We, the People of the United States of America, demand that the United States House of Representatives draft Articles of Impeachment against President Barack H. Obama for failure to adhere to the authority and rule of law, and for open oppression of our liberties, as defined by the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights.
In my nearly three decades of work in the legal field specializing in constitutional law, I have NEVER witnessed a more blatant and consistent disregard for the Constitution as we have seen from this President and his administration!
As I have often said, today’s patriotic Americans are facing more oppression from civil government than did the colonial generation!
Together, we can stop this tyranny before President Obama and his “progressive” supporters succeed in remaking the United States of America into a godless, socialist nation!
The impeachment petition lists the health care reform law and the Benghazi attack as among Obama’s “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
As the world’s eyes turned to Russia for the Sochi Olympics, and for the increasingly anti-gay policies of the Putin government, People For the American Way Senior Fellow Peter Montgomery spoke with PFAW supporters on an activist teleconference about the destructive export of homophobia by American Religious Right groups and political leaders.
The backlash to the announcement by University of Missouri defensive end and likely NFL draft pick Michael Sam that he is gay is troubling the usual suspects. Anti-gay author Michael Brown is out with a column criticizing Sam’s “selfish act” and suggesting that he should’ve stayed in the closet.
According to Brown, Sam’s “hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women,” which will make “the ‘bromance’ type of close relationships that many players enjoy” impossible since they won’t be “as physical and free with a homosexual teammate.”
But once they have made their announcement, how can everyone be expected to feel completely comfortable? And with the “bromance” type of close relationships that many players enjoy, would they be as physical and free with a homosexual teammate?
And since NFL players are hardly known for their sexual purity—with many notable exceptions—is it homophobic to think that Sam’s hormones might be raging for men the way the other players’ hormones rage for women?
Looked at from another angle, it was more of a selfish act, and not only in the sense that Sam is suddenly a national celebrity. (As of Feb. 10, a Google search for his name yielded more than 3 million hits. Just one week ago, his numbers would have been a fraction of this.) What I mean is that professional football is all about the team, and the focus must be on making a joint sacrifice in order to win rather than drawing attention to oneself.
Why can’t he just play the game, keep his private life private (as many public figures do), and when his career is over, if he wants to tell the whole world he’s gay, he can do so then?
Right on cue, Rush Limbaugh declared that Sam’s announcement is proof that heterosexuals are “under assault,” a claim he made during a rant against the gay “political agenda” that couples as a great example of heterosexual privilege.
The Media Research Center is upset that major broadcast networks “celebrated the announcement” and chided sports commentators for their alleged mistreatment of Tim Tebow in an article that seems to imply that Tebow is the first and only evangelical Christian ever to play for the NFL.
ESPN on Monday was a long parade of congratulatory guests, like columnist Kay Fagan, who used words like “authenticity” and “inclusion.” Fagan ended a rapturous column by saying of Sam, “His truth is now.” (Does homosexuality come with a separate truth? Or do you pay extra, like undercarriage coating?)
Ok, lets simmer down and wait for the backlash. It’ll come. It has to when personal life and philosophy and social issues intersect with the NFL. Here it comes … Er, no? But when Tim Tebow entered the draft he encountered a rain of hate from people worried for the sport, people who resented having to hear about the personal beliefs of “Saint Timmy,” as CBS’s Pete Prisco called him in April, 2010.
Pastor Ron Cantor took to Charisma to warn that Sam’s presence in the locker room “is going to make for an uncomfortable situation.”
Cantor asserts that the truly courageous people are those who are worried about having a gay teammate: “How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.”
Let me just be honest. If I had a job whereby I had to undress and shower several times a week with a roomful of very fit, attractive females—well, let’s just say I would struggle. And that clearly is the concern of heterosexual football players. It is a legitimate issue. I am not an expert, but if someone says to me that they are attracted to men and then are going to see them undressed on an almost daily basis, it is going to make for an uncomfortable situation. Right?
But don’t say it out loud—not unless you are willing to be skewered by the media elites. Oh, wait, too late. Jonathan Vilma of the New Orleans Saints already stated the obvious.
“I think that he would not be accepted as much as we think he would be accepted," Vilma said. "I don’t want people to just naturally assume, like, ‘Oh, we’re all homophobic.’ That’s really not the case. Imagine if he’s the guy next to me and, you know, I get dressed, [bare], taking a shower, the whole nine, and it just so happens he looks at me. How am I supposed to respond?”
Vilma made those completely honest and valid comments a few days ago—before Sam came out. For sure, he will be vilified and called immature. But come on, let’s be honest: No one expects adult men and women to take mass showers together on the job—for the obvious reasons. But Vilma is juvenile and uneducated for not wanting to shower next to an openly gay man?
I wonder if more NFL players will have the courage to speak up. How ironic—in the past it was the homosexual who was afraid to come out. Now it’ll be the guy who doesn’t want to take a shower next to the homosexual who will be shunned and shamed—and he will be told to keep his mouth shut.
It looks as if right-wing grifter Ralph Reed has a new book coming out soon entitled "Awakening: How America Can Turn from Moral and Economic Destruction Back to Greatness."
In an effort to promote the book, Reed has filmed a series of short videos highlighting different aspects of the topics covered in his book, including one that purports to reveal with "real" Barack Obama, whom Reed met back in 1997 when they both served on a Harvard working group tasked with studying "civil engagement and social capital."
Reed says his participation in that working group was "a divine appointment" brought about so that he could meet Obama and discover that he was "the most liberal and the most out of the mainstream politician I had ever met in my career who could be considered viable at the ballot box."
In fact, Reed says, Obama knew this as well, which is why he has used his gift for language "to obscure rather than to reveal who he really was and what he really believed."
"It was really a fog machine," Reed says. "I knew it; unfortunately the rest of the country did not":
Interestingly, we have literally never heard any of this from Reed before. You'd think that if Reed has know this since 1997, he might have been making this case back when Obama was, say, running for the US Senate? Or maybe when he ran for President in back to back national elections?
How is it possible that Reed never brought this up until now?
Perhaps his statement in the video that "I'm not going to give away the story because I want you to get the book" might offer a clue?
Last year, Ben Carson began claiming that he was being targeted by the IRS for publicly criticizing President Obama and he repeated that claim while appearing on a Newsmax broadcast the other day, asserting that not only has he been audited by the IRS, but his friends, family, and associates have all been targeted as well.
"We live in a Gestapo age," Carson said. "People don't realize it":
Just in case you aren’t familiar with Marshall, here is a quick refresher on some of his most extreme positions:
1. Disabled Children Are God’s Punishment For Abortion
At a 2010 press conference attacking Planned Parenthood, Marshall said that “the number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically” because “when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.” He called disabled children a “special punishment” from God on women who have had abortions.
It is no wonder that Marshall sponsored a personhood bill that would ban abortion in call cases along with some forms of birth control, one of several bills he proposed that would curtail abortion rights and contraception coverage.
2. Ban Gay Service Members From The National Guard
He also complained that anti-gay activists are being treated in the same way as Dred Scott.
4. Health Care Reform Is Like Rape
In an attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act, Marshall demanded that Virginia exempt itself from the individual health insurance mandate, warning that health care reform represented “criminal activity” akin to the work of “mobsters.”
“This is a fight over whether you are a citizen or you are a serf,” he said. “It’s not your wallet that they want, it’s your soul, it’s your family.” But Marshall didn’t stop there: “Indeed, the individual mandate is not voluntary commercial intercourse; it is forcible economic rape.”
Marshall has also said that health care reform would “euthanize seniors” and “kill capitalism.”
5. Creating A New Currency
Marshall, fearing an economic collapse, called on Virginia to consider creating its own currency due to the likelihood of “a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System. He said that economic doom may be one result of the 2009 stimulus package, which he said is “as much a chain as ankle bracelets were as to African-Americans in the 1860s in this state...it is a chain of death that we’re not going to escape.”
Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) told Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch last week that he was “stunned” and “shocked” by the president’s speech and was angry that Obama would “insult those who really believe” in the freedom of religion — like him.
Southerland argued that Obama is trying to “trivialize our deeply held beliefs by making statements that are so contrary to his actions and those of his administration.” “It’s the ultimate disrespect,” he said.
On Friday’s edition of Washington Watch, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins got into a debate with a caller over marriage equality, during which Perkins said that gay marriage will turn children into gay, super-sexualized beings who won’t be able to compete in the global economy. Instead of offering credible answers to the caller’s questions, Perkins brushed them aside and repeatedly moved on to his next dubious argument against same-sex marriage.
Perkins responded that it doesn’t matter that polygamy has been considered “natural” throughout different cultures and history “because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best,” and then switched gears to claim that same-sex marriage will jeopardize the country’s prospects “on giving birth to the next generation.”
When the caller replied that people don’t choose to be gay and therefore marriage equality won’t impact America’s fertility rate, Perkins argued that the debate isn’t really about marriage but rather public school classes that teach “kids how to engage in homosexual behavior”…which he said will turn kids gay and harm America’s economic competitiveness with other nations.
Perkins: There’s actually more of a historical basis for polygamy than there’s ever been for same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage has never existed for the last ten years at best.
Caller: Well it is a new thing I’ll grant you that, I understand that the phrasing ‘natural marriage’ is great, it fits really great on a bumper sticker, but I just don’t think it means anything and I’m trying to understand what that’s supposed to mean.
Perkins: How do you plan on giving birth to the next generation?
Caller: That’s the thing, how many same-sex marriages are there out there? What is it, 2 percent, 3 percent of the total number of marriages? I don’t think that we’re going to have to worry about the next generation.
Perkins: But if it’s normative and it’s normal then we would say we would want more of it if it’s beneficial.
Caller: Well no, I don’t think that’s it at all. People don’t suddenly one day decide to become gay, you’re either gay or you’re not. I’ve never met anyone who just scratched their head and went, ‘you know what I think I’m into guys now’ or ‘I think I’m into girls now,’ it just doesn’t happen.
Perkins: …Okay. What does that have to do with marriage? What does that have to do with redefining marriage, redefining the curriculum in our schools?
Caller: Well you’re saying that we have to worry about the next generation, I’m saying that there is a very small portion of the population, probably less than 10 percent, that are gay. I think that the next generation is going to come along whether we want it to or not, it’s not about—
Perkins: No, because what happens when you change and you say heterosexual marriage is the same as homosexual marriage, then you change the curriculum in your schools and you have kids, as a natural part of growing up and developing, they’re curious and they don’t know, and we’re exposing them to even more sexuality and overt sexual messages and we’re telling them, ‘hey experiment.’ And that is what leads, in many cases, to children going down a particular path, is early childhood sexual exposure, sometimes it’s traumatic. And by normalizing that and mainstreaming that, what you will do is you will have more children going down that path and that’s why they want to get this message into our schools.
Caller: I understand your argument but is there any data to support that?
Perkins: What do you mean any data to support it?
Caller: You are saying if you expose children to homosexuality you will have more homosexuals.
Perkins: Well if you sexualize a culture — I can tell you the data is very clear on what’s happened in the last 30 to 40 years where we have inundated young people, children, with sexual messages and they become sexually active. So when you take and mix into that homosexuality and other forms of sexuality into that, yes they are going to move down that path, they are going to engage in what you tell them about. That is why it’s problematic, that is why parents are upset about what is happening in Hawaii and other states that are teaching their kids how to engage in homosexual behavior, or heterosexual for that matter. I don’t want my kids that are 11, 12 and 13 years-old taught how to put on a condom or taught about how to engage in sexual behavior with someone who has HIV in a safe fashion. That is not what the schools should be about. They should be about teaching our kids to read, to write, to engage in science. How do we ever expect to compete globally when we’re fixated on teaching our kids about sex?
When CIA director David Petraeus stepped down from his post after an extramarital affair went public, former general and right-wing activist Jerry Boykin confidently claimed that Petraeus resigned in order to expose an Obama administration scandal surrounding the Benghazi attack.
Boykin, now vice president of the Family Research Council, suggested in 2012 that Petraeus was “held hostage” by administration officials and resigned because “he reached a point where he was unwilling to continue spouting the party line [on Benghazi] to the American public and continuing to breach his own integrity.”
Glenn Beck, who regularly hosts Boykin on the Blaze network, suggested that Petraeus stepped down from the CIA in order to reveal information about the Benghazi attack that could bring down the Obama administration.
But, stunningly, nothing Boykin or Beck said about Petraeus came true. In fact, Petraeus recently cited former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “extraordinarily resolute, determined and controlled” handling of the incident as a reason she would “make a tremendous president.”
“She’d make a tremendous president,” Petraeus says in the new book “HRC” by Jonathan Allen and Aimee Parnes.
And for Petraeus, Exhibit A in why she would be a tremendous president is the very thing for which Republicans most aggressively attack Clinton: her performance as Secretary of State when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked.
“Like a lot of great leaders, her most impressive qualities were most visible during tough times,” Petraeus tells Allen and Parnes. “In the wake of the Benghazi attacks, for example, she was extraordinarily resolute, determined, and controlled.”
Petraeus was director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time of the attacks, which killed four Americans, including two who worked for the CIA and the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.
As Kyle pointed out, the GOP-led House Armed Services Committee released a report today that thoroughlydebunks the conservative conspiracy theories surrounding the Benghazi faux-scandal.
This is more bad news for Boykin, who predicted that the House would uncover a massive scandal and pressed Speaker Boehner into launching additional investigations. With his conspiracy theory unraveling, Boykin is even implicating Boehner in the Benghazi “cover-up” since the House investigations have failed to discover the “scandal” he is trying to find.
But don’t expect conservative pundits like Beck and Boykin to reconsider or retract any of their outrageous and delusional Benghazi claims that don’t hold any merit outside of the right-wing echo chamber.
On today's "Pray In Jesus Name" program, "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt read from a press release sent out by retired military chaplains who are outraged by the acceptance of homosexuality within the military:
Before civilizations crumble, the last thing to hit the fan is government-sponsored, government-forced, homosexuality, sodomy, and pedophilia. Homosexuality is a psychiatric disorder and probably the worst sin described in the Holy Bible due to the permanent damage caused to what was or is or might have been a temple of the Spirit. The consequences are said to be nothing short of eternal damnation, by choice. It's a shame that the US military, historically known to be a beacon of morality and religious tolerance and freedom, while the civilian sector has engaged in immorality, is now having its nose shoved in the dirt of filth to make the Sinners-in-Chief in the highest echelons of politics--the perverts, the pedophiles, and the psychiatrically ill--feel better about themselves.
While Klingenschmitt did not read that part of the insane rant on air, he did approvingly read a quote from Chaplain John R. Kauffman who mirrored the insane ravings of Patrick Wooden when he asserted that "homosexuality is a combat divider" because it results in gay soldiers "taking breaks on the combat field to change diapers all because their treacherous sin causes them to lose control of their bowels."
“It’s a travesty,” Judge Roy Moore told WND on Monday about the move toward judiciary-imposed same-sex “marriages.” “The courts are exercising wrongful authority over this country.”
He said it was no less than the U.S. Supreme Court itself which, in an earlier ruling, said, “We come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.”
“If marriage falls,” he said, “the institution of family upon which it is based falls.”
Then, he said, “We no longer have a Constitution. We have a government of individual men who have the power to decide what the Constitution means … .”
The Religious Right group Moore founded, the Foundation for Moral Law, has posted the letter and resolution, “The Marriage Preservation Amendment to the United States Constitution,” [PDF] that Moore sent to the nation’s governors pleading with them to initiate a convention of states.
Today, Glenn Beck's website, The Blaze, reported that the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee is set to release a report on the 2012 attack in Benghazi that concludes that the military was never ordered to "stand down" during the attack and refrain from attempting to help Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the others who were killed in the attack:
A House committee formally concluded for the first time that there was no military “stand down” order given on the night of the deadly terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya.
It’s a finding that one committee aide acknowledged to TheBlaze, “some people are going to be upset about.” The allegation that the military was told to stand down on aiding the Americans in Benghazi has long been used to accuse the Obama administration of not doing enough to save the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and others during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.
The Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, however, concluded in its new report that no such order was given; rather, Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, then-head of the site security team at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, was ordered by higher commanders to remain in Tripoli, lest another attack take place there as part of a larger coordinated assault.
“The term ‘stand down’ means different things to different people. To someone in uniform, it means you are to do nothing … that is not the direction that Lt. Col. Gibson was given,” the committee aide told TheBlaze.
Among those who are probably "going to be upset" about this finding is none other than Glenn Beck himself, who has spent over a year repeatedly accusing President Obama of refusing to help those at the compound and intentionally letting them die, weeping on camera that such callous indifference on the part of the President means that "today officially is the day that I no longer recognize my country":
We'd also like to point out that, during one of his previous Benghazi rants, Beck declared that anyone who would repeat demonstrably false statements regardless of that facts about a situation like this is a pathological liar with "deep psychological problems."
Laurie Higgins of the American Family Association-affiliated Illinois Family Institute is a big fan of Russia’s “gay propaganda” law, and she writes today that the United States should impose a similar law here in order to restrict the work of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
She claims that GLSEN is behind the “censorship” of anti-gay views, because apparently bigotry is needed in schools for the sake of balance, and urges the US to adopt a Russia-style propaganda law in order to curb GLSEN’s “totalitarian” grip over schools.
Google’s recent “doodle” announces to the world that Google is gaga over homosexuality-affirming propaganda for minors. Google’s doodle pokes a virtual rainbow-colored flag in the eye of Russian president Vladimir Putin for signing into law a bill that protects minors from homosexuality-affirming propaganda. A financial blockbuster of a company with roots in the country founded to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty” pro-actively endorses the propagandizing of children while a corrupt totalitarian cockalorum opposes it. Curiouser and curiouser.
The fanciful notion that having “two mommies” is ontologically and morally indistinguishable from having a mother and a father is not a fact. Presenting that non-fact to, for example, five-year-olds in government schools is propaganda. And presenting this non-fact to children is not a loving act even if it “feels” good to “educators” who don’t think about or discuss the issue deeply.
Exposing minors to homosexuality-affirming propaganda is nowhere more troubling than in our public schools where neither children nor teachers are encouraged to study in depth all sides of issues related to homosexuality. Quite the contrary. Curricula and supplementary resources and activities are controlled by “progressive” dogma, the kind of dogma promulgated by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). (Privately, “progressive” teachers actually scoff at the suggestion that there are sides other than theirs worthy of study.)
Ask any conservative public school teachers if their colleagues or administrators ever present resources that challenge “progressive” ideas about homosexuality in professional development meetings. And ask them if they feel as free to express their moral and political beliefs in faculty meetings (or in the classroom) as their “progressive” colleagues do.
“Agents of change,” secure in their tenured positions in public schools, share a certain esprit de corps with totalitarian regimes. They all hatch plans sub rosa to control the beliefs of others. Unfortunately, those victims—I mean, students—happen to be other people’s minor children.
Until our publicly subsidized educators relinquish their white-knuckled grip on curricula with their de facto enforcement of censorship, perhaps we need an anti-propagandizing-to-minors law.
Glenn Beck watched the film "The Monuments Men" over the weekend and he seemed to like it ... but it was sort of hard to tell because the segment he spent reviewing it today on his radio program consisted primarily of him blaming "progressives" for the Holocaust.
Beck said the film made his blood boil because it never discussed the fact that President Franklin Roosevelt cared about saving works of art but made no effort to stop the Nazis from murdering millions of Jews because he, like progressives then and now, "are all anti-Jewish."
"Forget about the art," Beck bellowed. "What about the people? What happened to be the people? No, we didn't care. We didn't care. Progressives didn't care and so all of those Jews died. We could have stopped them. Instead of Monuments Men, how about Auschwitx Men, how about Dachau Men? Why didn't we do that? Because they didn't care ... They were all anti-Jewish, just as much as they're anti-Jewish now":
As we mentioned earlier, anti-immigrant activist William Gheen appeared on VCY America last week to denounce immigrants as cancerous tumors that need to be locked away in prisons. But the Nativist leader of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) didn’t stop there. He went on to say that immigration reform represents a “national rape.”
Gheen warned that a reform law would give voting rights to well over “20 million illegal immigrants voting in elections, backed up by the next 10-20 million that are going to pour through our ripped-open borders right after that,” undermining the political clout of “center-right Americans.”
“Immigration reform, it sounds so pleasant, but the truth of the matter is that people that have no regard and in some cases antipathy towards the citizens of the United States are controlling these mediums and their way of dealing with us, instead of using tanks or bombs, is to flood this country with people that will replace us in our jobs, homes and ballot boxes,” he said.
The truth, in my opinion after studying this for nine years, is that the purpose of the amnesty is to permanently destroy the borders of the United States, to permanently destroy the type of, what they would call, Nativist or nationalistic tendency for us to want to have borders and to protect those borders or for the American public and American workers and American taxpayers to have any say on the numbers of people that are coming into the country or what role they will have. I call it a national rape and I’m not being flippant about that, I really see it as that.
If illegal immigrants are ever rewarded in any form or fashion with citizenship and voting rights, it is all over. There is no way that you, me and the rest of the center-right Americans can ever compete with 20 million illegal immigrants voting in elections, backed up by the next 10-20 million that are going to pour through our ripped-open borders right after that. You don’t have to be a soothsayer or some type of clairvoyant to be able to tell the future here people, we have the past which has led us to this point.
There are groups that are supporting this that look really legitimate because you turn on the TV and it’s John Boehner and it’s the president, walking out for the State of the Union, everybody is clapping, the cameras are running, the show is going and it all looks real legitimate as the president walks about the surrender of the United States. Immigration reform, it sounds so pleasant, but the truth of the matter is that people that have no regard and in some cases antipathy towards the citizens of the United States are controlling these mediums and their way of dealing with us, instead of using tanks or bombs, is to flood this country with people that will replace us in our jobs, homes and ballot boxes.
Just to be clear about what he meant, Gheen threw in additional racially coded language, arguing that “traditional Americans, like those that have been here for hundreds of years in descendancy, will no longer govern our own nation” as a result of immigration reform.
He even made the utterly baseless claims that thousands of Americans are killed by undocumented immigrants each year and that such immigrants are responsible for nine million lost jobs.
Illegal immigration is leading to many thousands of Americans dead each year that are killed by drunk driving illegal immigrants, gang member illegal immigrants; illegal immigrants engaged in other types of activities end up killing Americans that would be alive today if our border were secured and our immigration laws were adequately enforced as Americans expect them to be and other countries do that. Then we have over nine million jobs lost and billions of dollars’ worth of wage depreciation.
We’ve got billionaires like George Soros and the US Chamber of Commerce and Chinese and Saudi national wealth funds all driving this plan to merge the United States with the broader powers at be around us in a way that is outside the Constitution, in defiance of existing federal law, costing the lives of thousands of Americans, ruining the lives of millions of Americans and eventually will lead to a situation where traditional Americans, like those that have been here for hundreds of years in descendancy, will no longer govern our own nation. Apparently we don’t now since we have these existing immigration laws that are not being enforced.
Last week, William Gheen of Americans of Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) spoke to Jim Schneider of VCY America, where he recommended that the government treat undocumented immigrants in the same way that doctors fight a cancerous tumor.
We believe that the first thing we do is like when somebody has cancer. Not to dehumanize illegal immigrants, but a lot of times doctors will start to shrink the tumor before they start operating. So we need to shrink the tumor. We need to make it to a point where people start leaving the country and they go back to Mexico and they go back to Brazil and they say ‘you know what, I tried to break into the United States like all the other guys did, but I couldn’t get a job, I couldn’t get a license, I couldn’t get food stamps, so I came back.’ That is what turns off the flow.
Later in the broadcast, a caller insisted that President Obama “should order them all [undocumented immigrants] to be put into a prison camp and fed oatmeal for breakfast, lunch and supper, and water, and that’s all until they want to go home; anybody coming across the border be shot as soon as they cross the border, as soon as they cross the border they’ll be shot.”
Gheen said that he disagreed with shooting immigrants, but noted “a lot of people want lethal force authorized at the border.” He did, however, agree with her other suggestion: “Locking up illegal immigrants for a while and feeding them some oatmeal before you can get them back home? Yeah, we’re for that.”
Just last week on his "Pray In Jesus Name" program, "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt declared that people who are not going to Heaven should not be entitled to receive equal protection and treatment from the government. This was especially alarming considering that Klingenschmitt is currently running for office in Colorado, seeking to become a member of the state legislature.
So we were a little confused when we came across a video that Klingenschmitt recently posted on his campaign website announcing that the reason he is running for office is "to oppose a theocracy" that the Democrats are supposedly trying to implement in the state.
Complaining that the state's civil unions bill does not have a religious exemption, Klingenschmitt asked voters to "send at least one person to the state legislature who is an ordained minister," vowing that he would defend the religious liberties of Christians from the Democrats' attempt to impose a theocracy upon them.
"I'm running to oppose a theocracy," Klingenschmitt said. "The Democrats are the ones pushing a theocracy on us":
The anti-gay pastor points to no evidence besides his own hunch video that several of the assaults seen in such video are likely staged as part of a larger “hoax.”
In an article today on BarbWire, a website run by Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber, Lively writes:
Last Fall, on behalf of pro-family advocates here in the United States and Canada, I sent a letter to President Vladimir Putin thanking his government for passing a law protecting Russian children from “gay” propaganda. In that letter I offered this warning:
In readying your society to recognize and counter the efforts of the militant gay movement it is important to understand that their propaganda and policies adhere invariably to the narrative that all disapproval of homosexuality leads inevitably to hatred, violence and murder of homosexuals. All of the pro-homosexual policies in the United States and Europe rest on this unstated and unchallenged but fictional premise. Thus, the homosexualist movement is not simply seeking social tolerance, or acceptance, but political power and control. They want the power to stamp out all disapproval of homosexuality in your society and to compel every citizen (especially the youth) to embrace the view that homosexual conduct is good and normal….In the coming months and years Russia and Her people will be increasingly portrayed by emotion laden and abusive hyperbole as bigoted haters, intent on exterminating homosexuals.
The Human Rights Watch video, released to coincide with the opening of he [sic] Sochi Olympics is fulfillment of my prophecy. I predict more will follow.
I have one final, very important point to make in this article. I am NOT saying all of the incidents described the video are fakes.
While it is true that “gay” activists are masters of public deception, and their ranks include not just veteran political propagandists but also billionaires like George Soros and movie producer David Geffin — with the capability of staging any possible scenario flawlessly – I believe some of the incidents depicted on the film are probably real.
But that begs the question, who are these perps? Q. What sort of men go out of their way to find and harass effeminate “gay” men on the public streets? A. They are, literally, NAZIs! Ultra-Macho Nationalists, of which Russia has many. Q. And who makes up a significant part of the Nationalist movement everywhere in the world through all of modern history? A. Masculine oriented homosexual men of the very same sort that created the Nazi Party of Germany.
So in conclusion, I say the Human Rights Watch video is just another piece of deceptive Machiavellian “gay” propaganda, offered to prove the completely false narrative that all disapproval of homosexuality leads to hatred and murder. Whether or not any parts of the video are unstaged, the product as a whole is perpetrating a hoax.
Do not be fooled. The “gays” are not the victims, at least not as a class. In stories like this they are usually the bullies beating up each other (or themselves) on and off camera, sometimes by consent, to dupe the public into granting them collective “victim status,” with all of the extensive social and political benefits that entails.
If the producers of this video really want to depict violence against “gays” they should turn their cameras inward.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) continues to impress with her incredible ability to make egregiouslyfalsestatements, this time arguing that Secretary of State John Kerry is supporting war against Israel. Kerry recently suggested that if Mideast peace talks collapse, Israel could face increasing economic boycotts or possibly a third Palestinian uprising. Kerry wasn’t advocating such actions but simply said that such events could occur if negotiations fail.
Israel’s own Justice Minister said that Kerry’s statement “does not constitute a threat to the State of Israel, but rather defines reality as it is,” and its finance minister offered a similar warning of growing boycotts if the peace process falters.
But in an interview with Family Research Council head Tony Perkins on Washington Watch on Friday, Bachmann argued that Kerry was actually calling for boycotts and violence against Israel.
“President Obama and John Kerry have preferred Iran” over Israel, Bachmann told Perkins. “At the same time while the United States is giving a free pass to Iran, our Secretary of State is rattling a saber and effectively calling for an economic war against our greatest ally Israel. It doesn’t make any sense.”
“They can’t have it both ways, they can’t say that they are pro-Israel and stand with Israel while calling for actual war and economic war against Israel, or at least suggesting it as such.”
Later this month, a Religious Right gathering is scheduled to take place in Texas called "San Antonio in Black, White, and Brown" which, as the name suggests, is aimed at unifying the White, Black, and Hispanic communities in order to establish a "Biblical worldview" in the city:
David Barton and Harry Jackson will be among the speakers at this event, sharing the stage with several other figures who played high-profile roles in Gov. Rick Perry's Dominionist-dominated "The Response" prayer rally back in 2011, including Doug Stringer and, more interestingly, Alice Patterson of Justice At The Gates.
In fact, Patterson wrote a whole book about it which I have just finished reading called "Bridging the Racial and Political Divide: How Godly Politics Can Transform a Nation" in which mentions how she went to hear Chuck Pierce speak in Louisiana where he preached on "Saul Structures" at which points she realized that the Democratic Party is "an invisible network of evil comprising an unholy structure" that is, quite literally, controlled by demonic forces:
As Chuck described Saul Structures, my thoughts raced to politics. "Oh my God, Chuck is describing the Democratic Party!" This was the first time I'd ever considered that an evil structure could be connected to and empowered by a political party ... One strong fallen angel cannot wreak havoc on an entire nation by himself. He needs a network of wicked forces to restrain the Church and to deceive the masses. Unlike the Holy Spirit, who is everywhere at once and can speak to millions of people simultaneously, the devil can only be in one place at a time. By himself Satan would be totally ineffective, but in cooperation with other powers of darkness he erects structures to deceive and manipulate entire nations ... At the time I was listening to Chuck Pierce in Louisiana, I hadn't given any thought at all to strongholds in political parties. If I had ever thought about it, of course, it would have made sense, but it was new information. As Chuck's words began to sink in, I asked the "Lord, Father, what is the demonic structure behind the Democratic Party?"
Patterson goes on to explain that "the demonic structure behind the Democratic Party" is in fact "the Jezebel structure" which is rooted in long-ago Democratic support for slavery and which remains today because of the party's support for reproductive and gay rights.