Tim Huelskamp

Huelskamp Reveals Ignorance on Benghazi, Immigration Reform

During an interview with conservative talk show host Steve Deace last night, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) once again showed us the art of eschewing well-established facts in favor of right-wing talking points. First, Huelskamp talked to Deace about Benghazi, where he demanded answers to questions that have already been answered, and then claimed that the lack of answers to those questions prove there is a cover-up.

“Who made the decision that someone should die, who refused to send support to protect our ambassador, the information officer and two ex-SEALS, somebody made that decision and they’ve covered it up for eight months,” Huelskamp asked, warning of a “cover-up that probably extends to the highest levels of the administration.” He also admitted that the House Republican leadership “said there is no more to Benghazi…we’ve found out everything we can find out.”

Maybe if Huelskamp listened to the hearings he would’ve learned that the call not to send special forces to Benghazi during the attack came from Special Operations Command Africa and not Obama administration officials. Furthermore, the team was told to stand down because they would not have arrived in time to prevent the deaths in the compound and their mission shifted to securing the airport.

Even a senior Republican aide mocked the “crazy stuff” coming from GOP members regarding Benghazi: “Four more M-4s [rifles] inside the annex doesn’t change that outcome. In fact, they might have just created more casualties.”

Later, Huelskamp and Deace discussed the Senate immigration reform bill where he said if a reform bill fails due to Republican resistance to creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants it would be Obama’s fault because Republicans don’t want to give him “a voting bloc of 11 million new voters to the Democratic Party.”

He then decried the bipartisan Gang of 8 for voting together on amendments, which he said proves that they want to create. “a voting bloc that is going to have an unlimited take on the Treasury and then they’re going to buy their votes for a whole generation or two or three.”

The congressman bases his concerns on the Heritage Foundation study, authored by a racist researcher, that uses such faulty data analysis that even Republicans have denounced it.

I just had a private meeting with some constituents in very difficult situations, they came here—one of them illegally and a few others in different situations—and the question I had for them was, ‘Do you think that you deserve citizenship? Well, absolutely. I said but how about if I told you that a bill wouldn’t pass unless you were just given legal status, would you pick no bill?’ The reason I asked them this is, think about that, I don’t think the President wants any immigration issue to pass unless it gives a voting bloc of 11 million new voters to the Democratic Party. I think that’s what it comes down and frankly people are going to get hurt.



When you have a welfare state, an insecure border and you’re talking about giving amnesty, that’s three strikes. Tie on top of that the tremendous Heritage study that shows this massive drain on the economy, $6.2 trillion cost of this, this is staggering, this would probably the worst decision since ’86 if we’re going to head down this path. When you see those amendments I mean that calls out that the real purpose here is a voting bloc that is going to have an unlimited take on the Treasury and then they’re going to buy their votes for a whole generation or two or three.

Huelskamp: Marriage Equality is Unpatriotic and Furthers 'The Destruction of the Family'

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) is no stranger to pushing anti-gay rhetoric and policies, and in the Washington Times today attacked marriage equality for being “in defiance of biology, nature and common sense” and allegedly “further[ing] the destruction of the family.”

According to Huelskamp, a Supreme Court ruling that struck down either Proposition 8 or the Defense of Marriage Act would do “irreparable harm to yet another pillar of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture.”

“If that definition is changed by the court, the purpose of marriage devolves to mere recognition of an emotional union,” Huelskamp writes. “In so doing, the children of America will be shortchanged.”

President Obama and I have very different notions of what a family is. For liberals, the family can apparently be everything from “Heather Has Two Mommies” to “Daddy’s Roommate” to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “It Takes a Village.” In the opinion of electoral majorities in Kansas and 40 other states, however, that does not a family make.



The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in two landmark cases concerning homosexual marriage . The Hollingsworth v. Perry case challenges the federal constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative approved by 7 million voters to amend California’s state constitution to define marriage as an institution that involves only one man and one woman. The Windsor v. United States case challenges the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal statute overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 that recognizes traditional marriage for federal purposes and protects states from having homosexual marriage imposed upon them by other states. If at least five Supreme Court justices do not resist the temptation to legislate from the bench, they might overturn Proposition 8 and DOMA. If that happens, the high priests and priestesses of political correctness will have done irreparable harm to yet another pillar of the American paradigm for our patriotic, wholesome culture — “God, the flag, mom and apple pie.” Activist judges have already expelled faith from the public square (forbidding the Ten Commandments, a cross in remembrance of our military heroes, and Christmas Nativity scenes) and decriminalized burning the Stars and Stripes in public. The First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” initiative and New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s sugary-drink ban suggest the days of consuming apple pie might well be numbered.

That leaves motherhood. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the introduction of the Congressional Resolution that established Mother's Day. Every president since Woodrow Wilson has issued proclamations that pay homage to the significance of motherhood. In 1981, Ronald Reagan wrote: “They shape the character of our people through the love and nurture of their children. It is the strength they give their families that keeps our nation strong.” In 2011, President Obama wrote: “[W]e celebrate the extraordinary importance of mothers in our lives. The bond of love and dedication a mother shares with her children and family is without bounds or conditions.”

In the Hollingsworth case, though, The Justice Department argues that children do not need mothers. The Obama administration makes the incredible assertion that motherhood is superfluous to rebut an argument that the traditional two-parent family, led by both a mother and a father, provides the ideal situation to raise a child. In defiance of biology, nature and common sense, the administration argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers or more is just as good as having one of each.



Redefining marriage to remove parents of both sexes from the equation would further the destruction of the family, the most fundamental building block of society. If that definition is changed by the court, the purpose of marriage devolves to mere recognition of an emotional union. In so doing, the children of America will be shortchanged — and the will of the American people would be once again short-circuited by black robes in Washington.

CPAC Reject McDonnell Welcomed at Religious Right Prayer Breakfast

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell was not officially welcomed at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, but he was invited to speak at Friday morning’s prayer breakfast hosted by Ralph Reed’s Faith & Freedom Coalition, along with a couple Members of Congress.

Not everybody was happy that McDonnell was on the premises: activists from the National Taxpayers Union and the insanely anti-gay Public Advocate USA gave out anti-McDonnell flyers and stickers to people entering the breakfast.  McDonnell’s sin against CPAC orthodoxy was his support for a transportation plan in Virginia that activists say violates a campaign pledge against raising taxes.  Public Advocate also complained that by praising the General Assembly’s approval of a gay district court nominee, McDonnell “BROKE HIS PLEDGE TO SUPPORT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE.”

Inside the prayer breakfast, McDonnell (like the Coalition’s Executive Director Gary Marx an alum of Pat Robertson’s Regent University) was introduced by Rep. Randy Forbes and warmly received.  McDonnell gave a talk that was light on conservative red meat and focused on themes of faith and service, urging activists to pray for humility and wisdom.  He did say it is the job of public officials to get things done according to “Judeo-Christian principles.”  And he cited George Washington saying that the nation could not expect “the smiles of heaven” if it abandoned “eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself have ordained.”

Forbes, a leader of the congressional prayer caucus, said our nation’s problem is that God belongs on the throne, we’ve taken Him off, and we need to put Him back up there.  Forbes resorted to a caricature common among Religious Right leaders, complaining about people he said were trying to change the concept of church-state separation to mean that no one in government can speak about their faith and no one in church can talk about the government.

Also speaking was Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, who invoked a mural of the radical abolitionist John Brown that portrays him with a Bible in one hand, a rifle in the other, and the tornado of the civil war approaching. He called the HHS requirement for insurance coverage of contraception a “tremendous threat” and an attack of religious liberty. “What would John Brown be doing now?” he asked, suggesting that Brown would be on his knees in prayer but also on his feet demanding action from Congress.  Huelskamp complained that his colleagues in Congress are not acting to protect religious liberty, and denounced their “deafening silence” on threats to marriage. Huelskamp has previously complained to Tony Perkins about “the folks on the left that would like to delete, exclude and repeal any religious liberties or any religious values throughout our entire government and our entire society.”

Rachel Campos-Duffy, a conservative activist, author, and Real World: San Francisco alum who is married to Rep. Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, talked about the dangers of churches and families having ceded territory to “an ever-expanding and insatiable government.” For example, Campos said, school breakfast programs for poor students give parents an excuse not to make breakfast for their own kids and just push them out the door rather than talking to them.

Ralph Reed didn’t make the breakfast, but Gary Marx delivered a version of Reed’s post-2012 “it’s not my fault” analysis. Marx ran through statistics on the millions of contacts the Faith & Freedom Coalition made with the 23.3 million evangelical and Catholic voters in its proprietary database, and he said five million more evangelicals voted in 2012 than in 2008, with 78 percent of them voting for Romney. He said the group is actively engaged in this year’s Virginia elections and pledged that 2014 will see the largest mid-term conservative turnout ever.

The breakfast opened with a prayer by Father John De Celles of St. Raymond Penafort Roman Catholic Church in Springfield, Virginia, and closed with a benediction from Rabbi Aryeh Spero of the Caucus for America, who called for a reaffirmation of our “national identity” as a “Judeo-Christian nation” and denounced those who threaten the country from within by trying to "dismantle" that heritage and usurp God’s will.

Footnote: Among the VIP attendees acknowledged from the podium was conservative mega-donor Foster Friess, who backed Rick Santorum’s presidential bid but who has more recently encouraged a more moderate approach to LGBT issues, which he has said is due to his familiarity with gay people, including his brother-in-law and his partner.  There was no mention at the breakfast of news that broke last night about Republican Sen. Rob Portman’s about-face on marriage after his son came out to him. 

Huelskamp: 70% of Americans Oppose Marriage Equality; Obama Wants to 'Destroy the Family'

While he certainly has a lot of competition serving among the likes of Michele Bachmann, Steve King, Louie Gohmert and Steve Stockman, Rep. Tim Huelskamp is doing his best to position himself as the leading congressman of the anti-gay radical right.

Huelskamp told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins in an interview before last night’s State of the Union address that President Obama seeks “to destroy the family and replace it with his view of a radical new social agenda.”

This President has a radical social agenda and the media will probably give him a pass when instead of talking about the fact that mom and dad don’t have a job we’re going to talk about how to destroy the family and replace it with his view of a radical new social agenda. So we’re going to hear a lot about that, we’re going to hear a lot of blaming and also a lot of talk about how he would solve this and that problem but gosh darn it he’s had four years to do that and he hasn’t solved one and I would argue it’s gotten progressively worse since he took office.

The congressman went on to criticize the Republican leadership for trying to avoid a discussion of social issues. Huelskamp, who last year falsely claimed that 85 percent of people in the U.S. don’t support legalizing same-sex marriage, insisted that Republicans “defend the seventy percent position that most Americans support traditional marriage,” which in Religious Right-speak means oppose marriage equality.

Of course, most polls find that just over half of Americans support same-sex marriage.

Huelskamp went on to call the Department of Defense’s extension of partnership benefits to same-sex couples and the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA) as “radical ideas” that “most Americans do not accept” because they “specifically and selectively reward homosexual behavior.”

Once again, the majority of Americans favor job protections and partnership benefits for gays and lesbians.

The response from the general leadership is: gosh, we can’t talk about social issues. But the President can? Someone has to stand up and defend the seventy percent position that most Americans support traditional marriage, most Americans understand the value of family, they understand it’s under attack and they understand that, they see it, they believe it. So we got to stand up. I’ve always been confused by Republicans that refuse to support a seventy percent position and say, ‘gosh we can’t take our stand there.’ But whether it’s Obamacare, whether it’s these radical DoD [Department of Defense] proposals coming out of the White House or changing all the employment rules to specifically and selectively reward homosexual behavior, those are really radical ideas and most Americans do not accept them.

So we’ll have an opportunity to hear from the President but again don’t forget he is a lame duck President, he’s not running for election again and I think this could be the most radical we’ll hear from him in a long time because it is Obama unleashed. We’re going to hear tonight probably exactly what he would like to do and he promised he’s going to change America and he’s still after that agenda and that goal.

Huelskamp 'Not Convinced' Sandy Relief Bill Is Necessary; Claims Obama's Policies are Akin to Communism

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) appeared on the radio show of American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer today where the far-right congressman said he found no reason for a Sandy relief bill, arguing that FEMA “can’t spend all the [money] quick enough.” Of course, FEMA just today said that the flood insurance program is about to run out of funds and officials from Sandy-affected states roundly criticized the House Republican leadership for refusing to put the urgent care package up to a vote. But the congressman maintained the bill is “loaded up with pork” and that he is “not convinced yet” that a Sandy relief package is needed, seemingly dumbfounded that “for some reason” people want the aid.

While discussing the fiscal cliff deal, Huelskamp told Fischer that Obama has the view that “government should run everything” which he got straight from “the communist centers of the world.” “Far too many of my Republican colleagues don’t understand that about the President, what his ultimate goals are,” Huelskamp said, “that’s frustrating given that we know where the President is at.”

Rep. Huelskamp Claims the Left Plans to 'Repeal any Religious Liberties or any Religious Values' in America

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-TX) today spoke to the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and the American Family Association’s Tim Wildmon about the sale of bibles in LifeWay stores, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. The stores were selling Bibles with the emblems of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. However, the store’s permission to use such trademarks “was revoked when the military revamped its trademark licensing regulations in 2011.”

A LifeWay spokesman told Fox News that “after selling existing inventory of those bibles, B&H [Publishing] replaced the official seals with generic insignias which continue to sell well and provide spiritual guidance and comfort to those who serve.” The Defense Department also “stressed that the revocation was solely a trademark issue.”

But Religious Right groups instead are blaming the decision on the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and Huelskamp alleged that the Obama administration is the main culprit. He said that “folks on the left” would “like to delete, exclude and repeal any religious liberties or any religious values throughout our entire government and our entire society,” and argued that the administration seeks to use the military as a “training ground for a radical, leftist agenda.”

Perkins and Huelskamp later twisted the story to claim that soldiers are now being deprived of Bibles, even though the only thing that changed was the logo and not the publication, and suggested that the move could contribute to mental health problems and suicide among soldiers.

Perkins: Your thoughts on this latest attack, it’s the only way I can describe it, on the religious freedom of men and women who serve in the military?

Huelskamp: You just mentioned in a way it was simply a capitulation and the fact that the Department of the Defense and this administration will bend over backwards to protect, I guess, the rights of atheists to determine our policies in the military, which simply does an incredible disservice to the brave men and women who defend and guarantee our rights. The idea that a particular Bible is a national security threat, that would be silly if it wasn’t so serious in terms of the threats that are coming from the folks on the left that would like to delete, exclude and repeal any religious liberties or any religious values throughout our entire government and our entire society, it is a real threat to the future of this country I believe.



Huelskamp: I believe that the only way Washington is going to respond is if something will happen will happen at the polls this Fall.

Wildmon: So you think this is a reflection of the Obama administration through the Pentagon, capitulating on this?

Huelskamp: I believe so, and we see that through other agencies. You have these leftist groups from the outside and somehow they get word about something and then they come in and send these threatening letters and then the administration says ‘well my goodness I think you’re right.’ This happens in the military, I believe it happens other ways as well. It’s a cultural issue, it’s an issue of whether we’re going to just change the way Americans think and we’re going to use, in this case, the military as our training ground for a radical, leftist agenda.



Perkins: The very thing that can help our members of the military deal with these issues is being driven from the military, it makes absolutely no sense.

Wildmon: Congressman, are you on a committee that oversees this kind of thing?

Huelskamp: I am not; I serve on the veterans’ affairs committee as well for folks that finished their military service. Suicide is a real concern. When you separate people from their faith and separate people from their Creator, you expect bad things to happen. Tony is definitely right, the real folks that lose out on this are the men and women that need this truth and need this faith. In the past, in the history of our country, it’s been understood. I have an uncle that’s a chaplain, he’s served in multiple conflicts and has been there and understands as many other chaplains do that this is our role is to protect the faith of our brave men and women. And here they are defending religious liberty and freedom around the world and at home, in their own backyard it is under attack.

Ironically-Named 'Military Religious Freedom Protection Act' Opens the Door for Conservative Scare-Tactics

After the American Center for Law and Justice hosted Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) to promote his bill that he claims would help stop Obama from “using the military as a guinea pig” for the “radical homosexual agenda,” Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ sent an email alert to members claiming that if Huelskamp’s Military Religious Freedom Protection Act fails to pass Congress, then “military chaplains could be required to perform same-sex marriages”:

Soon military chaplains could be required to perform same-sex marriages.

To continue ministering to the men and women who are putting their lives on the line for our country, military chaplains would have to violate their faith.

The Senate is considering legislation to protect religious liberty in our military, and we must act now for these strong men of faith.

The House of Representatives has already passed legislation that protects the religious liberty of everyone serving in the military – especially chaplains. The Senate is days away from taking up similar legislation, and we must act quickly.

Religious liberty is a foundational right, and we should expect our elected officials on both sides of the aisle to support it. President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage may be driving his policy, but it should not affect the religious freedom of our men and women who risk their lives to protect our rights and freedom.

Despite Sekulow’s ominous message, the Washington Post reported following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell that while chaplains will be able to perform same-sex marriages in states where they are legal; they will not be required to do so:

The Pentagon will permit military chaplains to perform same-sex marriage as long as such ceremonies are not prohibited in the states where they reside, it said Friday.

Defense Department guidance issued to military chaplains said they may participate in ceremonies on or off military bases in states that recognize gay unions. Chaplains are not required to officiate at same-sex weddings if doing so is counter to their religious or personal beliefs, the guidance said.

In fact, the only way the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act significantly changes the law is by imposing a ban on the use of military installations in same-sex marriage ceremonies, prohibiting houses of worship on military property from exercising their freedom to marry same-sex couples in states where it is legal.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp Says the Obama Administration is 'Using the Military as a Guinea Pig' for the 'Radical Homosexual Agenda'

After telling Family Research Council president Tony Perkins back in April that the Obama administration is working with the “radical homosexual movement” at the expense of religious freedom, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) told Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice last week on his radio show that the Obama administration is “using the military as a guinea pig for their implementation of a pretty radical homosexual agenda.” Huelskamp was promoting his Military Religious Freedom Protection Act, which like other conservative bills uses the language of religious liberty to cloak anti-gay intentions, as Huelskamp’s legislation prohibits military facilities from being used for ceremonies recognizing same-sex unions. The congressman told Sekulow that the Obama administration is trying to rewrite sermons and warned that “if we lose this cultural war we are going to lose everything for the next generation.”

Huelskamp: In my opinion this administration is attacking traditional marriage on multiple accounts. Not only in the courtroom but I believe they are using the military as a guinea pig for their implementation of a pretty radical homosexual agenda, first of all with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell but the follow up has been that many chaplains and many other service members that are not chaplains feel like their religious liberties are under attack, they’ve been pressured to change their public positions and certain military chaplains have been told to revise their actual sermons. The audacity of the administration to say ‘we don’t like that part of Corinthians and we’re going to make certain you don’t preach about that’ as a result I introduced the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act which said if you are a chaplain or any other member of the military, you don’t give up your religious conscience in order to defend our country.



If you look at a map of the United States, of those who have marriage amendments in their constitutions, nearly every state has some protections in their statute as well, not all of them but nearly every one, if you count up those electoral voters that’s over 400 votes out of 535 needed to elect the next president. This is a winning issue, number one, but more importantly it is the right thing to do. We can get the economy right, we can get the size of the government right, but if we lose this cultural war we are going to lose everything for the next generation.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp Says the 'Administration's Push for the Radical Homosexual Agenda' will Doom 'Religious Liberty'

On Thursday, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) appeared on Today’s Issues with Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, in an effort to drum up support for his Military Religious Freedom Protection Act. Huelskamp’s bill purportedly prevents “discrimination” against members of the military based on their beliefs on “human sexuality,” while also banning the use of military property for any same-sex “marriage or marriage-like ceremony.” Discussing the bill, the congressman accused President Obama of launching a “shocking violation of religious liberty” as part of his “administration’s push for the radical homosexual agenda”:

Huelskamp: We have forty-seven cosponsors in the House including some leading members of the Armed Services Committee and we’re having a lot of great support also as well. We continue to hear, and this is the scariest thing, we hear from chaplains all across the country and even military bases elsewhere around the world that the administration’s push for the radical homosexual agenda goes all the way down to having to get approval for their sermon notes, having to have man’s approval for things they’re going to preach, I mean the idea that we’re going to not allow chaplains to disagree with the President of the United States and his administration is a shocking violation of religious liberty.

Later in the interview, Rep. Huelskamp claimed that “radical secularism” is working with the “radical homosexual movement” to suppress religious freedom:

Huelskamp: It’s an issue of whether or not chaplains can actually preach the Gospel and that men and women can actually live the Gospel. I think you have this radical secularism and you put it together with the radical homosexual movement and say ‘hey, if you have those beliefs that’s fine but you can talk about it for an hour on Sunday, maybe, and after that just keep quiet for the other hundred and some hours a week.’ The idea that chaplains would not be able to preach certain parts of the Gospel and say, ‘you know what this is the way we interpret it and this is what it means,’ and those are being shut down.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious