Austin Ruse is upset that we reported on comments he made yesterday on Sandy Rios In The Morning, the American Family Association radio program he is guest hosting, where he said that “the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities,” especially the women’s studies departments, “should all be taken out and shot.” Ruse, who heads the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), spent yesterday and today lashing out at critics on Twitter, saying liberals are “dumb,” “stupid” and “idiots.”
Ruse started today’s show by explaining that his remarks yesterday weren’t serious and that liberals should “turn to Wikipedia or the Internet, I don’t know if they know how to use the Internet.”
“The pajama boys over at Right Wing Watch have their panties all in a twist about what I said, and I sometimes think that the left is really dumb, these are the low-information voters that make all of these mistakes when they get into the ballot box and all of these mistakes as they go through their lives and one of the reasons is because they are so dumb,” he said.
After calling liberals “dumb” and “pajama boys,” he then criticized them as “smear merchants” who “call [people] names” and want to shut him up.
“These people, these dumb leftists, are really smear merchants, they’re out to hurt, to harm, to isolate,” Ruse said. “They don’t like me, they don’t like you, they don’t like your children, they don’t like anything about you and they want you to basically shut up and go away…. It’s quite astounding what these folks are able to get away with and it’s also astounding how dumb they are.”
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins is troubled by President Obama’s new My Brother’s Keeper Initiative, which encourages communities to partner “with local businesses and foundations to connect” boys and young men of color “to mentoring, support networks, and skills they need to find a good job or go to college and work their way up into the middle class.”
Perkins fears that the program is actually all about growing the size of government and, of course, opposes it simply because President Obama is involved. “The President’s liberal agenda of abortion, promiscuity, and same-sex marriage hasn’t fixed the problems, it’s exacerbated them,” he said.
Fortunately for President Obama, there is one job where his approval ratings are soaring: fatherhood. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. Like almost half of all kids today, having a father at home was a luxury Barack Obama didn't enjoy. And last week, he launched a new program to spare other kids the same issues. To fight the crime and poverty that comes with broken families, the President kicked off a program called My Brother's Keeper to help minority boys. And while it's fine for the government to raise awareness about the problem -- it's not fine, or even possible, for the government to be the solution. What these kids need isn't Washington's touch, but a family's. Until now, the President's liberal agenda of abortion, promiscuity, and same-sex marriage hasn't fixed the problems, it's exacerbated them. Focusing on minority kids could have a huge impact on American society -- if the President realizes that marriage, life, and faith are essential ingredients.
William Murray, head of the Religious Freedom Coalition and Government Is Not God PAC, writes in WorldNetDaily today that President Obama and the media have a “hatred for Russia” because “morally and spiritually, Russia today is the nation America was in the 1950s.”
He cites Russia’s harsh anti-abortion laws, ban on gays in the military, the influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in government, and flat tax.
Why do President Obama and the Western media have such hatred for Russia? What is all the Russia bashing really about?
In Russia the clergy are allowed to enter the schools to give instruction in the Bible. Prayer is allowed in the public schools in Russia, as well. It is against the law to sell or give pornographic literature to anyone under the age of 18. Marriage in Russia is allowed only between one man and one woman.
Last year President Putin signed a law outlawing advertisements for abortion. In 2011 Russia passed a law requiring health warnings to women before getting an abortion, and now the Duma is considering outlawing abortions completely unless the mother is in immediate danger of death. (In the old Soviet Union, abortion was the primary means of birth control).
There is no complicated tax code in Russia; they have the kind of flat tax the Republicans have pushed in the U.S. for years. In Russia everyone pays the 13 percent income tax regardless of how much they earn. The year after this flat tax was instituted in 2001, the Russian economy took off like a rocket and tax revenues increased as well. Russia is not a communist country any longer. Russia has as many or maybe even more millionaires than the United States. There is free enterprise; anyone can start a business, and many people do.
In the Russian Army the chaplains are allowed to preach the Gospel and pray in the name of Jesus Christ. Homosexual behavior is not allowed in the Russian military and punishable by court martial. (The U.S. military just held its first officially approved drag queen contest at the Kadena Air Base.)
Why do Barack Obama and the liberal media hate Russia so much but have such love for nations that are anti-Christian and repressive such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia? Morally and spiritually, Russia today is the nation America was in the 1950s.
WorldNetDaily’s Erik Rush writes today that President Obama is backing a “Nazi regime” in Ukraine in hopes that it will lead to a violent conflict with Russia, “which would result in America’s devastation.” Rush’s grand conspiracy involves Ukrainian Nazis, the Muslim Brotherhood and progressives in the US, whom he claims are all united in seeking “the destruction of the entire American system.”
Rush writes that it “is common knowledge in Europe” that Obama is using the crisis in Ukraine “to touch off World War III,” but the American press is hiding Obama’s diabolical plan just as it supposedly covered up “voter fraud” and the administration’s “treason and perhaps murder in the case of the Benghazi attack.”
Rush, who has demanded the execution of administration officials and called for the imprisonment of journalists and anyone who criticizes him, ends the column by arguing that members of the press are “in the dock with President Obama and others in his administration and our government who have committed treason against America and the Constitution.”
“As the despot Obama devastates our economy and incrementally enslaves us, the press continues to prioritize trivialities like climate change and gender identity issues, while obediently paving the way for the odious, toxic witch who believes she is heir apparent to the presidency,” Rush writes. “Should Americans ever reach a level of consciousness sufficient to perceive the crimes of the press, I only hope there will be hell to pay for them as well.”
So, why would an American president – and a black American president at that – support an ascendant 21st-century Nazi regime, considering all of the attendant overtones of racism, fascism and genocide?
The answer lies in the same place as that of why 20th-century Nazis would align themselves with the Japanese and Arab Muslims, or why the American political left would align itself with radical Muslims (who would kill off half of the left’s base if they happened to gain pre-eminence in America): common philosophies and common objectives.
The common philosophy of Hitler’s Nazis, Benito Mussolini’s Italian regime and the Japanese Empire in World War II was fascism. The common objectives of Hitler and Arab Muslims was the eradication of Jews in Europe and the Middle East, respectively. The common objectives of the political left in America today and Islamists is the destruction of the entire American system.
Of course, Obama’s common objective with the Ukrainian opposition – challenging Vladimir Putin – has become worrisome to all concerned. Particularly disturbing to observers such as myself who habitually look beneath the radar is how this plays out relative to Obama’s overall designs. Given the body of clandestine, dark machinations he has brought to bear, more than a few of us fear that his confrontation with Putin may be integral in bringing about a cataclysm beyond the conceptualization of most Americans, one which would result in America’s devastation. This theme has of course been an ongoing advantage to Obama by definition, in that one cannot defend against what one cannot even conceptualize, let alone perceive.
As indicated, all of the above – with the exception of Obama’s possible intention to touch off World War III – is common knowledge in Europe, yet the American press has made no mention of it whatsoever. The reason is obvious: Americans simply would not stand for a government that allied with anything resembling Nazis.
Of course, were Americans generally apprised of any number of things in which the Obama administration has been engaged (such as an administration guilty of treason and perhaps murder in the case of the Benghazi attack on Sept. 11, 2012, providing military and economic aid to Islamists in Egypt and Syria, and the Arab Spring; clandestine domestic spying programs, the use of government agencies to persecute private citizens, the insinuation of Muslim Brotherhood operatives into high places in our government, voter fraud and so on), they would be similarly outraged.
All of which puts the press, in my humble opinion, in the dock with President Obama and others in his administration and our government who have committed treason against America and the Constitution. As the despot Obama devastates our economy and incrementally enslaves us, the press continues to prioritize trivialities like climate change and gender identity issues, while obediently paving the way for the odious, toxic witch who believes she is heir apparent to the presidency.
The American people would no more tolerate a press that shielded a government from accountability where such things were concerned than they would the government itself. Should Americans ever reach a level of consciousness sufficient to perceive the crimes of the press, I only hope there will be hell to pay for them as well.
In a speech at the Family Research Council last week, FRC senior fellow Pat Fagan compared a UN report criticizing the Vatican over its handling of sexual abuse cases to Kristallnacht, the spate of violence in which Nazi stormtroopers attacked Jews and destroyed their property while German police turned a blind eye.
Fagan acknowledged that the comparison of the children’s rights committee to Nazi forces and the UN to complicit German authorities was “a bit of an overplay,” but decided to go for it anyway.
“This is just an analogy and I don’t want to take it directly,” he said, “but the first really egregious act that was very public and against the good of people and against the good of the Jews was Kristallnacht in Germany.
“And that was very significant because the police permitted it. And that was the beginning of the end, when those who were there to enforce the law failed to do so and did not protect the citizen from these bullies – more than bullies, murderers.”
“Now, this is not Kristallnacht” he continued, “but it is the breaking of a pretty big window. They didn’t go around smashing all the windows, it’s just that if you think of the Vatican as a shop on Main Street, well, they didn’t break all the windows on Main Street but they went up to the shop and they smashed through the big plate glass window.”
"Now, this is good," he added, "because it is now made very clear what is going on" at the UN.
WASHINGTON – In response to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Diane Feinstein’s historic speech on the Senate floor accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of obstructing congressional oversight and unlawfully searching committee computers, People For the American Way president Michael Keegan released the following statement:
“We applaud Sen. Feinstein for voicing publicly her serious concerns about the CIA’s alleged obstruction of congressional oversight. Congress’s ability to provide oversight for our nation’s intelligence gathering operations isn’t incidental to the work they do—it’s essential. If information was withheld and intimidation tactics were used to deter investigations, this would be a gross abuse of power.
“We depend on Congress’s ability to conduct these investigations in order to protect the separation of powers in our government as well as the fundamental civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. We commend Sen. Feinstein for speaking out and calling on the CIA to cooperate rather than obstruct congressional oversight."
In an appearance on yesterday’s edition of the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch, Ben Carson said that “people everywhere from politicians down to the lowliest person in our society” are “terrified” of speaking out on issues such as gay rights.
When host Tony Perkins asked him why politicians aren’t more vocal in their opposition to marriage equality, Carson said that members of the “PC police” are using “Alinskyite-type rules” to restrict “the freedom of speech [and] the freedom of expression.”
That’s odd, because at CPAC last week several speakers — including Carson himself — openly denounced gay rights and weren’t arrested or fined or punished in any way. Maybe all of this oppression is just happening in his own mind, where mere criticism is equated with persecution.
WorldNetDaily commentator Selena Owens writes today about how much she valued Ann Coulter’s anti-immigrant remarks at CPAC, in which the pundit compared immigration to rape and called for “death squads” against reform advocates.
Owens, a Tea Party activist with the Conservative Campaign Committee, lamented that liberals are painting opponents of the DREAM Act and other reform proposals as similar to “the big bad wolf waiting to prey on innocent Goldilocks kids.”
“America will be overrun by cesspools of sanctuary cities destroying our society” if immigration reform moves forward, Owens said. “If amnesty passes, border patrol agents and American citizens who died defending borders and personal property would have died in vain.”
Coulter accurately points out that liberals use this “shaming” tactic to humiliate people into feeling guilty about standing up for secure borders, deportation and criminal punishment for immigrants who illegally enter the U.S. Why is a guilt trip laid upon law-abiding Americans regarding the potential fate of illegal immigrants? It’s not our fault that immigrants decide to enter America illegally, yet liberals and pro-amnesty GOP sellouts want us to emotionally own it by conveying exaggerated and inflammatory scenarios of children potentially being ripped from their families, deported and helplessly left to fend for themselves. That’s the narrative. Anti-amnesty citizens are akin to the big bad wolf waiting to prey on innocent Goldilocks kids.
Coulter expertly notes instances where “shaming is good.” She retells of an era in America in which large corporations shamed Americans about littering through “Keep America Beautiful” ads depicting Native Americans crying about people polluting the natural beauty of the earth. It worked; people stopped littering, or, at least, felt ashamed if they did. But in California, parks are closed due to littering from illegal immigrants. No, no … don’t shame them; just close the parks. If this pattern in any indication of what will happen if amnesty passes, America will be overrun by cesspools of sanctuary cities destroying our society.
Shaming can effectively be used to encourage people to feel remorseful about injustice, immorality and lawbreaking. But in the case of amnesty, the president, liberals and RINO sellouts use shaming as political power-broker deals, where American citizens are pawned off in favor of illegal lawbreakers.
Liberals use the shame game against American citizens to forcefully advance the pro-amnesty/illegal immigration agenda. I agree with Coulter that the American people are the only voice that can make a difference in this matter. If amnesty passes, border patrol agents and American citizens who died defending borders and personal property would have died in vain.
And that’s something amnesty proponents should be ashamed of.
Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt has been one of the drivers of the smear campaign against Vivek Murthy, President Obama’s nominee for surgeon general, who has earned the ire of GOA and the NRA for daring to suggest that gun safety is related to public health.
One of the gun groups’ beefs with Murthy is that his group, Doctors for America, opposed Florida’s NRA-backed gag rule preventing physicians from asking patients about gun ownership in order to talk with them about firearm safety.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily yesterday, Pratt claimed that doctors who talk to their patients about gun safety are in fact reporting the information to the government like “German and Soviet doctors would send to the regime information about the people that were in their care.”
Murthy’s opposition to the gag rule, Pratt declared, “shows that he does not understand medical ethics,” is a “willing tool of the state” and “looks at himself as a government functionary before he considers anything about medicine.”
Later in the interview, Pratt insisted that such information from doctors would somehow end up in a national database and be hacked by a 14-year-old because “once you put information on a computer, then it’s anybody’s game” and “grandchildren are particularly adept at computers.”
WND: What is the greatest concern about this potential nomination? Is it the fact that he’s encouraging doctors to find out information on the Second Amendment usage of their patients, or is there more to it than that?
Pratt: His urging that particular policy shows that he does not understand medical ethics. That is such a question so far outside of anything to do with medicine, that it shows that he’s a willing tool of the state, even as German doctors and Soviet doctors would send to the regime information about the people that were in their care. This is an extremely alarming attitude. This guy clearly looks at himself as a government functionary before he considers anything about medicine.
WND: Let’s say the doctors did feel pressure to ask the questions to the patients about whether they own firearms and if so what kind of usage they participate in. What happens if that kind of information is collected?
Pratt: Once you put information on a computer, then it’s anybody’s game. I mean, grandchildren are particularly adept at computers. I would say a 14-year-old would be able to obtain that data no matter what.
While filling in today for American Family Radio host Sandy Rios, Austin Ruse commented on the media frenzy surrounding a Duke University freshman who announced that she is a porn actress.
Ruse, who leads the ultraconservative Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), promptly blamed the college’s women’s studies department and said that “the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities” should “all be taken out and shot.”
That is the nonsense that they teach in women’s studies at Duke University, this is where she learned this. The toxic stew of the modern university is gender studies, it’s “Sex Week,” they all have “Sex Week” and teaching people how to be sex-positive and overcome the patriarchy. My daughters go to a little private religious school and we pay an arm and a leg for it precisely to keep them away from all of this kind of nonsense. I do hope that they go to a Christian college or university and to keep them so far away from the hard left, human-hating people that run modern universities, who should all be taken out and shot.
WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian yesterday urged Republicans to impeach and remove President Obama from office if they take control of the Senate and keep the House in the upcoming election.
Kupelian added that if Republicans don’t move to remove the president, then they should at least block all of Obama’s policies.
Speaking yesterday with American Family Association head Tim Wildmon — who has also called for Obama’s impeachment — Kupelian said that “we need to remove this guy or to stop what he’s doing as soon as possible. The next opportunity is in November and we’ll see what the Republicans and the Christians and the conservatives can do then.”
The best case scenario: If the Republicans were to A) take back the Senate and maintain the House, and B) really develop some real background and guts -- I’m not saying this will happen, I’m saying it is possible -- they could actually go so far as impeaching the president and removing him from office. This has happened before, this is America, it’s in the Constitution, it is legal and moral to do so. Or at the very least they could defund Obamacare, there are various things that they could do.
The media would attack them and say, ‘You are destroying the country,’ they can and will do that. They would simply have the courage to say, ‘You know what, the media, a branch of the mainstream media so-called, have become a wing of the Democrat Party [sic], they’re cheerleading section, we’re just going to have to weather all the unpopularity and do what’s right.’
Now if they don’t win that election, it’s just going to continue on for the next three years and the Obama people will do the best they can, with his pen and his phone, to bypass Congress and continue to so tie up and tangle up things that when he leaves office in 2017 that it will be too difficult to ever untangle, that’s part of what he’s doing, just tying things up. Putting judges into office when Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster, what was that for? It was so that they could get hard left, progressive judges into office so that when there are inevitable legal challenges over what Obama has done, these judges will back him up. It’s pretty sad. We need to remove this guy or to stop what he’s doing as soon as possible. The next opportunity is in November and we’ll see what the Republicans and the Christians and the conservatives can do then.
Last week during CPAC, Dinesh D’Souza stopped by The Lars Larson Show and told the conservative commentator that President Obama was elected because “the American people, in a sense, fell for an optical illusion.”
He said that voters went with Obama because they didn’t want to make “an angry black man” who backed “racial reparations” the country’s first black president, not realizing that Obama is actually “more radical” than such a candidate because “he supports global reparations on a non-racial basis.”
Larson: How did we end up with a president who didn’t look out first and foremost for America’s best interests and the best interests of the people here, and somehow cast himself as, what, a president of the world?
D’Souza: What really happened Lars I think is this: the American people, in a sense, fell for an optical illusion. The American people were scared that our first black president would be, in a sense, you may say an angry black man, some sort of a radical who would be calling for racial reparations. And Obama didn’t do that and so people went ‘phew, he’s not like that, he’s going to be somebody who will look out for the country.’ What they didn’t realize was that although Obama doesn’t support racial reparations, he supports global reparations on a non-racial basis. So he is actually in a way more radical. But that was not seen by most people and is only becoming sadly apparent now.
D’Souza also warned that Hillary Clinton would fulfill Obama’s “radical” agenda if she follows him as president.
“My feeling is that Hillary is closer to Barack than she is to Bill,” D’Souza said. “Hillary was always the radical in that duo.”
“I think Obama may have intuited that if he’s going to remake America in the way that he said he was going to, he may have decided, ‘Eight years is not enough, if I had the Congress I might have been able to do it, I need sixteen years.’ So I wonder if in Obama’s mind he’s thinking, ‘If I give the baton to Hillary, will she run in the same direction that I’ve been running?’”
In a conversation with conservative bloggers at CPAC last week, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus promised that he would be “as strong on these social issues” – including choice and marriage equality – as a pastor “on Sunday morning.”
In the wide-ranging conversation, audio of which was posted by LifeSiteNews, Priebus assured his audience that autopsy reports aside, the GOP will not moderate or shy away from its anti-choice or anti-gay stances…while at the same time saying he wasn’t going to be “walking around down the street” proclaiming his opposition to marriage equality.
He said that his attendance at the March for Life this year was a “wake-up call” that “maybe we need to start reminding people about the core positions of our party more.”
"We're a pro-life party and I'm not shying away from that at all," he added.
He also said that he tells pastors that “church can’t just be vanilla ice cream and cotton candy on Sunday morning either, and that there’s joint responsibility in talking about issues of faith.”
“I tell a lot of pastors sometimes, in groups like this, I say, ‘Listen, I got a deal for you. I’ll be as strong on these social issues as you’re willing to be on Sunday morning. How about that deal?’”
When an attendee asked him if he considers “opposition to gay marriage still to be a core party issue,” Priebus responded that it was but implied that Republicans should avoid talking about it to much.
“Yeah, I mean, we’re a party that believes that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman, that’s our party platform, it’s a position that I’ve never backed away from,” he said. “What I have said, though, is that we need to treat each other with grace and dignity and respect. And that’s not code language, it comes out of the New Testament. So there should be no confusion about where we stand.”
When the questioner asked if opposition to marriage equality was “something that you want to be reminding people of more,” Priebus answered: “Well, I mean, I’m not like walking around down the street, but if someone wants to ask me like you did, I didn’t dance for you. I mean, I answered the question head-on and very clear.”
Oliver North, the Reagan administration National Security Council staffer who became a conservative hero because of his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, said last week that President Obama could be impeached for his handling of issues including the Benghazi attack because unlike in Benghazi, “nobody died in Iran-Contra.”
North told Tim Constantine of the Tea Party News Network that the Reagan administration didn’t try to cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, a fact he might want to check with his own secretary from the time. He also urged House Speaker John Boehner to form a special committee on Benghazi. Right-wing activists have only increased their demands for a special committee after the House Republicans’ own report — among others — debunked conspiracy theories about the Obama administration’s handling of the attack.
“Tragically, this administration has gotten away with things that any other president would have been impeached for, there’s no doubt in my mind,” North said.
As Brian Powell of Media Matters notes, it is patently absurd to claim that no one died as a result of the Iran Contra scandal, “in which the Republican hero trafficked arms into the hands of a tyrannical Iranian government, negotiated with Hezbollah terrorists and funneled money and military equipment into the hands of violent revolutionaries in America’s own backyard.”
“The assertion -- that the Reagan administration’s felonious dealings with terrorists and terror-sponsoring nations didn’t lead to a single casualty -- is absurd to anyone with even the most elementary understanding of what Iran-Contra was or to anyone with access to the Internet,” Powell writes.
During Iran-Contra, top Reagan administration officials, at the behest of the president himself, funneledmoney to "contra" guerilla fighters in Nicaragua in direct violation of U.S. and international law. The contras, according to Human Rights Watch, "were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners." To claim that the U.S. funding did not lead to the deaths of innocents beggars belief.
In addition to supporting the deadly activities of the contras, Iran-Contra resulted in the deaths of three members of the Central Intelligence Agency when an American aircraft carrying equipment for the anti-government guerrillas was shot down over the Nicaraguan jungle.
On the other side of the arms deal, Reagan trafficked weapons, including hundreds of missiles, to anoppressive Iranian regime mired in a war with Iraq. No rational person could possibly believe that the delivery of so many weapons into the hands of a violent, war-torn government didn't result in numerous deaths.
In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) railed against President Obama’s “unconstitutional approach” to immigration, warning that the president’s policies are undermining the Constitution and suggesting that Congress impeach him and remove him from office.
“We’ve got three years to get this guy out,” Rohrabacher said. “Hopefully he — well, let me put it this way, I think he probably has been engaged in these unconstitutional approaches that may make his own ability to stay in office a question.”
“But at the very least we need to make sure after three years we get a president who will set us back on the right path and we have a Congress, meaning a Senate and a House, that can stand unified and try to prevent the type of damage you have from an arrogant president who thinks he can enforce only the laws that he agrees with,” he added.
Rohrabacher said he was “outraged” by the president’s comments in a joint interview with Univision and Telemundo, where he said that eligible family members in “mixed status families” can participate and sign up for insurance plans through the health care reform law without the fear that it might endanger their family:
"For everybody out there who is in a mixed family, there is no sharing of the data from the health care plan into immigration services. You should feel confident that if somebody in your family is eligible you should sign up," he said.
The law bars anyone living in the U.S. illegally from purchasing health care on the exchanges or receiving tax credits. They are also not eligible for any federal programs such as Medicare or the Children's Health Insurance Program.
The congressman claimed that this is evidence that Obama cares more about undocumented immigrants than US citizens: “We clearly have a president who is dedicated to the wellbeing of people who are here in our country illegally and instead of watching out for the interests of the American people. We have him watching out for the interests of foreign people who come here illegally.”
Rohrabacher also suggested that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy [PDF] that prevents the agency from using health care enrollment information to deport family members of enrollees may compromise national security much like in the lead-up to the September 11 attacks.
As we’ve been reporting, the American Religious Right has found itself in a tough spot following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, since many Religious Right leaders have not only praised Putin’s anti-gay, anti-choice policies but are planning to attend a World Congress of Families summit at the Kremlin later this year.
Now, one such group that previously praised Putin has announced that it will pull out of the Moscow summit. Buzzfeed reported yesterday that Concerned Women for America will no longer be participating in the World Congress of Families event because, as the group’s CEO Penny Nance said, “I don’t want to appear to be giving aid and comfort to Vladimir Putin.”
CWA’s choice is especially surprising because its senior fellow, Janice Shaw Crouse, is amember of the board of the World Congress of Families and has been a vocal defender of Putin’s social policies. Last month, Crouse even appeared at a press conference promoting the Moscow summit.
Now the question becomes whether other American groups will follow Nance’s lead. An organizing meeting for the event in October included Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Benjamin Bull of Alliance Defending Freedom, Justin Murff of the Christian Broadcasting Network and Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute.
A draft program for the event that was obtained by Buzzfeed includes speeches by ADF president Allan Sears, Focus president Jim Daly, Mike Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association, Brown, Ruse and Murff, among others.
The World Congress of Families’ Larry Jacobs said at last month’s press conference that members of the U.S. Congress would also attend the event, though he would not specify which ones since he said their confirmations were not yet finalized. The draft program also accounts for speeches from unidentified members of Congress. to speak.
As we’ve noted, the planned summit is more than just a trip to Moscow. It’s being held at the Kremlin with funding from key Putin allies and will include a joint forum with Russia’s parliament. In addition, the World Congress of Families itself has been working to support Putin’s crackdown on LGBT rights in Russia, along with his push to keep Ukraine out of the European Union. Riling up hostility to gay rights, in particular, has become a powerful wedge issue for Russian-aligned, anti-EU activists in Ukraine.
Ruse articulated the apparent attitude of many American groups when he told Buzzfeed that although the Ukraine invasion “muddied the water,” he had not been concerned about working so closely with the Putin regime until now, “because the Russian government has been quite good on our issues.”
Nance is aware of the message that her group’s participation in the summit would send. Will anybody else follow her lead?
When Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed her state’s “right-to-discriminate” bill, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was so upset that he said her decision would lead to the end of freedom.
Today, Farah writes that Brewer “should resign in disgrace,” warning that now “all of the freedoms we have known in the U.S. for 238 years could vanish overnight.”
Farah writes that opposition to the anti-gay segregation bill proves that “the left hates religion” and “hates God,” and is bent on eroding the “religious freedom, press freedom and free speech” by leading a “statist, socialist, anti-American political onslaught.”
Here’s the first problem: The left hates religion. It hates God. It doesn’t recognize any behavior as sinful, with the possible exception of voting Republican. To undermine all it hates, it pushes the political envelope. It divides people up into groups rather than recognizing all people as individuals made in the image of God. It then serves up special privileges for groups as a way of buying their votes.
Here’s the second problem: The left excoriates and vilifies its opponents when they take positions contrary to their own. They are labeled racists and homophobes and worse. Slowly but surely, they know some of their opponents will do almost anything to escape the ad hominem attacks and hateful labeling.
Here’s the third problem: Non-left politicians who should be counted on to do the right thing will cave on almost any issue under that kind of fire.
That’s what happened when Jan Brewer capitulated on the freedom of religion bill known as Senate Bill 1062, which offered clear protection for people who do not want to be coerced into actions or behavior that violates their moral and religious precepts.
So why was the left so threatened by this bill?
For the same reason they detest the Constitution’s protections of religious freedom, press freedom and free speech.
They don’t believe in liberty!
That’s why the First Amendment is really in danger in America today. We could lose it very quickly. That’s why the Second Amendment is constantly threatened and under siege by the left. That’s why, ultimately, all of the freedoms we have known in the U.S. for 238 years could vanish overnight unless Americans awaken quickly and completely and stop sleepwalking through life.
Jan Brewer surrendered to the lies, the insults and the deliberate distortions. She should resign in disgrace.
The Constitution is on life support because there are so few men and women with courage, principle and a sense of right and wrong in politics today in the Republican Party, which, sadly, represents the only hope of reversing the statist, socialist, anti-American political onslaught.