American Family Association

Wildmon: Satan Carried Out the Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School

American Family Association president Tim Wildmon offered up his thoughts on last week's tragic school shooting in Connecticut by saying that Satan literally took possession of shooter Adam Lanza and carried out the attack ... but "that doesn't exonerate the person of their responsibility" for what happened because Lanza knew what he was doing: 

Fischer: God Didn't Stop CT School Shooting Because He's a 'Gentleman' Who Doesn't Go Where He Is Not Wanted

Bryan Fischer blames the school shooting in Connecticut on prayer, the Bible and the Ten Commandments not being taught in public schools.

Fischer: New Theory Suggests 'Homosexuality is the Result of a Birth Defect'

Yesterday it was reported that a group of scientists had put forward a new theory that epigenetic marks may play a key role in determining why people are gay.  According to press reports, these "epi-marks" determine how genes are expressed and are normally "erased" between generations, but in cases where they are not erased, they may be passed on from a mother or father in a way that can lead to a child becoming gay.

Which means, according to Bryan Fischer, that homosexuality might be a "birth defect" which could lead prospective parents to choose abortion:

As I have said before, I suspect that not even homosexual activists today want the gay gene to be found, even if it exists, because of advances in prenatal genetic testing. It is now possible to routinely screen for 3500 genetic defects while a child is still in the womb. 

So these activists rationally fear that preborn children who are detected with this gene will be aborted before they even have the chance to be born. After all, if 90% of babies in the womb who are diagnosed with Downs syndrome never draw their first breath, what are the chances that parents disposed to abortion will not exercise the same choice with regard to the gay gene? 

The scientists in Koebler’s article, in my view, are now resorting to genetic subterfuge and are coming dangerously close to saying that homosexuality is the result of a genetic defect, a genetic abnormality. In other words, read from one angle, these same scientists are saying that homosexuality is the result of a birth defect.

...

So in other words, when something goes wrong genetically, and these markers are not erased, the epi-markers which provide an evolutionary advantage to parents instead do evolutionary damage to their offspring.

Now these researchers are quite at pains to avoid saying anything like this, but the logic to me seems inescapable: Homosexual children, on this theory, are born evolutionarily and genetically disadvantaged. They have been overexposed or underexposed to testosterone because something has gone wrong in the process of genetic transmission. In other words, they are the product of a genetic abnormality at best, a birth defect at worst.

...  I expect many abortion-minded parents will want to know exactly how strong this epi-marker is in their unborn children so they can decide whether or not to exercise reproductive choice. 

In fact, I expect that if this theory gains some currency, it will not be long before we have legislation from the homoexual lobby prohibiting “sex-selection” abortions on any child carrying this epi-marker.

UPDATE: Fischer reiterated many of these same points on his radio program today:

Wilson Uses Bogus Story to Warn that Liberals Will Put Pastors in Jail

American Family Association’s Buster Wilson yesterday warned that gays and liberals are trying to “elevate hate speech [laws] above the freedoms of our precious first amendment,” citing a case in Canada where he says a “pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached against homosexuality.”

As we think about the basics of Biblical morality, today we will discuss the issue of hate speech and the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of Speech.

While most Americans refuse to believe anyone could ever be imprisoned simply for something they said, the examples of it actually happening are abundant.

In our neighbor to the north, Canada, a local pastor spent 18 months in jail for a sermon he preached about homosexuality. A member complained to the hate speech council and he was found guilty and jailed.

Now for certain, that’s in Canada. But the hate speecher’s in this country are modeling their efforts on those successful hate speech laws in Canada.

The left wants to control the speech of the right, and if left to themselves, they will find a way to elevate hate speech above the freedoms of our precious first amendment!

If a pastor was sentenced to jail for eighteen months in Canada, don’t you think there would be a single news story about it?

We couldn’t find a single one, but Wilson seems to be citing a decision by the Alberta Human Rights Commission which fined a pastor over an anti-gay letter to the editor which preceded an attack on a gay youth. But the ruling was overturned because it violated Canada’s constitutional protection of free speech. Even Canadian Baptist leaders have rebuffed claims that pastors in their country can go to jail over their stance on homosexuality.

So basically, a Canadian judge tosses out a fine against a pastor and reaffirms his free speech rights, but Wilson claims that he “spent 18 months in jail” and therefore hate speech laws are coming to the U.S.!

Young Earth Creationists Still Unhappy with Pat Robertson

Last week, young earth Creationist leader Ken Ham lashed out at Pat Robertson for disputing the belief that Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Now the American Family Association’s news arm OneNewsNow is out with a story, “Christian Broadcaster Straying From Scripture?” The AFA quotes a member of Ham’s Answers in Genesis skewering Robertson for insisting that humans did not live side-by-side with the dinosaurs:

Dr. Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis (AIG), who disagrees with Robertson, notes that the television show host challenges James Ussher, the renowned former archbishop of Ireland who traced the earth's creation based on the Bible and took the Bible as the Word of God.

"[Ussher] came up with a date of 4004 [B.C.] for creation by taking the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 as complete chronologies with no missing names, which is the way the church took those genealogies for 1,800 years," Dr. Mortenson explains. "So, he was just being a very, very careful student of the Scriptures and the chronological information given in Scripture."

Moreover, the AIG researcher notes that Robertson's claim that dinosaurs existed before biblical times is illogical, because there is no pre-biblical time; the Bible starts with the creation of the world.

Robertson also mentioned science's reliance on carbon dating, which Dr. Mortenson says reveals Robertson's ignorance on the subject.

"Carbon-14 is never used to date rocks or dinosaur bones; it's other dating methods which have much longer half-lives," Mortenson reports. "The maximum age you could date anything with radio carbon dating is about 80,000 or 100,000 years at the max, and dinosaurs supposedly lived 65 million to 245 million years ago. So he's really not informed on the dating methods."

AIG maintains that the Bible remains the true and final authority on the subject.

Bryan Fischer Defends Ban on Women in Combat by Lying about the Israeli Military

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association today dedicated his radio show to railing against the American Civil Liberties Union for filing a lawsuit against the ban on women in combat. He got most heated in responding to the claims from ban opponents who point to Israel’s policy towards women, arguing that Israel actually excludes women from combat roles and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

Don’t let people lie to you that the Israelis use women in combat, they do not. They tried it for three weeks in 1948, they scrapped it, it doesn’t work and they’ve never done it again. Now women still serve in the Israeli military, they serve as secretaries, clerks, communications specialists, nurses, teachers and army social workers. They do not serve in combat. They don’t serve as pilots, they don’t serve on ships, they don’t pump gas, they don’t even drive trucks. Now they do receive a minimal amount of weapons training but they receive no training in how to use weapons in combat and they don’t even practice shooting at combats. In fact the only time, and this is what perpetuates the myth, the only time that Israeli female soldiers carry weapons is on parade.

However, this is simply not the case.

“Women have served in combat roles in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) since the mid-1990s,” the BBC reports. “During the 2006 Lebanon conflict, women fired artillery, served on warships, and piloted aircraft.”

Apparently Fischer doesn’t believe the IDF’s own website which clearly states that women in “some of the most combative, extreme roles” in the military.

Everywhere in the IDF, women play a vital role in all positions, both combat and administrative. In the Air Force, Navy, and Ground Forces- these women man some of the most combative, extreme roles in the IDF.

Today, over 90% of all IDF jobs are available for female soldiers, including a variety of elite positions. Over the last decade, IDF women completed pilot’s course, became naval officers and took on a variety of infantry positions.

The following women fight alongside men, contributing to the security of the State of Israel and proving their immense toughness

The IDF says women serve as weapons instructors, pilots in the air force and soldiers in combat, K-9, field intelligence and engineering units.

 

There is even an entire page about combat options for Israeli female service members.

But Fischer doesn’t have any interest in doing even elementary research into this issue and is much more content with spewing baseless statements that fly in the face of reality.

Republicans Continue to Spin Election Results to Claim Obama Lacks Mandate

While Obama had a larger popular vote and Electoral College margin than George W. Bush, who claimed to have a mandate after he won re-election in 2004, now Republicans keep insisting that Obama doesn’t have a mandate because his election victory was too thin a margin. For example, while Dick Morris predicted that Mitt Romney would win a 325 electoral vote “landslide,” he then said Obama’s 332 electoral vote victory was merely a “squeaker.”

J.T. Young in the Washington Times today makes the case that Obama’s win wasn’t all that great because if you play around with the numbers and reduce the turnout numbers from Democratic-leaning groups like women then Romney would’ve won! Plus, the conservative share of the electorate was up in 2012 and Ronald Reagan posted huge margins when he ran for president so Americans must still be looking for Republican leadership, or something. 

Multiplying exit-polling participation percentage by preference percentage gives a good approximation of what the Kerry or Gore electoral impact would be on these groups so crucial to Mr. Obama’s victory. The average drop in support for Mr. Obama in 2012 from the higher of either Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore among the five groups is 2.4 percent. Delete women from the calculation, and the average decline is 2.8 percent — almost enough to have allowed Mr. Romney to win by Mr. Obama’s 2012 popular vote margin.

Even the decline in votes for Mr. Obama by 18- to 29-year-olds compared to Mr. Kerry or Mr. Gore — 2.2 percent — is still more than enough to flip the popular vote to Mr. Romney. The declines in other demographics — blacks (2.4 percent), Hispanics, (2.8 percent) and liberals (3.7 percent) — are far greater.

Furthermore, vote totals for both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Gore came against George W. Bush, who hardly racked up Reagan-sized Republican margins.



Republicans also retain a real ideological advantage. Exit polling showed conservatives made up 35 percent of voters in 2012 and went 82 percent for Mr. Romney — hardly a conservative favorite. Liberals made up 25 percent of 2012 voters — their highest level among the past four elections and 3 percent more than in 2008 — going 86 percent for Mr. Obama. That means Republicans need only a little more than one-third of the remaining Independents to win, while Democrats need a bit less than two-thirds.

The American Family Association’s Buster Wilson even had a post-election rant arguing that even though Obama won the election 51-47 percent, Romney tied him in geography and therefore Democrats don’t have a mandate. “There’s an awful lot of red there,” Wilson claimed. He even wondered if Harry Reid is mentally unbalanced because he said that Democrats had a mandate to raise tax on top-earners.

Of course, since Democrats typically lose the rural vote, if we were simply to judge election mandates according to the colors on maps then Democrats will almost never have a mandate.

Steve Deace on his radio show yesterday was flummoxed that Obama won re-election while capturing just 22 percent of counties. Ignoring the fact that county size has little to do with population rates, he maintained that because Romney carried far more counties than Obama, America still has a conservative majority but freedom-hating liberal elites have “infiltrated the population centers” and ruined everything.

“If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers,” Deace gloated, “we would steamroll them.”

What has happened here is we’ve been outflanked. Enemies of freedom and liberty, what they have done is infiltrated the population centers so that they run the editorial boards of almost every major newspaper in your city, they ran the government school board in almost every major city in America, they run even things to the point like the art center, who is on the board of your city’s art center? The statists are, the secularists are, the progressives are. They are running—they have outflanked us. If we fought this like the Revolutionary War was fought at times where the Red Coats stood on a line and the Colonials stood on a line and they just fired at each other, we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers. First of all, most of them don’t believe in guns, that’s one advantage. The other thing is we would overwhelm them in sheer numbers, we would steamroll them, I mean they could not defeat our sheer numbers. But what has happened is the enemies of freedom and liberty have outflanked us, they have been strategic in their thinking and that’s where they have concentrated their resources. So we are a mile wide but an inch deep, they are the exact opposite, they are about a foot wide and a mile deep.

Basically, Obama can only claim to have a popular mandate if he wins the least populated areas of America.

'Barack the Destroyer': Bryan Fischer's Grand Unified Theory of Obama

On yesterday's program, Bryan Fischer responded to a caller who asserted that President Obama is "a very evil man" who wants to turn American into an Islamic state by laying out a wide-ranging theory about how Obama is not a Christian but rather a Muslim sympathizer who believes that the United States is fundamentally racist and evil and must be destroyed.  And that is exactly what Obama is trying to do, Fischer asserted, by entertaining ideas about capping tax deductions on charitable giving for high-income donors  because he wants to wipe out private charity so that people will become dependent on the government.

In fact, when companies lay off workers, Obama rejoices because "he wants to see America and Americans suffer" because "he is Barack the Destroyer; he is out to punish America for our misdeeds, to punish us for our racism, to bring us to our knees, to humble us in the dust so he can rebuild some kind of a socialist utopia on the ruins of what used to be the United States of America":

Wildmon: Obama Wouldn't Have Been Re-Elected if He Was White

The American Spectator's founder, R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., was a guest on the American Family Association's "Today's Issues" broadcast this morning to explain how the thesis of his recent book, "The Death of Liberalism," was still valid despite the recent election results on the grounds that President Obama is not a liberal but rather a socialist. 

In Tyrrell's view, Obama's win was just a demonstration of the fact that conservatism has big victories but then reaches a plateau before going on to even greater victories.  So while the 2010 midterm elections were proof that America is a conservative nation, the 2012 election results were just a temporary plateau before the 2014 midterms, which will be another blowout win for conservatives.

But AFA's Tim Wildmon had a simpler explanation of why President Obama was re-elected:  because he is black.

How Unhinged Rhetoric Sank a Disabilities Rights Treaty in the Senate

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities failed to capture the 2/3 vote needed for ratification in the U.S. Senate today due to fierce Republican opposition. Many Republicans and their allies in the conservative movement claimed that the treaty codifies abortion into law, even though that preposterous claim was rejected by the National Right to Life Committee and Sen. John McCain. Along with the false charges about abortion, opponents of the treaty claimed it will undermine U.S. sovereignty and harm children. Critics like Rick Santorum warned that the treaty may kill his disabled daughter; Glenn Beck said it could create a “fascistic” government and Sen. Jim Inhofe alleged the treaty would help groups with “anti-American biases.”

One of the lesser-known but extremely active opponents of the bill was homeschooling activist Michael Farris.

During an interview with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, he claimed that the treaty will prompt the United Nations to ‘get control’ of children with glasses or ADHD and remove them from their families.

Farris: They’re called living documents, just like the disgraced living Constitution theory, which means the treaty doesn’t mean today what it’s going to mean tomorrow what it’s going to mean ten years from now. So you never know what you’re signing up for, that by itself is a good enough reason to leave it alone and to never enter into one of these things. But in particular, you hit the nail on the head Tony, the definition of disability is not defined in the treaty. My kid wears glasses, now they’re disabled, now the UN gets control over them; my child’s got a mild case of ADHD, now you’re under control of the UN treaty. There’s no definitional standard, it can change over time, and the UN, not American policymakers, are the ones who get it decided.

While speaking with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, the two warned that the treaty could lead to the deaths of disabled children, all the while admitting they have no evidence it would do such beyond their pure speculation.

Fischer: Disabled newborn babies in the UK are being put, oftentimes overriding the wishes of parents, on this death pathway where no matter what the parents want the doctors say this kid cannot live, severely disabled, too many congenital deformities, we think the best thing for this kid is just to be starved and dehydrated to death. It seems to me that although that’s not specifically contemplated in this treaty that could be an outcome.

Farris: Whether they thought about it or not, that’s exactly what Rick Santorum said in our press conference. He was holding his daughter Bella and she’s of the category of child that in Britain they would take that position because her official diagnosis is ‘incompatible with life.’ So when the doctor gets to decide, the doctor empowered by the government—these doctors aren’t doing it on their own, they are doing it because the government says they have the power to do it—the doctor/government deciding what they think is best for the child. It goes to the point of deciding whether the child lives or dies, it is that crazy. If we want to live in a Brave New World like that where the bureaucrats and the government and the UN all tell us what to do, fine, but this is the beginning of the end of American self-government if we go here, it’s just crazy, we cannot let this happen.

After warning that the treaty will kill children, Farris told conservative talk show host Steve Deace that the treaty will create a “cradle-to-grave care for the disabled” and said if the U.S. ratifies it “signing up to be an official socialist nation.” Farris claimed that the treaty will treat the parents of disabled children like child abusers in order to grow government power and implement “coercive socialism.”

“Everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement” if the treaty passes, Farris maintained, “it’s a way to make the socialist, liberal, amoral element a permanent feature of our law.” Deace agreed and said the treaty will “due in freedom and liberty.”

Farris: Every parent with a disabled child is going to be in the same legal position as if they’d been convicted of child abuse. We are taking away parental decision-making power in that area. The other thing that everybody in America will be living under is socialism as an international entitlement. The United States resisted all the UN treaties of a certain category that began being proliferated in the 1960s; the first was the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights. Our country said no that is coercive socialism, we’re not going to do that. So we rejected all those treaties ever since 1966. Yet we’re signing up now for our first economic, social and cultural treaty which means as a matter of international binding law that goes to the supremacy clause level in our Constitution, we’re signing up to be an official socialist nation, cradle-to-grave care for the disabled. Maybe Americans want to do that, but I think we’d want to do it as a matter of domestic law, not as a matter of international law. I personally don’t think that’s any business of Congress to do that sort of thing but I certainly don’t want to be doing it when the United Nations tells us to do it. So those are two big ways it will affect every American and there are more.

Deace: Michael Farris is here with us from Patrick Henry College, also from the Home School Legal Defense Association, talking about another attempt to usurp American sovereignty, to essentially do an end-run around the Constitution and then of course due in freedom and liberty through an effort through the United Nations.



Farris: If they can get this one through, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW, which is the women’s treaty with all kinds of junk in that one, and then a whole host of other UN treaties that the Obama administration wants to send our way, it’s a way to make the socialist, liberal, amoral element a permanent feature of our law through the use of treaties and they are going to do a full-force attack. We’ve got to stop them now. It’s not like just the camel nose in the tent, it is that too, but we don’t want a camel’s nose in our constitutional system, that’s what we don’t want.

Wilson: Courts may 'Force Christians to Not Be Able to Celebrate Christmas'

Buster Wilson of the American Family Association as of late has dedicated his radio program to fighting the so-called “War on Christmas,” railing against municipalities that don’t erect Nativity Scenes and stores that say “Happy Holidays.” Of course, Chick-fil-A has so far escaped his wrath even though the company easily fails the AFA’s “War on Christmas” test.

Last week, Wilson made the absurd argument that not having a Nativity Scene on public property is direct a violation of his First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and his God-given rights.

There are people who can put nativity scenes on their front lawns, it’s their private property and if they want to do that, they can do that, why do you have to have the public square as well? Here’s the reason why that’s a problem. The reason why we rebel against that is that the First Amendment of the Constitution gives every individual American the freedom of worship without any possibility of interference from the government. We don’t want the government saying you can do it here. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, we declare that these rights are God-given; they are our unalienable rights from our Creator. They are not privileges granted by our government. If they are a privilege granted by the government then the government can number one, regulate it, or number two, take it away, we have unalienable rights.

However, nativity scenes and other religious symbols are allowed on public lands as long as they are part of a larger secular display and do not convey the state sponsorship of religion, something even the conservative American Center for Law and Justice admits:

In Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of a government-erected crèche. Significantly, the Lynch Court upheld the constitutionality of the holiday display in that case because the crèche was a part of a larger holiday display in which there were a variety of secular symbols.

Today he took it a step further by saying that the courts are actually going to literally prevent people from “celebrating Christmas,” asserting that those pushing the “War on Christmas” are “using the court system of this country to force Christians to not be able to celebrate Christmas at Christmastime.”

He even suggested that President Obama’s attendance at Ramadan fast-breaking dinners shows that Christians are being slighted and Christmas marginalized.

I don’t understand, ‘you’re not the majority anymore, this is not a Christian nation and you’ve guys have got to quit trying to cram everything down people’s throats,’ nobody’s trying to cram—look, it is the folks who don’t want us celebrating Christmas that are cramming that view down our throats and using the courts to do it. So if we don’t want to start cramming things down people’s throats, then why don’t the folks who are opposed to us celebrating Christmas, why don’t they be quiet for a while because they are the ones that are using the court system of this country to force Christians to not be able to celebrate Christmas at Christmastime. I don’t understand it…I don’t get it, you know if you want to celebrate Ramadan, you celebrate Ramadan. The President of the United States of America has a Ramadan dinner with Muslims in the White House of the United States of America and celebrates Islam with those Muslims.

Fischer & Beisner Say That Not Using Fossil Fuels is an Insult to God

Earlier this month, the Religious Right's favorite climate change-denying "expert," Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance, appeared on American Family Radio where he declared that believing in climate change "is an insult to God."  Yesterday, when he joined Bryan Fischer on "Focal Point" for yet another discussion about the "myth" of global warming, both he and Fischer declared that failure to use coal, oil, and natural gas is an insulting rejection of the gifts that God has given to us - gifts which, incidentally, He buried deep in the earth because He delights in our search for and discovery of them:

Fischer: Obama is Intentionally Trying to Keep 'As Many Americans As Poor As Possible'

On his radio program yesterday, Bryan Fischer made the entirely reasonable and logical argument that communists like President Obama "have a vested interest in keeping as many Americans as poor as possible" and to prevent them from succeeding in order to keep them dependent on the government.

In fact, Obama's push to help more students attend college, said Fischer, is really just an effort to saddle them with massive student loan debt and a worthless degree so that when they can't find a job, they become "helplessly, hopelessly, slavishly dependent upon government handouts." 

Arthur Goldberg Likens his Embattled Ex-Gay Therapy Group to Weight Watchers

Before founding the ex-gay therapy group JONAH, Arthur Goldberg was an investor convicted on felony charges and served time in prison for mail fraud and conspiracy. But the con man is being hailed as a hero by the Religious Right now that he is going up against the Southern Poverty Law Center in court, which is representing several customers of his New Jersey-based organization who are suing him for consumer fraud. Goldberg, however, will be unable to represent himself as he has been disbarred.

While speaking to American Family Association president Tim Wildmon and Family Research Council head Tony Perkins on AFA Today, Goldberg denied the SPLC’s claims that he defrauded customers by advertising that his group is able to “cure clients of being gay,” for example by instructing a group of men to “remove their clothing and stand naked in a circle” alongside a nude “counselor.”

Goldberg told Wildmon and Perkins that filing suit against an ex-gay therapy organization is like suing Weight Watchers for failing to lose weight through their program.

Fischer: Michelangelo Signorile Supports the Death Penalty for Gays

Shortly before the election, gay radio talk-show host Michelangelo Signorile got into a discussion with a gay Mitt Romney supporter who called into the program to defend his vote for Romney, which prompted Signorile to tell the caller that he would be better off committing suicide than "waiting for the slow, painful death that Mitt Romney will bring you."

Signorile apologized the following day, saying there was no excuse for what he said and admitting that it was a "total botch up."

But that apology means nothing to Bryan Fischer, who has literally never apologized for any of the hundreds of bigoted things he has said on air because he means every word of it, and is instead proof that, unlike himself, Signorile approves of the death penalty for homosexuals:

AFA's Sandy Rios Wonders why Susan Rice Supports LGBT Rights: 'Is She Straight?'

American Family Association radio host Sandy Rios interviewed Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) to discuss Ruse’s efforts at the United Nations. Ruse is a staunch critic of the Obama administration’s initiative supporting LGBT rights abroad, even opposing efforts to prevent anti-LGBT violence. While speaking to Rios, he criticized the General Assembly for passing a resolution condemning extrajudicial executions, including killings based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Ruse then mocked UN Ambassador Susan Rice for tweeting, “We will not allow the remarkable progress the UN has made on LGBT issues in the last four years to be rolled back,” leading to Rios to ask: “is she straight?”

Ruse did not know, to Rios’s dismay. Rice is married to television producer Ian Cameron and has two children.

Rios: I remember her only vaguely but I remember bad things about her during the Clinton years, but I don’t remember what those things were. What’s your perception? What do you see in Susan Rice as the UN Ambassador?

Ruse: There was a big vote in the UN General Assembly last week, a new phrase entered into a UN document for the very first time called “gender identity” and I’ll give you a thousand dollars if you can define it. Gender identity has never appeared in a UN document, it appeared in a document last week. Immediately, Susan Rice tweeted that ‘LGBT human rights have made a major stride and we will not go back.’ They are very aggressive on sexual orientation and gender identity and Susan Rice is leading the charge.

Rios: Is she straight?

Ruse: I have no idea.

Rios: We don’t know do we [sigh].

Wildmon: Obama Should be Impeached Over Attack in Libya

Frank Gaffney was the guest on AFA's "Today's Issues" radio program this morning to discuss the Right's ongoing obsession with the conspiracy that there has been a systematic cover-up of the attack in Benghazi, Libya back in September.  The conspiracy theory now runs so deep that it prompted Tim Wildmon to go off on an extended rant about how President Obama and his administration lied and "intentionally misled the American people" about what happened in order to protect him ahead of the election.  As such, Wildmon asserted, this "scandal" is worse than Watergate and that had this happened back in 1973, Obama would have been unanimously impeached:

Right Wing Round-Up - 11/27/12

Rios: Penn State Child Abuse Scandal Part of the 'Whole Fabric' of Gay Rights

Peter LaBarbera and John Kirkwood hosted the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios on the Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Radio Hour to respond to the victories of marriage equality activists and Neal Boortz’s post-election rant against the Religious Right. Rios said that Boortz was just one of many conservatives trying to push the GOP to abandon social issues like abortion rights and gay equality in order to win elections. According to Rios, it isn’t that most people don’t oppose the gay rights movement anymore; it’s just that they simply don’t understand how horrible it is!

She said that “education elites” are using gay rights to push “the most horrible trash down our children’s throats” and that even the child abuse scandal at Penn State is part of the “whole fabric” of gay rights. Rios went on to say that she wouldn’t want her family to have gay neighbors just as she wouldn’t like to live next door to a brother or an abortion clinic.

Rios: They find themselves totally shocked when a coach like Jerry Sandusky comes after little boys, that’s shocking, and yet that’s the very thing, the whole fabric of gay marriage is part of that issue of where we draw the lines on sexuality. We have very good reasons for feeling the way they do and they aren’t just scriptural, Scripture is the basis but all truth is God’s truth, we can make our case without Scripture. Most people naturally speaking abhor the things that homosexual activists really working towards, they just don’t know about them. So Neal Boortz is just speaking out of ignorance.

Kirkwood: You’re talking about a movement and activists but you like to be challenged so here’s my challenge to you. I’m going to put it in his leading words…he said he’s going to be waiting for a year for somebody to tell him one reason that the gay couple down the street from Sandy Rios will have any effect on your life.

Rios: Because I have children and grandchildren in school, at least not yet but I will, but I have kids that are going to be in school and because I know how the National Education Association and the education elites have been pushing, pushing, pushing the most horrible trash down our children’s throats in the guise of mainstreaming homosexuality and gay marriage is just a part of that. It may be that a couple next door to me doesn’t affect my life but on the other hand if I’m raising children and I care: do I want to live next door to a brothel? Do I want to live next door to an abortion clinic? There are things that we morally object to and we don’t want our children to consider as normal.

Rios also repeated her claim that the success of abortion rights and gay equality at the ballot box is proof that America is under divine judgment, warning that God is using a “a veil of deception” to confuse people and lamenting that the Republican Party is no longer “a champion of moral values.” She concluded by warning LaBarbera and Kirkwood that they may soon face jail time or a fine for preaching against homosexuality.

Rios: The confusion and the people that we look up to failing us and being confused themselves, I see God’s supernatural hand in this. I really do think that there is a veil of deception and I think that it’s kind of like the way we see God, the way he works in the Old Testament, how when people have chosen to be rebellious he eventually says okay, go for it, you can have it. I think the American people are getting what we want.

We want licentiousness, we do not want moral restraint, whether its homosexuality or living together or abortion or birth control so we can have all the sex we want without consequence. We desperately want that so badly, women want it so badly, it’s all that matters to them on the left, that’s all they can think about, is not having to give up abortion and birth control. Of all the issues it really does drive them and I think God is going to give it to them.

I think He is going to give us homosexual marriage; I don’t see it stopping. I don’t see the Republican Party surviving in any form or fashion in the way it has been. I don’t see it being a champion of moral values; it gave up that ground a long time ago. You’ve seen it happen in Illinois and certainly we’re seeing the death, like the last gasps of death, here in DC. I believe God is bringing judgment.



Kirkwood: Regarding homosexuality then, it is going to be transformed from a marriage issue, which it has been, to don’t you think the transformation is now that activism is going to center around religious freedom?

Rios: Absolutely, you better believe it. Pastors like you, you will be fined or jailed like they have been in Canada, that’s coming.

Fischer: The Way to Win Over Independents is for the GOP to Become More Conservative

Yesterday, Bryan Fischer was a guest on Steve Deace's radio program where the two commiserated over the state of the Republican Party and discussed just what options social conservatives will have if the GOP attempts to jettison their culture war issues in an effort to win over moderate and independent voters. 

In Fischer's assessment, such a move would be tantamount to political suicide for the GOP because, contrary to popular opinion, those who classify themselves as "independents" are not moderates, but rather hard-line conservatives who refuse to consider themselves Republicans because the party is not conservative enough ... and so the only way to win over "independents," especially white voters who are "naturally" a part of the Republican base, is for the GOP to become more conservative on all the issues: 

Fischer: There are a lot of people in America who are independents because the Republican Party as it currently exists is not conservative enough for them, it doesn't represent their values. So they're to the right, actually, of where the Republican Party is; they're independents. So if the Republican Party thinks they've got to move toward the center, well they're moving further and further away from these conservatives that are looking for a conservative voice; they're actually hurting themselves moving away from their base.

Deace: You know, you think if the GOP is so much more business-smart, Bryan, well, the first rule of business is the customer is always right, isn't he? I mean, wouldn't you actually cater to the customers you have rather than trying to make them into something their not?

Fischer: Well, and you look at the turnout this year, Steve, where President Obama's vote totals dropped by X number of million votes, I don't know exactly what the final total was  - I think it's between six and seven million fewer votes Obama received this year than 2008. So here's a guy that's ripe for being picked off, but Romney barely matched the vote totals of John McCain in 2008 and we know from some of the other exit polling that probably six to seven million white voters stayed home: they naturally would be a part of Romney's base. So he just wasn't sending any message to them that was convincing them, as part of the Republican base, that it was worth even showing up to vote.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious