C4

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

Ben Stein: End Poverty By Abolishing Church-State Separation

In an American Spectator column last week, conservative pundit Ben Stein argued that Americans living in poverty aren’t really poor because “they almost always have indoor plumbing,” and in any case they just “envy” the wealthy and are victims of their own “self-sabotage.”

He adds that federal policies can’t address poverty, and that instead what’s needed is an end to the separation of church and state: “What will make the genuinely poor stop sabotaging themselves? Maybe, just maybe, if we let God back into the public forum it would help. I have seen spiritual solutions work miracles.”

So, I just don’t see the problem in there being so many billionaires except for bare envy — an extremely basic emotion. It is an emotion that the politicians and academics and race haters have been able to stir up for a long, long time. It leads to jobs for Democrats but not much else.

...

In olden times, poverty was the common human condition. In the USA, as recently as the Great Depression, poverty was commonplace. FDR might have exaggerated when he described one-third of the nation as “ill housed, ill fed and ill clad...” But surely he was not far off.

Now, real poverty, where Americans lack cars or air conditioning (imagine that we now consider it poverty to lack something that was the ne plus ultra of luxury in my youth!) or solid food is extremely rare. Yes, the government designates many tens of millions as poor, but they almost always have indoor plumbing (which my mother did not have in her small town in the Catskills) and they are super nourished as opposed to mal-nourished. They get food stamps. They get free medical care. They get vouchers for many of the needs of life.

This is not to deny their sorrow and I am sad for them. But why are they poor? Senator Elizabeth Warren, a genuine moron, not a fake one, says it’s because of “corporations.”

No, federal policy does not generally cause long-term unemployment and poverty. In general. Obviously, there are exceptions.

My humble observation is that most long-term poverty is caused by self-sabotage by individuals. Drug use. Drunkenness. Having children without a family structure. Gambling. Poor work habits. Disastrously unfortunate appearance. Above all, and counted in the preceding list, psychological problems (very much including basic laziness) cause people to be unemployed, have poor or no work habits, and enter and stay in poverty.

Impoverished people have personal problems. They may have had terrible childhoods. They may have been the victims of abuse. They are often the victims of their own abuse of drugs and alcohol. But they are not the victims of corporations or of the Federal Reserve. Their sad backgrounds lead them into self-destruction.

Is there any public policy that can help them? We just don’t know so far. But whipping up hate against the successful simply cannot do it. There is no connecting mechanism between envy and greater productivity. Quite the opposite. Envy legitimizes class hatred and idleness (see “higher education — 2014”) and produces nothing.

What will make the genuinely poor stop sabotaging themselves? Maybe, just maybe, if we let God back into the public forum it would help. I have seen spiritual solutions work miracles.
 

Todd Starnes Warns Gay Rights Will Lead To 'Cultural Armageddon'

Fox News pundit Todd Starnes is outraged that TV shows these days include “families with two mommies or two daddies or a mommy who identifies as a daddy,” arguing in a Charisma column today that the gay community is largely responsible for the rise of divorce and single parent households.

Starnes interviewed Southern Baptist megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress, who told him that marriage equality for same-sex couples “is having devastating sociological effects” because “when you counter something, you cheapen its value.”

“The traditional nuclear family is on the verge of disaster,” Starnes writes. “And once the nuclear family explodes, the United States should brace for a cultural Armageddon.”

I grew up in a time when father still knew best—when Mr. Cunningham was dispensing words of wisdom to Fonzie, when Andy took Opie fishing and when Cliff Huxtable declared that he brought his son into the world and he could take him out. It was a time when Hollywood reinforced the values of the traditional American family. Television shows like The Waltons, Little House on the Prairie and The Brady Bunch presented portraits of strong families where parents ruled the roost and children knew their place.

Those days are long gone. Nowadays, children know best and dads are portrayed as dithering dolts. Instead of a mom and dad and two kids, the cul-de-sac includes families with two mommies or two daddies or a mommy who identifies as a daddy—and they’ve been saddled with gender-neutral offspring.



Critics might argue that the nation’s divorce rate is actually declining. But [Robert] Jeffress believes that’s evidence of a much greater problem.

“Fewer and fewer people are getting married, so fewer people are getting divorced,” he says. “The overall health of the American family is in critical condition.”

Jeffress believes the legalization of same-sex marriage has “cheapened” traditional marriage.

“When you counter something, you cheapen its value,” he says. “When you say marriage is whatever you want it to be, people begin wondering—why bother getting married anyway? This counterfeit of marriage is having devastating sociological effects. More kids are being raised in one-parent homes. You simply cannot break God’s most basic moral law without serious ramifications.”

What Can We Do?

The solution is simultaneously simple yet challenging. Simple in that we must return to God’s pattern for the family. God is the one who created the family. Before the church, He created the family—the fundamental unit of community.

Yet re-establishing that unit as God intended it within our culture is easier said than done, obviously, because of the fervent opposition to biblical values.

The warning signs are all around us. The traditional nuclear family is on the verge of disaster. And once the nuclear family explodes, the United States should brace for a cultural Armageddon.

Can we prevent such a catastrophe by returning to God’s design for the family? Like it or not, answering that question begins with the church.

World Congress Of Families Spokesman Defends Russian American Adoption Ban

In an interview with WorldNetDaily this weekend, World Congress of Families communications director Don Feder defended the author of Russia’s “gay propaganda” ban, also a key proponent of the ban on American adoptions, and claimed that she had been “punished” with sanctions because the Obama administration is “controlled by the gay lobby.”

Yelena Mizulina, head of the Duma’s committee on families and an organizer of the World Congress of Families’ upcoming Moscow conference, was among the Russian officials hit with economic sanctions after the seizure of Crimea. Along with her role promoting the propaganda ban and a crackdown on adoptions to countries that allow marriage equality, Mizulina helped push the 2012 ban on Russian adoptions to the U.S.

Feder told WorldNetDaily that Mizulina was “absolutely right” in her push to ban American adoptions because children could end up adopted by same-sex couples. “The Russians are very traditional people,” he added. “They have a strong religious orientation. They haven’t got caught up in the whole politically correct thing that has captured so many people in this country.”

“They don’t want to see Russian children placed with homosexuals,” he said. “Frankly, I don’t blame them.”

Feder claimed that the Obama administration used the Crimea crisis as a “convenient excuse” for “payback” against Mizulina.

“This administration is clearly controlled by the gay lobby,” he said. “Whatever organized homosexuals want, the administration gives them.”

He added that he was appalled by the Obama administration’s commitment to defending LGBT people around the world from violence and persecution: “You have to shake your head in wonder. Promoting gay rights is now a major US foreign policy initiative!”

Herman Cain's Website Upset That 'Vagina Woman' Running For Michigan Lt. Gov

Dan Calabrese, the editor-in-chief of Herman Cain’s Best of Cain website, is appalled that Michigan Democratic gubernatorial frontrunner Mark Schauer has picked “Vagina Woman” Lisa Brown to be his running mate.

In 2012, Republicans in the Michigan House barred Brown, then a state representative, from speaking on the House floor after she used the word “vagina” in a speech against an anti-choice bill.

In a column titled “Democrats pick The Vagina Woman for Michigan's Lt. Governor” (url: “democrats-nominate-the-vagina”), Calabrese writes that Brown and Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis are “highly un-accomplished” and that their “main claim to fame is having talked publicly about their own sexual organs.”

“[I]t's worth taking a look when a candidate chooses a running mate with nothing much to recommend her except the fact that she once angrily mentioned one of her own body parts during a legislative session,” Calabrese adds, also objecting to the fact that Brown, who is now a county clerk, issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples this month in the days before a marriage equality ruling was stayed.

It is not normally worth much news coverage when a candidate picks a running mate, although it usually gets a fair amount because political junkies tend to be obsessed with such minutia. But it's worth taking a look when a candidate chooses a running mate with nothing much to recommend her except the fact that she once angrily mentioned one of her own body parts during a legislative session, and that brings us to Mark Schauer, Michigan's presumptive Democrat nominee for governor, and his new running mate, Lisa Brown[.]

...

But it's the same thing they did in Texas, where the highly un-accomplished Wendy Davis is being touted for governor because she got a lot of media attention for staging a talk-a-thon in protest of restrictions on abortion. That's not working out too well, as Davis is way behind in the polls and her campaign has been beset by revelations about her supposedly inspirational life story. But that's what you get when you choose a candidate based on personal media narrative - especially one as flimsly as this - rather than actual qualifications.

Mark Schauer is no great prize either. He served one term in Congress before being turned out in the 2010 Red Wave election, but he was there long enough to vote for Obama's massive "stimulus" boondoggle and, of course, ObamaCare. He now spends his time engaging in every conventional Democrat pander of the moment, including demands that the minimum wage be raised and lots of blather about the "middle class" and so forth. And now he's proving that he knows the current Democrat playbooks very well, which is why he has selected the latest so-called victim of the "war on women" on the apparent belief that voters want to put the fortunes of their states in the hands of people whose main claim to fame is having talked publicly about their own sexual organs.

Linda Harvey Wants School To Fire Transgender Teacher For Her 'Bizarre, Destructive Behavior'

Linda Harvey is outraged that a transgender teacher at Yosemite High School in Oakhurst, California, will still be teaching after undergoing gender reassignment surgery. According to the Mission America head, the teacher, Karen Adel Scott, has “lost touch with objective reality” and is now “a sad caricature” of “a man with long hair and makeup trying to appear to be a woman.”

“The result is just as freakish in appearance as it is in reality,” Harvey said on her radio show today, lamenting that “the school must go along with such nonsense.”

Harvey also said that counselors who have worked with Scot should “choose a different profession” because they affirmed “this bizarre, destructive behavior” that pushes America “into chaos,” “paganism” and “tribalism.”

If he’s lost touch with objective reality, then those around him owe it to him and those effected by his choices to not let him go down this incoherent path. Counselors who affirm this bizarre, destructive behavior are themselves doing harm, not being helpful to patients and they need to choose a different profession. God never designed people to try to change their biological masculine or feminine identity, and those who do so walk rebelliously and deliberately away from God.

The newspaper story features two photos, a before picture of a nice looking man, science teacher Gary Sconce, the after picture identified with this man’s preferred new name, Karen Scot, is a sad caricature of exactly what he is: a man with long hair and makeup trying to appear to be a woman. The result is just as freakish in appearance as it is in reality. Far from being ‘who he really is,’ it is overwhelmingly obvious he is trying to become something he definitely is not.

By California law, the school must go along with such nonsense, at least until the voters hopefully get a chance to change the new law that forces students to endure such pathetic behavior by adults. The school said it is going to focus on educating students and that ‘gender identity and gender expression are protected under the law.’ But such laws are further evidence that we as a culture are losing it. We’re losing touch with common sense and it’s one more attempt to normalize deviance while calling what is normal a disorder.

With each step we take down this road of mythology, we descend into chaos and we regress into tribalism. This is what pagan cultures do, not enlightened ones. Such profound darkness can only be dispelled by the light of God. Let’s play for Yosemite, for the student misled and confused by this man’s actions and for him, that he wakes up one morning and recovers his vision of the truth.

Robert Oscar Lopez Claims Same-Sex Parenting Is Slavery, Banned Under The 13th Amendment

While appearing on Sandy Rios In The Morning yesterday, anti-LGBT activist Robert Oscar Lopez said that same-sex couples who are raising children are “redefining what it means to be human” and reintroducing slavery.

Rios invited Lopez on her show to discuss a recent American Thinker column in which he depicts gay men as “woman-hating chauvinists” who wish to “snatch away” babies from women and treat children as “chattel.” Lopez told Rios that the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery applies to same-sex parenting.

I believe every child has a natural born right to his mother and father and ultimately those rights were taken away from them because adults made a decision that the child was not a party to because he didn’t exist or was too young to decide that. Even if you could come up with some study that showed that 95% of the children are okay with it, we as a society already went through a huge debate in the United States about owning other people and we decided — the Thirteenth Amendment is worded very sweepingly not just to ban what was specifically happening on Southern plantations but to ban any kind of practice. It says ‘slavery shall not exist,’ any kind of arrangement where you have a legal contract upon another human being is banned.

So the mother-father relationship to the child is a natural one that is structured around obligations to the child, anytime that you turn that around and you say that adults have a right to a child, really all of society then becomes put into an ethical problem because all of society is redefining what it means to be human, what it means to be a child, what it means to be a free citizen and what it means to have freedom. I don’t think you can really be free if you’re born with a price on your head.

Lopez also lashed out at LGBT rights advocates as “brutal,” “ruthless” and “totalitarian” activists.

This is a very aggressive movement and they’re ruthless. I began to hold discussions, trying sincerely to engage in a discussion with the gay community, and I think there are still a lot of good gay people, but the gay organizations, which are not the same thing as gay people, have just fallen into this totalitarian mode, their mindset is so brutal and ruthless, I just can’t even put words to it.

Wayne Allyn Root: Democrats Won In 2012 By Voting 10 Times Each

Wayne Allyn Root, the conservative activist who ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket in 2008, claimed last month that President Obama won reelection because “Democratic voters across this country are voting four times, five times, 10 times each for the Democrats.”

In a video commentary posted in late March, Root insisted that “Democrats are winning elections through what appears to be massive voter fraud.”

Root — who is also a birther — cited the right-wing myth that the fact that a handful of precincts in the heavily Democratic Philadelphia recorded no votes for Mitt Romney means that Democrats were “stuffing the ballot box.” The Philadelphia myth is part of a right-wing trend of blaming Democratic victories on unproven voter fraud in urban areas.

Root also said that President Obama should be impeached over alleged IRS targeting of conservatives, citing the removal of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.  “If you think impeachment can’t happen, it’s a pipe dream,” he said, “I’ve got news for you. Study Ukraine."

Herman Cain Insists Martin Luther King Jr. 'Did Not Preach Class Warfare'

Herman Cain yesterday became the latest politician to whitewash Martin Luther King, Jr.’s record, attacking Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for citing King while promoting his proposed financial transaction tax. Cain said that King wouldn’t support such a measure because “class warfare wasn’t his thing.”

Class warfare wasn't his thing.



The demonstrations and the proposed tax were initiated by U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota). He has introduced an actual bill to tax all Wall Street transactions to provide a pool of money to help those, mostly minorities, who have not achieved financial success. The bill is HR 1579, the “Inclusive Prosperity Act of 2013”.

When Stuart Varney asked me what I thought of this tax, I said the bill is simply a class warfare attack on those who represent financial success – and it dishonors the memory of Dr. King, because he did not preach class warfare.



Dr. King did not fight or die for a new tax. Please! His memory deserves more respect than that. Some of us understand that.

That would have been news to King, as the late civil rights leader claimed that he was in fact “involved in the class struggle” and was a strong ally of the labor movement.

In fact, Ellison’s bill is much more moderate than King’s economic views.

King’s March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom strongly focused on issues of economic justice and called for an increase in the minimum wage along with “a massive federal program to train and place all unemployed workers — Negro and white — on meaningful and dignified jobs at decent wages.” He later said that he hoped “a program will emerge to abolish unemployment, and that there will be another program to supplement the income of those whose earnings are below the poverty level.”

He also supported a guaranteed basic income and advocated a “radical redistribution of economic power” in order to curb poverty and inequality, even citing Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism.

King also said an “economic and social bill of rights” was needed to aid “the majority of Negroes locked up in an economic underworld of poverty, joblessness and unemployment” and correct the “monstrous contradiction between the American idea and reality” of “two centuries of oppression and terror.”

Cain certainly wouldn’t be the first one to offer this sanitized version of King, who believed that government should play a key role ending poverty:

I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective -- the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.

Earlier in this century this proposal would have been greeted with ridicule and denunciation as destructive of initiative and responsibility. At that time economic status was considered the measure of the individual's abilities and talents. In the simplistic thinking of that day the absence of worldly goods indicated a want of industrious habits and moral fiber.

We have come a long way in our understanding of human motivation and of the blind operation of our economic system. Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will. The poor are less often dismissed from our conscience today by being branded as inferior and incompetent. We also know that no matter how dynamically the economy develops and expands it does not eliminate all poverty.



Our nation's adjustment to a new mode of thinking will be facilitated if we realize that for nearly forty years two groups in our society have already been enjoying a guaranteed income. Indeed, it is a symptom of our confused social values that these two groups turn out to be the richest and the poorest. The wealthy who own securities have always had an assured income; and their polar opposite, the relief client, has been guaranteed an income, however miniscule, through welfare benefits.

John Kenneth Galbraith has estimated that $20 billion a year would effect a guaranteed income, which he describes as "not much more than we will spend the next fiscal year to rescue freedom and democracy and religious liberty as these are defined by 'experts' in Vietnam."

The contemporary tendency in our society is to base our distribution on scarcity, which has vanished, and to compress our abundance into the overfed mouths of the middle and upper classes until they gag with superfluity. If democracy is to have breadth of meaning, it is necessary to adjust this inequity. It is not only moral, but it is also intelligent. We are wasting and degrading human life by clinging to archaic thinking.

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.

Pat Robertson Prays For Obama's Removal, Asks God To 'Deliver Us From This President'

Pat Robertson today asked God to "deliver" the US from President Obama before it's too late. After implying that Obama is a Muslim, Robertson told 700 Club viewers: "We need to do something to pray to be delivered from this president. He is a disaster, an absolute disaster. Democrat, Republican or whatever, this country is into serious decline unless something dramatic is done about it."

Such sentiments are nothing new from the right-wing televangelist. Robertson has previously suggested that Obama is a "crypto-Muslim" and once during George W. Bush's presidency prayed for God to remove justices from the Supreme Court.

While promoting a Christian Broadcasting Network booklet, “Islam: Religion of Peace or War?,” Robertson suggested Obama professed faith in Islam during a 2012 address to the UN General Assembly where he said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” In fact, Obama's speech focused on protecting the freedom of speech and religion, and Robertson conveniently omits the president's next line: “To be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

“Our president is frankly out of his mind, making a statement like that. The future belongs to those who belong to God almighty, not those who believe in this stuff.”

Robertson also touched on a common anti-Muslim misrepresentation of the marriage between Mohammad and Aisha, which he used to call Mohammad a pedophile.

Linda Harvey To Gay Teens: Stay In The Closet!

Mission America’s Linda Harvey went on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to promote her new book, “Maybe He’s Not Gay,” which encourages gay teenagers to renounce homosexuality.

Mefferd asked Harvey what advice she would give to the friends and family of a teen who wants to come out as gay. “The first thing,” Havey advised, is “they do not need to come out to everyone.”

"That’s the beginning of many troubling roads for young people," Harvey said of coming out. That’s when they announce it and they feel like they have to live up to that, or down to that, standard they set for themselves. And it begins to label them, they put these labels on themselves.”

She added that parents and friends should tell gay teens that “lots and lots of people have changed out of this lifestyle.”

Klingenschmitt: 'How Dare President Obama Order Christians To Kill Children?'

Gordon Klingenschmitt is responding to the Hobby Lobby case at the Supreme Court by warning that President Obama is forcing Christians to kill children as part of “a spiritual war to save or destroy unborn babies and the elderly.”

“How dare President Obama order Christians to kill children? How dare any Justice consider ordering Christians to kill children?” the pastor asks in his weekend email to members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project, apparently referring to the contraceptive drugs at issue in Hobby Lobby, which are not actually abortifacients.

Klingenschmitt quotes from the Affordable Care Act to claim that the Obama administration is allowing “welfare-moms [to] kill their children.” But his email omits the passage from the law that directly precedes the excerpted quote: “Abortions for which public funding is prohibited,” which outlines that the Affordable Care Act preserves the current federal ban on abortion known as the Hyde Amendment.

As Rep. Ron Kind explains: “The Hyde Amendment specifically is not included in the bill though the language included in the bill accomplishes what the Hyde Amendment seeks to do - preventing federal funding for abortions except in the instances of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act maintains current law regarding federal funding for abortion services.”

How dare President Obama order Christians to kill children? How dare any Justice consider ordering Christians to kill children? It's bad enough they kill children on their own without our help. But now they demand we pay for it too?



Democrats initiated a phony compromise with President Obama who signed a toothless Executive Order (which conflicts with the law, and is unenforceable in court) to give them top-cover to claim they're not funding abortion, when the law they all passed specifically stated on page 117:

"(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved." [That's a direct quote from the law they passed.]

In other words, Democrats lied when they claimed to prevent public tax-payer funding of abortion, and mandated private funding of abortion (as if that should be allowed either). And Planned Parenthood clearly lied in their analysis of the law, when they claimed "forcing individuals to write two separate checks (both of which are out of private funds) and requiring health plans to administer two different payments of private funds is not necessary to insure public funds are not used for abortion care." No public funds? Really?

They lied, plain and simple, because the law quoted above now reads ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED through the Department of Health and Human Services, subsidizing child-killing of innocents with your tax-dollars, so welfare-moms can kill their child for a $12 co-pay, while Planned Parenthood gets rich charging YOU thousands of tax dollars against your will. No wonder both Stupak and Nelson were labeled traitors by every credible pro-life group in America.

Friends, our nation stands in the midst of a spiritual war to save or destroy unborn babies and the elderly. You and I stand in this battle together. We must stand strong!

Linda Harvey Attacks Anti-Bullying Day Of Silence For 'Dishonoring God'

Mission America’s Linda Harvey keeps pressing on in her war against the Day of Silence and used her daily radio bulletin today to warn that the event will encourage students to “take on” a “high-risk life that dishonors God.”

Harvey told listeners to pull their kids from school on that day to avoid exposure to the protest against anti-LGBT bullying, warning that children will otherwise have to encounter “pro-homosexual propaganda” and face other students “recruiting” them.

Because of alarming and deceptive messages surrounding the Day of Silence, many Christian groups — Mission America included — are urging parents to keep your children home from school that day unless you have assurances that the school is not bending its rules. Some schools allow student organizers to widely promote the Day of Silence and homosexuality while recruiting others to participate. Here’s why I say it’s deceptive: the Day of Silence is sadly a day of pro-homosexual propaganda in schools.

Students pledge to remain silent all day in order to protest what they believe has been the silencing of homosexuals and bullying that isn’t being punished, those who choose to be homosexual or switch genders are the victims and we’re all bullies or potential bullies if we don’t accept this premise. But we should not accept this premise because it wrongly communicates that homosexuality is honorable and respectable and that it’s inborn like race. But that’s’ not true. No one, especially young people, should take on this identity and behavior. It’s a high-risk life that dishonors God and the way He created us.

Sandy Rios Fears Children Won't 'Survive' Common Core, Christians Will Have to Build 'Parallel Society'

Last week, American Family Association’s Sandy Rios spoke to William Estrada of the Home School Legal Defense Association about the supposed dangers of Common Core, which Rios fears will “promote homosexuality” to children.

She told Estrada that conservative Christians will refuse to let their kids learn according to Common Core standards, but as a result will “find themselves in a situation where they cannot function, they cannot be accepted into colleges and universities, they can’t get scholarships, they can’t get a ticket to get into, you know, just living life.”

“I just can’t see how our kids can survive,” Rios lamented, arguing that conservatives will then need to create a new society for those who oppose Common Core: “The only way I can see us even surviving is to develop a parallel society. I’m projecting but honestly that is the truth. A parallel economy, parallel job opportunities.”

Rios: The way is going to Common Core is going to work is our kids, meaning the home school children — when I say our kids, many of us are Christians, we are conservatives politically — our children may find themselves in a situation where they cannot function, they cannot be accepted into colleges and universities, they can’t get scholarships, they can’t get a ticket to get into, you know, just living life, if they are not pulled into the Common Core if it continues on its current trajectory. I just can’t see how our kids can survive.

Estrada: That’s actually our long term concern. Right now the Common Core by law only applies to public schools, of course there are five states that never adopted the Common Core — Texas, Alaska, Virginia, Minnesota only adopted the English Language Arts, and Nebraska never adopted the Common Core — so there are a few states that never did, but the long term concerns is that this is the first step towards a national curriculum. If we truly do have a national curriculum across all fifty states, the pressure will build for homeschoolers to be taught the same way, and if not the doors to universities and colleges will most likely be closed to them.

Rios: The only way I can see us even surviving is to develop a parallel society. I’m projecting but honestly that is the truth. A parallel economy, parallel job opportunities and I just don’t think — that’s not where we want to go. We need to stop Common Core.

Estrada: That is so much why we need to keep this fight.

Rick Wiles Warns Adolf Hitler's 'Race Of Super Gay Male Soldiers' Is Taking Over America

Indiana pastor and BarbWire editor Jeff Allen, who has compared gays to Al QaedaNazis and the Ku Klux Klan, spoke to Rick Wiles of TruNews on Friday about his column attacking the Southern Baptist Convention for not being anti-gay enough. Wiles said that anti-gay activists need to become more vocal because gay rights advocates are literal Nazis who idolize Adolf Hitler.

Wiles said that anti-gay activists need to become more vocal because gay rights advocates are literal Nazis who idolize Adolf Hitler. Wiles said that Nazis had nothing to do with promoting the Aryan race but were instead bent on creating “a homosexual special race.”

“Hitler was trying to create a race of super gay male soldiers,” Wiles said, predicting that gay people in the US will realize Hitler’s goal and launch a mass “slaughter” of Christians.

Wiles: It’s not an exaggeration to say homofascist because the German Nazi Party was homosexual, Hitler was a homosexual, the top Nazi leadership, all of them were homosexuals, it was a radical homosexual movement that gained political power, military power, and they were creating a homosexual special race. That’s what it was all about. It wasn’t this thing about an Aryan race of white people, blue-eyed, blonde-haired, white people, Hitler was trying to create a race of super gay male soldiers. That’s what he was creating.

When you understand what the real agenda of the homosexual movement was in the 30s and 40s and you see it is happening now here in the United States of America. I’m telling you, this is not an exaggeration. If it’s not stopped, it will end up in America just like it was in Germany but it won’t be the Jews that will be slaughtered, it will be the Christians.

Allen: Right. We haven’t gotten, fortunately, to the slaughtering part, but we’re getting to the point of the marginalizing part. Marginalized, get us to the edge, remove us from any influence in society.

Later in the interview, Wiles called gay rights “the new Nazism” and said that gays will turn America into “a hellacious place to live and you’re going to have to go underground to be a Christian in this country.”

After Allen accused gays of “hunting [people] down,” Wiles said that gay rights advocates “want to put your head on the wall.”

Wiles: They are Nazi thought police and they’re going to be the worst kind of tyrants we’ve ever seen. The nightmare is only starting and if the Christians don’t get their act together, this is going to become a hellacious place to live and you’re going to have to go underground to be a Christian in this country. They’re going to hunt you down and they’re going to persecute you. That is the spirit that is alive in this country right now and is being embraced by political leaders in both parties, it is the new Nazism.

Allen: They already are hunting you down, they’re hunting you down. If they find out about you, they come after you.

Wiles: Yes. They’re looking for people. They want trophies, they want your head on the wall, they want to put your head on the wall, they’re looking for scalps because it emboldens them and it sends fear into their opponents. It is the worst kind of tyranny.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious