having published in 2011, "Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism." Don't get me started on that. Just try to run down the table of contents and the introduction without throwing up a little in your mouth.

It is groups like People for the American Way, Right Wing Watch and the Tides Foundation that further the cause of evil in our world by pushing policies that steal the rights of the individual and create an ever-expanding, increasingly powerful federal government and bureaucracy that saps the wealth of the people. They champion the radical homosexual movement and abortion-on-demand. They are against private gun ownership and the death penalty. Basically, they despise the American Way, and they use deception in pushing their causes, because they can't tell the truth about the tyranny that lies at the heart of their agenda.

I can already see the snarky report on this column at Right Wing Watch: "Gina Miller believes Right Wing Watch is a tool of the devil!" And for the record, yes, I most certainly do.

Charisma's Jennifer LeClaire: Honey Maid Is 'Trying To Shove' Homosexuality 'Down My Throat'

Charisma new editor Jennifer LeClaire is upset that Honey Maid’s gay-inclusive TV ad is “trying to shove something down my throat for which I have no taste,” writing in a column today that she will “pray for those whose hand may be caught in the cookie jar of sexual immorality when Jesus returns.”

LeClaire also complains that the graham cracker company responded to critics by hiring two “lesbians [to] glue together the complaints to spell out the word ‘love’ in cursive.”

Nowhere in the response ad – or anywhere else that we can find, for that matter – does it say that the artists, Linsey Burritt and Crystal Grover of INDO, are lesbians.

Nabisco’s brand is no longer wholesome. The makers of favorites like Vanilla Wafers and Teddy Grahams is propagating same-sex marriage—complete with newborn babies—in its latest 30-second commercial. Dubbed This is Wholesome, the agenda is indeed anything but.

The commercial kicks off with a man feeding a baby. One would assume the man was the baby’s father. Seconds later, another man leans into the screen and kisses the baby on the head. The commercial reveals the baby’s two fathers taking the baby out for a walk, followed by images of other families spending time together. Of course, Teddy Grahams and Honey Maid graham crackers are intended to be the real star of the spot.

“No matter how things change, what makes us wholesome never will,” the voiceover states. “Honey Maid: Everyday wholesome snacks for every wholesome family. This is wholesome.”

Wholesome? Maybe Nabisco is using a different dictionary than the rest of us. Merriam-Webster defines wholesome as “promoting health or well-being of mind or spirit” and “sound in body, mind, or morals.” By either definition, Nabisco got it wrong.



How did Nabisco respond? The cookie company defended itself, releasing a new commercial showing two women holding up printed sheets of complaints people sent to Nabisco. The lesbians glue together the complaints to spell out the word “love” in cursive. The advertisement’s key message: “Proving that only one thing really matters when it comes to family: love.”



That said, Nabisco is still trying to shove something down my throat for which I have no taste. Although I defend their right to do so, I grieve over the latest example of how immorality is the new normal. Our only godly response is to continue speaking the truth in love and pray for those whose hand may be caught in the cookie jar of sexual immorality when Jesus returns.

Ted Cruz, Who Said Uninsured Should Just Get Health Care From ERs, Backs Group That Wants ERs To Turn Away Uninsured People

When he was running for office two years ago, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas insisted that rather than expanding Medicaid, Texas should just let the uninsured get all their health care from emergency rooms. The argument that emergency rooms are an acceptable backup for the uninsured has also been used by Mitt Romney, Heritage Foundation president Jim DeMint and many other prominent Republicans.

But now, some members of the GOP are trying to keep the uninsured from using emergency rooms at all. Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal is pushing Congress to allow hospitals to turn people away from emergency rooms, and Georgia congressman and US Senate candidate Paul Broun – who previously cited ERs to claim that “everyone has access” to health care – has introduced a bill that would allow ERs to treat only patients who they determine have an “emergency medical condition.”

Now, the Madison Project, a Tea Party group that has earned the high-profile backing of Sen. Cruz in its effort to defeat three sitting GOP senators in primaries this year, is also advocating for allowing emergency rooms to turn away anybody not deemed to need immediate emergency care.

In a blog post on the group’s website yesterday, Madison Project policy director Daniel Horowitz writes of taking his son to the emergency room only to encounter a waiting room “full of illegals” (although he doesn’t specify how he knew the citizenship status of his fellow patients), including “adults who, let’s just say, did not look like they were about to keel over.”

My wife and I were entreated to the chaos of emergency room care last night after our two-year-old son slipped while climbing onto a high kitchen counter and banged his head on the floor. He had a massive lump on his forehead and we were concerned about internal bleeding. When we drove to the closest hospital, the waiting room was full of illegals. Most of them were adults who, let’s just say, did not look like they were about to keel over. Opting not to wait all night simply for a decision whether to put our son through a CT scan, we drove for a half hour in the rain to a hospital that was less likely to be full of those who use ERs for regular care.

Thank God our son recovered and there was no internal bleeding, but in a different situation that extra time could have been critical. Also, if you ever wonder why you get hosed with outrageous bills simply for stepping foot in a hospital, look no farther than the “undocumented” costs of illegal aliens.

The solution for this, Horowitz concludes, is to allow hospitals “to turn away people from ERs if they do not have an immediate need for emergency care” thereby “solv[ing] the problem of illegal immigrants using ERs for primary care.”

The problems with illegal immigrants and emergency hospital care also provide us with an opportunity to examine true free market healthcare reform. Any GOP healthcare proposal must be predicated not on “replacing” Obamacare, but on fixing even some of the anti-market federal policies that existed before passage of the monstrosity.

One of those policies is the mandate on hospitals to treat everyone who comes to an ER – including illegal immigrants – irrespective of whether they are suffering from a real emergency. In 1986, Congress passed The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Recon­ciliation Act (COBRA), which was ostensibly the first act in universal healthcare mandates.

If we ever plan to curb skyrocketing hospital costs and improve access to emergency care, we must address this massive unfunded federal mandate of EMTALA. Among the provisions of Rep. Paul Broun’s Patient Option Act, which is one of the best healthcare reform proposals, are some good reforms of emergency and indigent care. Under Broun’s proposal, hospitals would be allowed to turn away people from ERs if they do not have an immediate need for emergency care. This would solve the problem of illegal immigrants using ERs for primary care.

Could it be that Tea Party leaders like Sen. Cruz never actually thought that emergency rooms were suitable alternatives for the uninsured and were instead just looking for any excuse not to expand insurance coverage?

Steve Malzberg Warns Honey Maid Is 'Incurring The Wrath' Of The Straight '95 Percent Of The Population'

Adding his voice to the right-wing outrage over Honey Maid’s TV ad featuring a same-sex couple, NewsMax’s Steve Malzberg mocked the company’s video response to its critics.

“I’m all choked up, not really,” Malzberg sneered, adding that he was upset about positive news coverage of Honey Maid’s ad.

“I don’t know how wholesome it is, it’s a company decision and now they are going to have to live with it. If they’re looking to appeal to the 5 percent of the population that’s gay, good for them, but you do so possibly at the expense of some of the other 95 percent of the population and incurring their wrath.”

Jim DeMint Asserts The Federal Government Played No Role In Freeing The Slaves

Heritage Foundation head Jim DeMint appeared on Vocal Point with Jerry Newcombe of Truth In Action Ministries last week, where he insisted that “no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves.”

DeMint, a former US senator from South Carolina, told Newcombe that “the conscience of the American people” and not the federal government was responsible for the end of slavery.

In the interview, DeMint seemed to confuse the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence and implied that William Wilberforce, a British politician who died almost thirty years before the Civil War, did more to end American slavery than the federal government.

DeMint: This progressive, the whole idea of being progressive is to progress away from those ideas that made this country great. What we’re trying to conserve as conservative are those things that work. They work today, they work for young people, they work for minorities and we can change this country and change its course very quickly if we just remember what works.

Newcombe: What if somebody, let’s say you’re talking with a liberal person and they were to turn around and say, ‘that Founding Fathers thing worked out really well, look at that Civil War we had eighty years later.’

DeMint: Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people. Unfortunately there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people. So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God.

Of course, the Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment was initiated by the federal government.

Historian Michael Les Benedict notes that Republicans at the time advocated a “nationalist” view of the Constitution, unlike “the largely state-rights Democratic party.” Abraham Lincoln’s critics, historian Don E. Fehrenbacher points out, pilloried him as a “tyrant” who was “bringing about destruction of the old Union of sovereign states and setting the nation on the road to totalitarianism” by “subverting the rights and powers of the states.” Confederate leaders insisted that the Civil War was a “war waged by the Federal Government against the seceding States.”

Lincoln, in fact, greatly expanded the role of the federal government and signed into law the first federal progressive income tax.

Later in the interview, DeMint talked to Newcombe about his opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage.

He gave a similarly a confusing answer on why he opposes marriage equality, suggesting that states have never enacted marriage equality laws: “I personally don’t think the government has the right, particularly at the federal level, to redefine marriage. It’s always been regulated by the states but never redefined by the states. Marriage was in effect created by the church, regulated by the states. For the government to come in and start redefining our civil institutions makes no sense.”

He went on to claim that marriage equality contributes to “broken families” and “the breakdown of the family.”

Steve Deace Claims End Of Anti-Gay Sodomy Laws Led To 'Fascism'

Conservative talk show host Steve Deace writes in the Washington Times today that gay rights advocates are trying to instill a 1984-style “fascism,” and blames this development on the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

“Every fascist movement in human history would be proud” of the gay rights movement, he writes, warning that the movement poses a greater threat to America than “jihadists” and is forcing Christians “debate our very existence” in the US.

After being desensitized to homosexuality by popular culture for the past two decades, the American people were promised by the Left that allowing the sexual revolution to reach its climax wouldn’t change anything. Now that our brave, new world of anything goes has arrived, the American people are beginning to realize this actually threatens to change everything.

Free speech, your own conscience, and religious freedom — rights as old as our republic itself — are now threatened more than ever before. Those God-given rights aren’t being threatened by jihadists or the Redcoats. They’re being threatened by a new fascism that calls itself “tolerance.”



Those who pleaded for “tolerance” and demanded “equality” only intended to do so until they acquired supremacy. Then, when they had the advantage, they would make sure their opponents understood that it’s not any fun once the rabbit has the gun. This reconstruction of previously agreed upon terminology and values is always the first step towards totalitarianism, as George Orwell pointed out in “Animal Farm” and “1984.”

A brief history lesson for those wondering how “tolerance” turned into fascism.

When sodomy laws were nullified by controversial Supreme Court precedents like 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas, the Left and the Republican Party’s surrender caucus promised us this was only about consenting adults’ private behavior, and this wouldn’t lead to a fight over marriage. But that’s exactly what it did.

While we were winning the fight to preserve marriage in 31 of the 35 states it was contested, the Left and the Republican Party’s surrender caucus promised us that redefining marriage and granting new rights based on behavior wouldn’t cost anybody their previously acknowledged God-given rights.

But that’s exactly what it’s doing, as it was intended to do. Statists are cheering on the fascism because their ultimate goal has always been to silence the church in America, for it’s the church that preaches the sovereignty of God and not government.



Christians now find ourselves in the position of having to debate our very existence in a country that wouldn’t have existed without our Christian forefathers, who came here for religious freedom in the first place. Can we hold jobs and still believe the Bible and church teachings? Can we own businesses? Will we be blacklisted from certain industries? Will they try to stop us from passing these teachings down to our children at home, since they’re already indoctrinating our kids against us in the schools as it is? And so on, and so forth.



The new tolerance has become the new fascism. How fabulous.

WND: Obama Paving The Way For A New Holocaust

George Mason University professor Walter Williams suggests in a WorldNetDaily column today that President Obama may soon introduce a new holocaust.

In his column “Concentration of Power: Hitler, Mao, Obama,” Williams cites the IRS and Affordable Care Act as evidence that Obama is growing the size of government in order to bring about mass killings.

“Engineering Evil” is a documentary recently shown on the Military History channel. It’s a story of Nazi Germany’s murder campaign before and during World War II. According to some estimates, 16 million Jews and other people died at the hands of Nazis.

Though the Holocaust ranks high among the great human tragedies, most people never consider the most important question: How did Adolf Hitler and the Nazis gain the power they needed to commit such horror? Focusing solely on the evil of the Holocaust won’t get us very far toward the goal of the Jewish slogan “Never Again.”



We might ask why the 20th century was so barbaric. Surely, there were barbarians during earlier ages. Part of the answer is that during earlier times, there wasn’t the kind of concentration of power that emerged during the 20th century. Had Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and Hitler been around in earlier times, they could not have engineered the slaughter of tens of millions of people. They wouldn’t have had the authority. There was considerable dispersion of jealously guarded political power in the forms of heads of provincial governments and principalities and nobility and church leaders whose political power within their spheres was often just as strong as the monarch’s.

Professor Rummel explained in the very first sentence of “Death by Government” that “Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely. … The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects.” That’s the long, tragic, ugly story of government: the elite’s use of government to dupe and forcibly impose its will on the masses. The masses are always duped by well-intentioned phrases. After all, what German could have been against “A Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich”? It’s not just Germans who have fallen prey to well-intentioned phrases. After all, who can be against the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”?

We Americans ought to keep the fact in mind that Hitler, Stalin and Mao would have had more success in their reign of terror if they had the kind of control and information about their citizens that agencies such as the NSA, the IRS and the ATF have about us. You might ask, “What are you saying, Williams?” Just put it this way: No German who died before 1930 would have believed the Holocaust possible.

Another WorldNetDaily commentator, Barry Farber, also claimed today that Democrats are trying to restore Nazi Germany through voter fraud.

“They may represent only a small percentage of Democrats, but that’s all you need for massive rape of the results and reversal of the legitimate public will,” he writes, adding that fears of “election theft” by Democrats “made me feel like a Jew in Warsaw as the triumphant Nazis were beginning to implement the ‘Final Solution’ early in World War II.”

Farber goes on to warn that “one of the most common areas of vote fraud is the Northern resident with a Florida home who votes in both states. I say, if convicted, you lose your Florida house.” In that case, Ann Coulter better watch out.

There’s no such thing as a little bit of murder, but there is such a thing as a little bit of treason. Vote fraud sabotages the mechanics of democracy. This is a serious crime. But almost nobody takes it seriously enough. I call for war!

Kevin “Coach” Collins, former New York Police Department detective, puts out a site – coachisright.com – that adds a lot of color and muscle to the Web.



“You’re assuming a fair and honest election,” (paraphrasing) Coach tells us. “Those who are doing such a brilliant job leading America into a far-left asphalt quagmire have no intention of sitting back and losing the Senate fairly and squarely and then congratulating the Republicans and offering to ‘come together’ for a better America. You can be sure,” Coach’s message continues, they’ll steal, cheat and lie with vicious abandon. We who are on the other side are the ones who will look at each other with horror at around 20 minutes to 11 on Election Night, debating which agency is responsible for setting things right, which bureau will step in and stop this travesty and which publication do we turn to to give the world a “piece of our mind.”

Coach made me feel like a Jew in Warsaw as the triumphant Nazis were beginning to implement the “Final Solution” early in World War II. “Roosevelt will never allow this!” those Jews reassured each other. “The pope will never allow this. The League of Nations will never allow this.” Tell me again who it is you expect to come galloping in to reverse the outcome of a stolen election?

Are all Democrats thieves and cheaters? Is that a valid summation of the American Democrat? Of course not. That would be an ignorant allegation. Let me tell you what’s not so ignorant. They may represent only a small percentage of Democrats, but that’s all you need for massive rape of the results and reversal of the legitimate public will. We on the other side are vacuous, insipid and myopic. Get ready to get swallowed.

I’m not saying I do a good job. All I’m saying is, my job is keeping up with things like Republican plans to thwart election theft. And I’ve heard nothing, read nothing and know nothing about any meaningful Republican response.

There are more Republican governors than there are Democrats. If I were a Republican governor, I’d pick the half-dozen angriest and smartest activists in my party to look for the holes and vulnerabilities in our voting defenses and plug them up immediately. Don’t states still have legislatures? Can we ramrod through laws providing for five-year prison terms for those convicted of vote fraud? One of the most common areas of vote fraud is the Northern resident with a Florida home who votes in both states. I say, if convicted, you lose your Florida house!

Scott Lively: 'Science Says' Gays 'Using Parts Of The Body In Ways They're Not Supposed To Be Used'

Anti-gay crusader and Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively was a guest on the The Alan Colmes Show yesterday, where he attempted to explain why “homosexuality is a behavioral disorder on par with alcoholism or eating disorders.”

Lively told Colmes that “homosexual conduct is inherently wrong and dangerous and harmful” because “it’s using parts of the body in ways they’re not supposed to be used.”

When Colmes asked him “who says” that LGBT people use their bodies “in ways they’re not supposed to,” Lively replied, “Well, science says, for one thing.”

When Colmes asked him for scientific evidence of this, Lively of course couldn’t name any, but said that scientific studies aren’t even necessary because his point is “self-evident” and “the best arguments are arguments from simple logic, and when you get off into scientific studies then you’re off in the weeds.”


Lively: I believe that homosexuality is a behavioral disorder on par with alcoholism or eating disorders, things that people suffer with. It isn’t just a moral weakness. It’s something that people suffer with.

Colmes: How do you account for the fact that there are many gays who are happily gay, they’re not suffering because of it, they’re happily living their lives, some of them with partners. Alcoholism causes definite problems, physical problems.

Lively: Hey, there’s a lot of happy alcoholics.

Colmes: Well, but I don’t know how you compare a decision that somebody makes – I’m not calling being gay a decision, but a decision to be married to someone of the same gender, a decision to have sex with someone of the same gender – how do you call that analogous to alcoholism, when someone could be very not negatively affected by the results of those actions?

Lively: Well, I disagree that they can be ‘not negatively affected.’ I think homosexual conduct is inherently wrong and dangerous and harmful.

Colmes: Why? Why?

Lively: Why? Because it’s engaging in, it’s using parts of the body in ways they’re not supposed to be used.

Colmes: Says who?

Lively: Frankly, my model that I follow and that I advocate is that all sex belongs inside of authentic marriage, between a man and a woman.

Colmes: Who says that the human body should not be done in a way, or used in a way that gays use the human body, who says that?

Lively: Well, science says, for one thing.

Colmes: What scientists are coming out and saying that gays shouldn’t do that?

Lively: Well, not very many these days, because if anyone dares to go against the gays, they get bashed.

Colmes: But where in science has there ever been some scientific theory analogous to global warming, for example, that gays should not do things with their body.

Lively: Alan, it’s self-evident. It’s self-evident that anal…

Colmes: Wait a minute, you’re saying science, you didn’t say it was self-evident. Where’s the science in this?

Lively: Well, if you want to go down that path, I suppose we can go dig up studies and all that, but we don’t need to do that because it’s self-evident

Colmes: Because you can’t back up what you said if you don’t do that.

Lively: I believe that the best arguments are the arguments from simple logic, and when you get off into scientific studies, then you’re off in the weeds.

Colmes: But you’re the one who brought up science, Dr. Lively, you’re the one who brought that up.

Blue Slips: Republicans Should Stop Abuse of Consultation Process

In an op-ed Sunday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, addressed critics of his use of blue slips, a committee tradition that Republicans continue to abuse. Under this policy, the chairman asks the Senators from a nominee’s home state to submit a blue slip expressing their support or opposition. The consequences have varied over time, depending on who the chairman has been. Leahy’s practice has been to not hold a hearing unless both senators submit their blue slips saying they support letting the committee process the application. As Senator Leahy points out

The Constitution requires presidents to seek both the “advice and consent” of the Senate in appointing judges to lifetime posts on the federal courts. … When senators return this paper, it is proof that the senators elected to represent that state were consulted and the nominee is likely to be confirmed.

Leahy states he “cannot recall a single judicial nominee being confirmed over the objection of his or her home-state senators,” and affirms the importance of home-state support in moving the process forward.

But Leahy also acknowledges that the “judicial confirmation process in the Senate has grown increasingly difficult,” and that Senate practices that bring principles of the Constitution to life do need “ongoing evaluation to make sure they work as intended. And he reiterates that he “would not rule out proceeding with a nomination if the blue slip is abused.”

Indeed, since his election, President Obama has routinely sought the advice of senators through the judicial nominations process. It has been a hallmark of his presidency. But too many Republicans have refused to engage in a cooperative process, instead seeking the authority to pick the nominee themselves, even if it is someone the president would oppose. When that happens, no nomination is made. Other times, the senators withhold the blue slip indefinitely, often refusing to give a reason why, and sometimes even after they themselves recommended the nominee they are now blocking. The result of this abuse has been the worsening of a serious judicial vacancy crisis.

Chairman Leahy has stressed the importance of blue slips in showing that senators have been consulted by the White House. Taking heed of Leahy’s words, Republicans should be wary of continuing the abuse of the blue slip process to block judicial confirmations. Their continued use of this “silent, unaccountable veto” is a detriment to the judicial process. As GOP obstruction continues through withholding of blue slips despite substantial consultation, judicial nominations grow more cumbersome, and the impracticality of this part of the process becomes clearer.
 

PFAW
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious