Fighting the Right

Pat Robertson's Thanksgiving Message: Gay Rights Are Leading To America's Destruction

“The 700 Club” today ran a story about the religious faith of the pilgrims, which prompted Pat Robertson to warn that everything that the pilgrims and the founding fathers worked to build would be destroyed by the success of gay rights — or “aberrant lifestyles” — in the courts.

“Ladies and gentlemen, our warning should be today, we can’t lose that,” he said. “And when you have courts that are taking away the very essence of our democracy, the ground from which this great country came, when courts are saying that is unconstitutional, when they’re exulting aberrant lifestyles and saying that’s constitutional, when they’re defying the very essence of this nation, they are sowing the seeds, not of a new, prosperous nation but the destruction of the one that’s already here.”

 

A Lou Engle Hit Parade

Lou Engle's public demeanor is unforgettable, often rocking back and forth, almost always shouting in a raspy voice. Here's a selection of video, audio, and printed resources. You may find yourself unable to stop watching!

In Mississippi Marriage Ruling, Judge Gives History Lesson on Anti-Gay Discrimination

The federal court ruling striking down Mississippi’s ban on same-sex couples getting married is worth reading for many reasons. Paul wrote earlier at People For the American Way's blog about U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves’s compelling explanation of the role of the courts in protecting Americans’ constitutional rights. The ruling is also filled with rich historical detail about the extent to which the state of Mississippi and the federal government have discriminated against LGBT citizens over the years, as well as the ways in which groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the notorious Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission used anti-gay rhetoric and innuendo in their attacks on African American civil rights leaders and institutions.

This history is an important rebuttal to bogus claims by anti-gay activists that gay people do not need to have their rights protected in law because they have never suffered from discrimination.

Quotes from the opinion, with citations removed for readability:

Any claim that Mississippians quietly accommodated gay and lesbian citizens could no longer be made in the 1960s, when prejudice against homosexuals (and other groups) became more visible during the civil rights movement. Segregationists called their opponents “racial  perverts,” while U.S. Marshals – summoned to enforce civil rights – were labeled “sadists and  perverts.” Klan propaganda tied together “Communists, homosexuals, and Jews, fornicators and liberals and angry blacks – infidels all.”

One Klan photo showed a black man touching the crotch of the white man sitting next to him, attempting to make the link between racial equality and homosexuality explicit.

Civil rights leaders had predicted the attack. In selecting the Freedom Riders, James Farmer had conducted interviews to weed out “Communists, homosexuals, [and] drug addicts.” “We had to screen them very carefully because we knew that if they found anything to throw at us, they would throw it,” he explained.

This reflected society’s notion that homosexuals were “undesirables.” It also placed civil rights leaders in the position of seeking rights for one disenfranchised group while simultaneously seeking to avoid association with another disenfranchised group. Mississippians opposed to integration harassed several civil rights leaders for their homosexuality. Bill Higgs was a prominent gay Mississippi civil rights lawyer. He was targeted for his activism, convicted in absentia of delinquency of a minor, and threatened with “unlimited  jailings” should he ever return to Mississippi.

He never did.

Reeves also discusses the case of Bayard Rustin, the openly gay African American civil rights activist who organized the 1963 March on Washington at which Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

The most interesting part of Rustin’s story, though – and the reason why he merits more discussion here – is that he was subjected to anti-gay discrimination by both white and black people, majority and minority alike. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, a black Democrat, threatened to feed the media a false story that Rustin was having an affair with Martin Luther King, Jr., unless Dr. King canceled a protest at the Democratic National Convention.

Other persons within the civil rights movement were similarly “put off by Rustin’s homosexuality.” Roy Wilkins, an NAACP executive, “was particularly nasty to Bayard Rustin – very hostile,” in part because he “was very nervous about Bayard’s homosexuality.” Dr. King eventually had Rustin resign “because of persistent criticism of Rustin’s homosexuality and Communist ties and because of Congressman Adam Clayton Powell’s threat.”

Rustin reemerged years later as one of the principal organizers of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. A. Philip Randolph and Dr. King wanted Rustin as the march’s chief organizer, but Wilkins pushed back “because [Rustin] was gay . . . something which in particular would offend J. Edgar Hoover.” The group ultimately “decided Randolph would be in charge of the march, that Rustin would be the principal organizer, but that he would stay somewhat in the background.”

The concern about offending Hoover was prescient, as the FBI Director and other top officials soon moved to use Rustin’s homosexuality against him. In August 1963, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and President John F. Kennedy urgently reviewed the transcript of a FBI wiretap in which Dr. King acknowledged Rustin’s homosexuality. A day later, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina “rose in the Senate to denounce Rustin for sexual perversion, vagrancy, and lewdness.” FBI “headquarters badgered the field offices for new details” of Rustin’s sex life for months.

As Reeves makes clear, this kind of persecution was not only reserved for civil rights activists.

Rustin’s story speaks to the long tradition of Americans from all walks of life uniting to discriminate against homosexuals. It did not matter if one was liberal or conservative, segregationist or civil rights leader, Democrat or Republican; homosexuals were “the other.” Being homosexual invited scrutiny and professional consequences.

These consequences befell quite a few Mississippians. Ted Russell, the conductor of the Jackson Symphony Orchestra, lost his job and his Belhaven College faculty position after he was caught in a gay sex sting by the Jackson Police Department. In the early 1980s, Congressman Jon Hinson drew scrutiny for frequenting an X-rated gay movie theater in Washington, D.C., and although he won reelection, he resigned when he returned to Washington and was caught performing gay sex acts in a Capitol Hill bathroom. As early as 1950, the State’s flagship institution of higher learning, the University of Mississippi, “forced three homosexual students and one faculty member to leave the university” because it “did not tolerate homosexuality.” Lesbian instructors at Mississippi University for Women were pushed out of their jobs, while students at other Mississippi public universities were expelled for their homosexuality. A 1979 article on gay Jacksonians said “most” remained closeted because “they fear losing their jobs, friends and families.”

Reeves discusses the anti-gay actions of the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, which was created in 1956 to maintain racial segregation by any means necessary.

Sovereignty Commission “[i]nvestigators and local officials also targeted local blacks and outsiders involved in civil rights activities as being sexually deviant.” They singled out Rust College, a private historically black institution, on reports that instructors there were “homosexuals and racial agitators.”

Those with power took smaller, yet meaningful, actions to discourage gay organizing and association in Mississippi. The State refused to let gay rights organizations incorporate as nonprofits. The newspaper at Mississippi State University – student-led, with an elected editor – refused to print a gay organization’s advertisement notifying gay and lesbian students of an off-campus “Gay Center” offering “counseling, legal aid and a library of homosexual literature. An advisor to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that the Jackson Police Department took “a series . . . of maneuvers to harass members of Jackson’s gay community.” “As of 1985 not a single university campus in Mississippi recognized a lesbian and gay student group.”

Reeves’s ruling also makes clear that official discrimination is not only in the state’s past.

In 1990, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a trial judge who declared that a mother, who was a lesbian, could not visit her children in the presence of her female partner. In Weigand v. Houghton, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed a trial judge who refused residential custody to a father in large part because he was in a long-term relationship with another man. A dissent complained that the father’s sexuality had impaired the court’s judgment, since the child would now have to live with “the unemployed stepfather [who] is a convicted felon, drinker, drug-taker, adulterer, wife-beater, and child-threatener, and . . . the mother [who] has been transitory, works two jobs, and has limited time with the child.”

In 2002, one of Mississippi’s justice court judges, frustrated with advances in gay rights in California, Vermont, and Hawaii, “opined that homosexuals belong in mental institutions.” Although he was reprimanded and fined by the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance, the Mississippi Supreme Court vacated the sanctions. It was more important for gay citizens to know that their judge was biased and seek his recusal than to “forc[e] judges to conceal their prejudice against gays and lesbians,” it wrote. The “Commission urges us to ‘calm the waters’ when, as the guardians of this state’s judicial system, we should be helping our citizens to spot the crocodiles.”

Reeves details a number of recent complaints and lawsuits challenging discriminatory treatment by state and local governments as well as legal inequities such as the fact that Mississippi law permits a single person to adopt a child but not gay or lesbian couples.

This kind of restriction was once supported by pseudoscience. We now recognize that it actually “harms the children, by telling them they don’t have two parents, like other children, and harms the parent who is not the adoptive parent by depriving him or her of the legal status of a parent.”

Reeves concludes the historical section of the ruling this way:

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” That is as true here as anywhere else. Seven centuries of strong objections to homosexual conduct have resulted in a constellation of State laws that treat gay and lesbian Mississippians as lesser, “other” people. Thus, it is easy to conclude that they have suffered through a long and unfortunate history of discrimination.

'Under The Radar': Christian Nationalist David Lane Is Quietly Waging 'Spiritual Warfare' To Save America

On her radio program yesterday, Janet Mefferd interviewed Religious Right activist and Christian Nationalist David Lane of the American Renewal Project about his recent efforts to ensure that right-wing Christian values dominate America's political system, including organizing a world tour for pastors led by Mike Huckabee, putting together a large prayer rally hosted by Gov. Bobby Jindal, and even recruiting 1,000 pastors to run for office nationwide.

As Lane told Mefferd, he generally does not give media interviews because he prefers to work "under the radar" in mobilizing conservative Christians to get politically engaged, which is easier to accomplish when he is not "telegraphing our punches" about what he is up to.

"I generally don't do radio shows or TV shows or speak to reporters because I'm not that interested in public relations," Lane said. "I'm interested in Christian men and women who know the Word engaging in culture ...  We've operated since 2005 largely under the radar ... We want to show up on Election Day with a constituency that will march and engage the culture. And so instead of telegraphing our punches and beating the bass drum of what we're doing, we've been really quietly mobilizing."

Later in the interview, Lane declared that the main focus of his efforts is to reclaim America's Judeo-Christian heritage, which has been "stolen" by the "false God" of secularism.

"This is war," he said. "Spiritually, this is warfare and we have left the Lord and my guess is that He's not really happy at this point with the way that Christian men and women in the country that was left to us" have failed to defend it:

Rick Wiles Wonders If Ferguson Protests Are False Flag To Push Gun Control And Start A Civil War

End Times radio host Rick Wiles interviewed Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt on his program yesterday, and the conversation inevitably drifted to whether the Ferguson protests are in fact a false flag operation to give President Obama political cover to unilaterally implement gun control laws.

“I was thinking how easily something like this could get out of control and there’s gunfire in the cities, if they go into the suburban neighborhoods and begin burning buildings and upsetting cars, homeowners are going to come out with their firearms and begin defending their property. And that sets the stage for Emperor Obama to say, ‘We have to get guns off the streets and this Congress has refused to implement my gun control legislation, therefore by executive order I am doing this, this and this,’” Wiles speculated.

“If he were to do something like that, I think he would trigger, very likely would trigger, a response that would completely put him back on his heels,” Pratt responded, adding that “precisely somebody talking the way you just hypothesized is why they have their guns, so they can protect themselves from tyrants.”

“And the more this guy wants to look like a tyrant the more he’d better stay within Washington, D.C., because if he starts trying to put his imprint on the rest of the country in terms of gun control, that will be a game-changer,” he added.

Wiles repeated his frequent claim that the “delusional” Obama’s “mission is to start a civil war.” Pratt agreed that Obama is on an Alinskyite mission to “bring the system down,” which he will perhaps accomplish through immigration policy.

Later in the program, Wiles wondered if Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel decided to step down this week because he refused to comply with an Obama plot to use the Ferguson case to “whip up social unrest in American cities” in order to stage a military takeover.

“I’m actually speculating that it may be connected to Ferguson, that the Obamanistas are doing their best to whip up social unrest in American cities and the defense secretary perhaps didn’t sign certain orders to activate national guard troops and to do certain things in the state of emergency,” he said. “That’s just my speculation, but it was an unusual event for him suddenly to be pushed out at the same time that we’ve got Ferguson taking place.”


 

 

CWA Renews Fight Against Women's History Museum, Claims It Would Be 'Offensive To Military Members'

Earlier this year, conservative groups led by Concerned Women for America tried unsuccessfully to stop the House from approving a plan to move forward on the building of the National Women’s History Museum, claiming that the museum would be a “shrine to liberal ideology, abortion, and liberal advocates." Since then, that bill has been held up in the Senate by Republicans Tom Coburn and Mike Lee.

Now the coalition is resuming the fight after hearing that the new museum might be included in a public lands section of an upcoming defense budget. In a press release yesterday, CWA President Penny Nance claimed that the museum would “promote a skewed view of women on key issues like abortion, the free market, and feminism.” Nance also declared that the museum “would in fact be offensive to military members” by including exhibits mentioning people like feminist Bella Abzug, who advocated cuts in military spending.

In an op-ed for Brietbart News, Nance writes that she is against the “identity politics” of the museum in the first place, opposes it especially because she suspects (with no apparent evidence) that it would glorify “whiny” feminists instead of people like a female Peshmerga fighter who died fighting ISIS last month.

On October 11, Rengin Yusuf died.

She was a mom, a warrior and a young Peshmergan fighter who died in battle against ISIS. According to Sandor Jaszberenyi’s piece in the Wall Street Journal, she was part of a brave group of women who are particularly successful in combat, due in part to ISIS’s belief that being killed by a woman fighter excludes one from the complimentary 72 virgins in Paradise.

Rengin should be a feminist icon, but she won’t be. American feminists won’t like her brand of feminism.

Besides taking a firm stand against Jihadists, she also didn’t buy into gender politics, asking before her death — along with her fellow fighters — to not be identified as “women Peshmergas” because as Jaszberenyi puts it, “a Peshmerga is a Peshmerga, or in Kurdish, ‘someone who confronts death.’”

Contrast her idea of true feminist empowerment with the whiny “#banbossy” campaign and other phony feminist “battles” of the American left.

Women warriors do not serve in this nation to be viewed as a minority interest group. We are fifty-one percent of the population and won’t settle for a pat on the head. We are Americans and deserve to be fairly represented in every museum.

But if we are wrong and the majority of American women want gender division, then at the very least the museum must fairly portray the philosophical diversity of American women on hot button issues like abortion and marriage. Unless the safeguards are added to the current bill language, the museum will predictably become a shrine to the Left’s view of feminism on our National Mall. It will serve to indoctrinate future generations in the Bella Abzug brand of feminism, not the Rengin Yusuf kind.

Congress needs to stop playing identity politics.

Nance, as it happens, was offered a seat on the commission planning the museum but refused it unless she was allowed to be the commission's chairwoman.

Pat Robertson Declares Racism Dead, Calls For 'Racial Agitators' To 'Cool It'

On “The 700 Club” today, Pat Robertson addressed the protests that have been breaking out all over the nation in response to a grand jury’s decision not to indict a white police officer for the shooting death of unarmed Missouri teenager Michael Brown.

Robertson said that while “there’s no question” that “African Americans in this society for decades have been subject to discrimination” and that “there has been police brutality in various cities,” that’s all over now and “we live in what amounts to a pretty much even-tempered type of society.”

“Police are very careful in dealing with people, they’re trained to be careful with minorities, and the abuses of the past are pretty much a thing of the past,” Robertson said.

Robertson attacked “the Al Sharptons of the world and other racial agitators” for talking about social justice in the case when “this isn’t a case dealing with social justice.”

“I’m all for social justice, and I think most of us are, but this case is somebody who may have been mentally disturbed, we don’t know that, he may have been high on something, we don’t know that, but whatever it was, the police officer had to defend himself and he was attacked in his police car. So why don’t they just cool it?”

The televangelist said that President Obama, in his remarks on the verdict, should have blamed Brown for his own death because he had broken the law: “What he should have said is what I just finished saying: The young man was breaking the law and he should have been restrained and he did things that were not in keeping with law and order. If he’d said that, it would have been a whole lot better.”

 

Chuck Pierce: A Black Dragon Is Attacking Israel And Only We Can Stop It

Chuck Pierce, the self-proclaimed prophetic apostle whose claims his prayers are so powerful that they caused earthquakes and captured Saddam Hussein, has issued a dire new warning that a dragon is attacking Israel and only he and his fellow apostles have the power to "silence the dragon for this time period."

And he means all of this quite literally:

When we were flying into Tel Aviv earlier this month, I saw an unusual sunset. The sun, though setting, looked like it was rising from the ground. Above the glory realm hovering on the ground was sky. In the sky was a perfectly formed black dragon! The message the Lord had me to deliver in Jerusalem was: “The dragon is hovering over Israel. There is a birth that is near and the enemy wants to stop what God is birthing. There will be much conflict in the next several months but you can stop the dragon from having his way.”  I went on to speak from Revelation 12. I called Rick Ridings, the leader of the 24 Hour House of Prayer in Jerusalem. Rick had already planned to share an earlier vision of a great fire-breathing dragon circling the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.   He shared that when flames came from its mouth, violence was released onto the Mount (which has been the scene of increasing turmoil over the past several months).  Amazing!

We must stand and turn the enemy from Israel. In the vision, Rick was made to be aware that the dragon’s real intentions were to ignite a much larger and more far-reaching conflagration of violence. Suddenly, he saw two words in the heavens, “NOT NOW.”   His message was: “I saw a dragon on the Temple Mount, but God said, ‘NOT NOW!’” A great foot descended from Heaven, pinning the dragon to the ground.  Then the Lord reached down,  placed shackles on the dragon’s feet, and imprisoned it in the underground mosque at the southeast corner of the Temple Mount.  As this was happening, in the worship room where Rick was having the vision (which has a view of the Mount), the leader was singing from Psalm 149 about the high praise of God’s people “putting kings in chains and nobles in shackles.”  In the days following this, conflict continued and many in the media were predicting an impending huge eruption of violence and the start of a new intifada (“uprising”). 

In a second vision on November 4, Rick had a vision of the imprisoned dragon shrieking and attempting to break out of its dungeon in which it was imprisoned—demon spirits were going forth from its mouth out of the confines of the prison to incite terror.  Rick felt the Lord say we were to ask Him, as the Judge of the Universe, to give a “gag and restraining order” to silence the dragon for this time period.

Bryan Fischer Does Not Understand The Concept Of Double Jeopardy

On his radio broadcast yesterday, noted constitutional scholar Bryan Fischer made the absurd argument that Ferguson, Missouri, police office Darren Wilson cannot face federal charges in the shooting death of Michael Brown after a grand jury failed to indict him, on the grounds that such charges would violate the Constitution's protections against "double jeopardy."

Citing the Fifth Amendment's language that no person shall "be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb," Fischer laughably claimed that meant that Wilson can never be prosecuted for possible crimes related to Michael Brown's killing.

"He was just put in jeopardy of life or limb," Fischer argued. "No indictment was returned. He cannot be subject to the process a second time."

Unfortunately for Fischer, this clause only applies to individuals who have faced trial, as it is designed to protect people from being tried multiple times for the same crime. Wilson, of course, was never "put in jeopardy of life or limb" since he never faced a trial for his actions precisely because the grand jury failed to return an indictment.

Bryan Fischer Says Michael Brown Was Possessed By A Homicidal Demon

On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer reacted to a grand jury's decision not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, seizing upon Wilson's testimony that he felt like he was facing "a demon" during his confrontation with Brown.

Fischer absolutely agreed, saying that "the chances are very good" that Wilson was literally locked in battle with a homicidal demon that was possessing Brown during the altercation.

"I think that at this point there was a demonic presence that was operating inside Michael Brown's body," Fischer said, "activating him, energizing him, driving him forward in this homicidal rage. So when he says he looked like a demon, I think that's because he was looking into the eyes of a demon that was driving Michael Brown to do what he did":

Gary Bauer's Anti-Gay Bigotry: The Historical Record

Anyone who is familiar with Gary Bauer's anti-gay extremism will not be surprised to learn that his bigotry goes way back. Just in time for World AIDS Day, we now know that when Bauer was working in the Reagan White House, he fought hard to keep gay people off the nation’s first AIDS commission.

A June 30, 1987, memo from Bauer to President Reagan was unearthed by a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the law firm of McDermott, Will & Emory and the Mattachine Society of Washington, D.C.  The memo, which appears in the December 1 issue of Harper’s, makes clear that Reagan was already aware of Bauer’s opposition to appointing a “known homosexual” to the commission. Bauer may have sensed that he was losing the battle, and felt compelled to tell Reagan one more time just how strongly he felt.

Bauer’s arguments were both political and moral. He wrote that it was Reagan’s opponents who were pushing for a gay appointee, and that a gay member of the commission might become a media star who could damage the commission’s work. And there’s this:

3. Millions of Americans try to raise their children to believe that homosexuality is immoral. In many states homosexual practices are illegal, including sodomy. For you to appoint a known homosexual to a Presidential Commission will give homosexuality a stamp of acceptability. It will drive a wedge between us and many of our socially conservative supporters.

4. While it is true that homosexuals have been major victims of AIDS, they are also responsible for its spread. Recent students show the average gay man with AIDS has had over 150 different sexual partners in the previous 12 months.

Bauer proposed instead appointing a relative of someone with AIDS, or a caregiver, or as a last resort, a “reformed” homosexual: “that is, someone not currently living a gay life style. We have identified several individuals that meet that criteria.”

In the end, Reagan ignored Bauer’s pleadings and appointed Frank Lilly, an openly gay geneticist, to the Presidential Commission on the HIV Epidemic.

Bauer’s role as an anti-gay zealot in the Reagan White House was also revealed in "Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite" by D. Michael Lindsay. As Kyle reported back in 2010, the book says Bauer interfered with the efforts of Surgeon General C. Everett Koop when he was tasked with drafting a report on AIDS for President Reagan:

[In 1986] President Reagan asked the surgeon general to prepare a report on AIDS as the United States confirmed its ten-thousandth case. Leaders of the evangelical movement did not want Koop to write the report, nor did senior White House staffers who shared Koop's evangelical convictions. As Dr. Koop related to me, "Gary Bauer [Reagan's chief advisor on domestic policy] ... was my nemesis in Washington because he kept me from the president. He kept me from the cabinet and he set up a wall of enmity between me and most of the people that surrounded Reagan because he believed that anybody who had AIDS ought to die with it. That was God's punishment for them."

David Barton Falsely Claims The Average Welfare Family Receives $61,000 A Year In Benefits

As we noted just earlier today, just about every statement that is made by David Barton needs to be fact-checked because, more often than not, the claim he is making turns out to be entirely false.

As if to help drive home this point for us, Barton appeared on Glenn Beck's radio program today and absurdly declared that the "average welfare family" receives $61,000 a year in government benefits, meaning that in many states they earn more than teachers and secretaries.

"Right now, if you are on welfare, you make more than a teacher in eleven states and you make more than a secretary in thirty nine states," Barton said:

Barton's figure comes from a document produced by the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions, back in 2012 that was, not surprisingly, entirely misleading.

As experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained, this figure was derived by relying on "a series of serious manipulations of the data that violate basic analytic standards and are used to produce a potentially inflammatory result:"

Counts payments to hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and other medical providers — including payments for care for sick elderly people at the end of their lives and for people with serious disabilities who are institutionalized — as though these payments are akin to cash income that is going to poor families to live on.  The single largest area of federal spending in the Sessions comparison is health care spending.  Close to half of all of the spending that Senator Sessions portrays as income to poor households consists of payments to hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers through Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or smaller health programs.  The majority of this health care spending is for the elderly or people with disabilities, including end-of-life care and nursing home care.

...

Counts, as spending on poor people, benefits and services that go to families and individuals who are above the poverty line.  As noted, Senator Sessions divides the cost of a broad set of programs by the number of households with income below the official poverty line.  Yet many of these programs, by design and for good reason, serve substantial numbers of low- and moderate-income Americans whose incomes are above the poverty line.  For example, 65 percent of the lower-income working households receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) in 2011 had incomes above the official poverty line.  Many programs do not cut off benefits abruptly at the poverty line, for two reasons.  First, many hard-pressed families and individuals modestly above the poverty line have significant needs; for example, an elderly widow living on only $12,000 a year is above the poverty line.  Second, abruptly cutting off benefits at the poverty line, rather than phasing them down gradually as income rises, would create large work disincentives.

...

Long-term care alone constitutes 28 percent of all Medicaid costs — and a larger share of Medicaid costs for seniors and people with disabilities.  A substantial share of Medicaid spending on long-term care is for seniors who had middle-class incomes for much of their working lives but whose long-term care needs now exceed their ability to pay for that care.  In 2010, private nursing home care averaged $83,585 per year, assisted living facility costs averaged $39,516 per year, and home health aide services averaged $21 per hour.  In 2009, the average long-term care cost for a Medicaid beneficiary receiving such care was $34,579, a figure sure to be somewhat higher today.

By including the costs of such care in the calculation of the average spending per poor household, the Sessions analysis creates a misleading impression that typical low-income families and children receive extravagant benefits.  Providing a frail senior with nursing home care does not mean that the typical low-income family with children is receiving huge amounts of benefits that give it a high standard of living ... Older people, people with disabilities, and people with serious illnesses incur far higher health care costs than do healthy individuals, but that doesn’t make them “higher income” or give them a higher standard of living than healthier households have.  Similarly, a low-income family with a child who has a serious disability is not “well off” because Medicaid covers the child’s sizable health care costs.  A middle-income household with a member fighting cancer doesn’t suddenly become “high income” when the family’s insurance covers costly cancer treatments.

Once again, Barton's claim is entirely false, as the average family on welfare does not, in any way, receive $61,000 a year from the government.

Mike Huckabee: Abortion Rights Worse Than Nazi Holocaust; Gay Marriage Dooms America

After visiting Nazi concentration camps in Poland last week during “Mike Huckabee’s Reagan, Thatcher, Pope John Paul II Tour,” the former Arkansas governor addressed his guests with a speech about “the soul of America” and its alleged social ills. Abortion rights and marriage equality, Huckabee said, rise to the top of the list of what ails the country.

He blamed the legalization of abortion and same-sex marriage on the failure of pastors to become active in politics. Huckabee said Americans have “blood on our hands” for failing to criminalize abortion and contended that reproductive freedom is much worse than the Nazi Holocaust.

Huckabee added that the country will also “pay the consequences” for trying to “tinker” with marriage and “having upended the very foundation which is the essence of how a civilization survives.”

We wonder with some sense of bewilderment, how is it possible that since 1973 alone over 55 million unborn children have died in what should have been the safest place that that baby ever experienced, the womb of its mother? How did that happen? Because our pulpits were silent and forgot and failed to teach that every human life has value and worth and there’s no such thing as a disposable, expendable human being, that all of us are created equal. Even our Constitution, our founders, acknowledge that, and our Bible affirms it. And our failure to speak it because it was a political issue will cause us one day to stand before a holy God with blood on our hands and explain why we did not cry out against that slaughter of 55 million.

If you felt something incredibly powerful at Auschwitz and Birkenau over the 11 million killed worldwide and the 1.5 million killed on those grounds, cannot we feel something extraordinary about 55 million murdered in our own country in the wombs of their mothers? Does that not speak to us? And the foundation of our society and culture, marriage, not only by which we produce the next generation but it is the entity through which God has chosen for us to create the next generation and train them to be our replacements, and when we tinker with its definition and we decide that it can mean anything we wish for it to mean and that rather than to take a biblical perspective we will take a very human one and we will base marriage on human experience and desire as opposed to biblical standard, then I fear that we will pay the consequences for having upended the very foundation which is the essence of how a civilization survives. So the soul of America is in real trouble.

Yet Even More Evidence That David Barton's History Cannot Be Trusted

Just last month, we wrote a long post exposing the way in which David Barton routinely misrepresents court cases in an effort to support his pseudo-history and promote his cultural and political agenda. Today, we came across another instance of Barton doing the same thing with a different court case while delivering a presentation a few weeks ago at Calvary Chapel in San Jose, California.

Barton was making the case that, until the Supreme Court's decision in Abington Township v. Schempp in 1963 — which Barton also routinely misrepresents — teaching the Bible in public schools had been the norm. To support this point, Barton cited the Supreme Court's 1844 ruling in a case called Vidal v. Girard's Executors, which he claimed declared that no school that refused to teach the Bible could receive public funds:

"We look at Christian schools today," Barton said, "and we think that's alternative education. No, no, no. Christians schools is mainstream education. Secular education is brand new in America. We never had that before. That's the new thing ... In 1844, the U.S. Supreme Court had case called Vidal v. Girard's Executors and what you had was a government-operated school that was not going to teach the Bible and the Supreme Court came back with an unanimous 8-0 decision and the Supreme Court said well, if you don't want to teach the Bible, you don't have to teach the Bible but you do have to become a private school. We're not going to fund any public school that won't teach the Bible.

As usual, if you actually take the time to read this case, the facts in no way support Barton's interpretation.

The case involved an extremely wealthy man named Stephen Girard who, as a childless widower, left in his will large sums of money to the City of Philadelphia for various civic improvements, as well as money to establish a school for "poor male white orphan children."

Among the stipulations Girard placed upon the school was that no religious leader was ever to hold a position there, nor could any specific denominational doctrine be taught:

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college, nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever, but as there is such a multitude of sects and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans who are to derive advantage from this bequest free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce; my desire is that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instill into the minds of the scholars the purest principles of morality, so that, on their entrance into active life, they may, from inclination and habit, evince benevolence towards their fellow creatures and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their matured reason may enable them to prefer.

Some of Girard's heirs then sued on various technical grounds that are not germane to Barton's point, as well as by arguing that prohibiting clergy from working or teaching at the school was a violation of both the Constitution and the Common Law because it discriminated against Christianity.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument:

All that we can gather from his language is that he desired to exclude sectarians and sectarianism from the college, leaving the instructors and officers free to teach the purest morality, the love of truth, sobriety, and industry, by all appropriate means, and of course including the best, the surest, and the most impressive. The objection, then, in this view, goes to this -- either that the testator has totally omitted to provide for religious instruction in his scheme of education (which, from what has been already said, is an inadmissible interpretation), or that it includes but partial and imperfect instruction in those truths. In either view can it be truly said that it contravenes the known law of Pennsylvania upon the subject of charities, or is not allowable under the article of the bill of rights already cited? Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded because we are not aware that anything exists in the Constitution or laws of Pennsylvania or the judicial decisions of its tribunals which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity? Hitherto it has been supposed that a charity for the instruction of the poor might be good and valid in England even if it did not go beyond the establishment of a grammar school. And in America, it has been thought, in the absence of any express legal prohibitions, that the donor might select the studies, as well as the classes of persons, who were to receive his bounty without being compellable to make religious instruction a necessary part of those studies. It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require anything to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion or are opposed to any known policy of the State of Pennsylvania.

This view of the whole matter renders it unnecessary for us to examine the other and remaining question, to whom, if the devise were void, the property would belong, whether it would fall into the residue of the estate devised to the city, or become a resulting trust for the heirs at law.

Upon the whole, it is the unanimous opinion of the Court that the decree of the Circuit Court of Pennsylvania dismissing the bill, ought to be affirmed, and it is accordingly.

Barton's representation of this case is entirely false, as it had literally nothing to do with the teaching of the Bible nor any requirement that schools must do so in order to receive public funds.

Despite the fact that his claims are totally false, Barton will nonetheless continue to make them in future presentations, secure in the knowledge that his Religious Right supporters will never hold him accountable for his misinformation and misrepresentations.

AFA Spox Says 'Entitled' Michael Brown Received Justice: 'God Says There Will Be Consequences'

American Family Association news director Fred Jackson spoke today about a St. Louis County grand jury’s decision not to indict police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of unarmed African American teenager Michael Brown, declaring that Brown had a “mentality of entitlement” and ultimately paid the price for his alleged role in the theft of cigars from a convenience store earlier that day. Apparently stealing cigars comes with the penalty of death!

Jackson made the comments while guest-hosting American Family Radio’s “Sandy Rios in the Morning”:

We have to get back to the reality, there are moral truths and when people break those moral truths and decide to violate them, there are consequences. On that day, August 9th in Ferguson, Missouri, when Michael Brown went into that convenient store and stole that box of cigars, he was making a moral decision. Now no one knows what was in Michael Brown’s head that day but one could speculate that he believed he was above being told he should not steal, he was above getting any consequences for his actions. He went on to assault police officer Darren Wilson. He believed, Michael Brown, apparently, that he was allowed to do that. It is that mentality of entitlement, that mentality that says ‘you have your truth, I have mine,’ that I believe is at the core of this.

Later in the program, Jackson said Brown disobeyed the absolute truths laid out by God and had to face the consequences for his actions because “God says there will be consequences.” He added that Brown’s death was also the result of “the breakdown of the family.”

What we’ve been talking about this morning: the existence of absolute truth, and that is what’s under attack today. Absolute truth is defined by scripture, the Bible, God’s word, that’s how it’s defined and when you violate that, there are consequences. Now you may get away with it for a while, for a period, but God says there will be consequences. Both our callers, I think, addressing the crux of the problem here this morning is the family, is the breakdown of the family. When you do not have a dad figure around there is not someone there in authority to demonstrate there are consequences to violating the rules. If you don’t have that presence in the family, you’re going to have problems.

Pat Robertson: ArcheAge, Dungeons & Dragons Lead To Demonic Possession

Pat Robertson offered a stern warning today against playing games such as ArcheAge and Dungeons & Dragons, insisting that they may lead to demonic possession.

Robertson, who has frequently attacked Dungeons & Dragons, even tying the game to suicide, said on “The 700 Club” this morning that the game led people to do “horrible things and it was almost like an invitation to demonic possession,” while conceding that he has never heard of ArcheAge.

“I think we shouldn’t get ourselves involved in something we are roleplaying a thing having to do with demonic forces,” he said.

Rand Paul Fundraises For Personhood Group

Despite claiming that he opposes “changing any of the laws” on abortion rights and birth control, Sen. Rand Paul remains the chief sponsor of the federal personhood bill, the Life at Conception Act, in the U.S. Senate.

In fact, Paul is now signing emails on behalf of a the National Pro-Life Alliance, a group founded with the explicit goal of passing personhood laws banning abortion and common forms of birth control.

In a fundraising email for the group today, the Kentucky senator and likely presidential candidate touts his personhood bill, saying that it would stop “the slaughter” and effectively overturn Roe v. Wade. He adds that now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress, the personhood movement is in “a better than ever position” to force a vote on the bill.

For more than 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 61 million babies for the crime of being "inconvenient."

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there -- passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won't be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it's so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

Thanks to the results of the last election, you and I are in a better than ever position to force an up or down roll call vote on the Life at Conception Act.



A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children "persons" as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to "collapse."



By turning up the heat on Congress in 2015 through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn't pass immediately, the public attention will set the stage to defeat radical abortionists in the 2016 elections.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.



But I'm sure you'll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance's goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.



The Supreme Court itself admitted -- if Congress declares unborn children "persons" under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand "collapses."

Fischer: Banning 'Stop And Frisk' Is 'A Hate Crime Against Black Citizens'

On "Meet The Press" yesterday, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson had a heated exchange on the issue of police violence in black communities. On his radio show today, Bryan Fischer predictably sided with Giuliani on the issue, declaring that banning the use of "stop and frisk" policing was committing a hate crime against black people.

Fischer, whose love of black men is well established, asserted that since most of those arrested under "stop and frisk" were black, the people who were most protected by "stop and frisk" were other black people.

"These areas were riven with black-on-black crime," Fischer said. "Stop and frisk started to bring those numbers down. When you go away from stop and frisk ... you are endangering black citizens. It's like a hate crime against black citizens. You are exposing them to risk by removing a law enforcement tool":

>

The Perfect Ex-Gay Christmas Gift

Unless your family has fallen victim to the War on Christmas, Mission America’s Linda Harvey knows just the thing to get that gay or lesbian friend this year: her new book, “Maybe He’s Not Gay.”

Harvey authored the book to peddle ex-gay pseudo-science and further explain her claim that gay people do not exist, telling listeners of her radio bulletin today that it would make a perfect Christmas gift.

If you were wondering what to get your teen or college student for Christmas, how about giving them the gift of common sense and morality? This is the way many people have described my book, ‘Maybe He’s Not Gay: Another View On Homosexuality,’” she said. “Same-sex relationships are not what anyone was born for yet there are reasons why people get there and even more reasons why they can leave those feelings behind.”

Schlafly On Immigrants: 'The Class Of People Coming In Now' Just Don't Understand America

In an interview with WorldNetDaily published on Friday, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said that while previous generations of immigrants “became 200 percent Americans,” the “class of people coming in now…don’t really have any comprehension of our system of government and look to big government to be their guide of whatever they want to do.”

Schlafly has previously said that Latino immigrants “don’t understand” the Bill of Rights.

“Obama’s moving ahead with his attempt to do all kinds of illegal things in order to bring in illegal aliens and give the Democrats more votes,” she said. “That’s what it’s for.”

The veteran activist said she has talked to many immigrants who came to the U.S. as teenagers two or three generations ago. Their parents taught them to leave their native ways behind and fully immerse themselves in America.

“Those people came in and became 200 percent Americans,” Schlafly said. “But that’s not the class of people coming in now, who don’t really have any comprehension of our system of government and look to big government to be their guide of whatever they want to do.”

Schlafly also told WND that President Obama is to blame if riots break out after the grand jury verdict in Ferguson, Missouri because he “fomented [unrest] in order to hopefully win the election”:

But conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly believes Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder also used the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, for political purposes.

“I think that Obama and his attorney general really fomented [unrest] in order to hopefully win the election on November 4,” Schlafly said. “They wanted to inflame people in order to get their voters out to vote. I think it was deliberately done, and they weren’t content to just let the process take its course.

“I think it has backfired, and the Republicans won a tremendous victory despite everything,” she added.

A grand jury is deciding the fate of Officer Darren Wilson. An announcement on whether there will be charges could come any day.

Schlafly, whose recently published book “Who Killed the American Family?” came out just days before she turned 90, said Obama and Holder will be culpable if riots break out in Ferguson.

“But whether the public will see it that way, I don’t know,” she said.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious