Fighting the Right

Dinesh D'Souza Producer Claims Obama Wants To 'Lock Up' Opponents

Conservative activist and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza pled guilty today to violating campaign finance law by making straw donations to a Republican U.S. Senate candidate. Earlier reports had indicated that D’Souza knew he was breaking the law and planned to initially plead not guilty “to get his story out there.

“I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids. I deeply regret my conduct,” he said today.

But Gerald Molen, who served as a producer for D’Souza’s anti-Obama films “2016” and “America” is still insisting that D’Souza was wrongly prosecuted by an administration that wants to throw its rivals in jail.

“This administration doesn’t see its opponents as dissenters but as enemies, and if they can’t refute you, they try to lock you up,” he said.

“Normally these types of offenses are resolved with fines or community service. I and the American people will be watching closely to make sure that justice is done in the sentencing portion.”

In January, Molen’s response to D’Souza’s indictment also was blunt.

“When Dinesh D’Souza can be prosecuted for making a movie, every American should ask themselves one question: ‘What will I do to preserve the First Amendment?’” Molen, the producer of “2016: Obama’s America,” told WND at the time.



Molen told WND in January that the prosecution of D’Souza “is the equivalent of prosecuting a political dissident in the Soviet Union for jay-walking.” “Yes, jaywalking in the Soviet Union is a crime, but it’s a minor crime. The real point is that you are a political dissenter and the government wants to put you away,” he said.



“This is not the America we grew up in,” Molen said at the time. “In the America I treasured, a president would go out of his way to protect those who disagreed with the president’s policy. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.”

Operation American Spring Leader Announces 'Phase II' Of Plan To Overthrow Obama

Last time Operation American Spring leader Harry Riley stopped by “The Alan Colmes Show,” he told Colmes that he was expecting a “gigantic, massive rally” that would “field about 10 to 20 million people in Washington, D.C. and we’re going to close it down.” In another interview, Riley guaranteed a “verified, validated” minimum of 10 million attendees ready to overthrow President Obama.

Of course, just over one hundred or so people ultimately showed up for the event, although one speaker put the figure at “four or five hundred people.”

But in an interview with Colmes last night, Riley said that thousands of people were present: “I think we probably had three or four thousand the first day.” He later added that “probably 1,000” activists are still on the National Mall pushing for Obama’s removal from office.

Declaring the event to be a success, Riley said Operation American Spring is now entering a second phase in its plan to oust President Obama and top administration officials.

“We’re still in that process, we were in a mobilization phase, now we’re in phase II of exercising our strength and length of phase.”

We actually stopped by the National Mall on Saturday, the second day of Operation American Spring, and found fewer than ten OAS supporters present.

Including these activists, who seemed to be leaving.

As Candidate For Congress, Ted Yoho Suggested Limiting The Right To Vote To Property Owners

Recently unearthed footage of Rep. Ted Yoho speaking at Berean Baptist Church in Ocala, Florida, during his candidacy for Congress in the 2012 election cycle shows the Republican politician suggesting that only property owners should have the right to vote.

“I’ve had some radical ideas about voting and it’s probably not a good time to tell them, but you used to have to be a property owner to vote,” he said to applause.

He also called early voting through absentee ballots “a travesty” and hailed Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s move — since rescinded — to significantly reduce early voting from 14 days to eight, saying Scott’s plan didn’t go far enough. “I think it needs to be cut less than that,” he said.

Later in the event, an audience member asked Yoho about the Bilderberger Group, the center of a popular conspiracy theory. The audience member claimed the group “wants to take us down,” and asked, “What do you think our chances are in the next two years of being able to vote?”

“That’s a scary question and that’s one of the reasons I’m running for Congress, because I fear for this country,” Yoho replied. “I grew up believing in the American dream, I’m a product of the American dream, no one gave my wife and I anything…we worked our tail off and we didn’t expect anything from the government.” (In fact, Yoho has admitted that he and his wife at one point “went on food stamps.”)

He added: “If we don’t do anything in two and a half years, it’s a scary thought, if you start reading some of the stuff I’ve been reading, you’re like, this is all by designs, it sounds like a conspiracy.”

Yoho had a similar response to the next questioner who inquired about why he is running for Congress: “I fear for the country, two and a half years from now we may not be able to vote.”

Glenn Beck Lashes Out At Those Attacking Liberty U For Allowing Him To Speak

Last month, Glenn Beck was invited to deliver a Convocation message at Liberty University where, in addition to delivering a prophetic message that God was coming to settle scores, he also preached Mormon theology, which did not sit well with certain Religious Right activists, such as Janet Mefferd.

On his radio broadcast today, Beck lashed out at "people who claim to be followers of Christ" in "the so-called Christian Right" who are attacking Liberty U for allowing him to speak, saying that they are progressives and "there is no difference between you and the people who are trying to run other people out of the square."

"You think you're standing for something," Beck said, "when indeed you're standing for hate and bigotry":

Gun Owners of America Speculates Obama Buying Weapons To Prepare For 'Confrontation With American Citizens'

Gun Owners of America spokesman Mike Hammond told the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow today that federal agencies are buying weapons because “the federal government is anticipating and preparing for confrontation with American citizens.”

Hammond was responding to a Brietbart report that the Department of Agriculture was soliciting for a contract for submachine guns. The story is similar to the undying conspiracy theory that the Department of Homeland Security solicited a stockpile of ammunition for nefarious ends . Hammond’s boss, Larry Pratt, speculated to extremist radio host Pete Santilli that the routine purchase was in fact part of President Obama’s plot to build a private army to overpower the U.S. military.

A Second Amendment advocate has a theory about why the U.S. Department of Agriculture is buying body armor and submachine guns.

Mike Hammond, legislative council to Gun Owners of America, says it follows a pattern of other federal agencies that seem to be preparing for war – against us.

"We suspect that the federal government is anticipating and preparing for confrontation with American citizens," he says, wondering aloud if President Obama is preparing for a dictatorship.

"What are the characteristics of a dictatorship?" Hammond asks rhetorically. "An individual who is bound not by the law, but by his own desires and his own goals. And that may be where we are now."

In an online story with more than 6,000 comments, Breitbart.com reported that the USDA put in a solicitation for lightweight submachine guns on May 7.

Still, Hammond wonders if the USDA closely watched the Cliven Bundy confrontation, when armed American citizens faced off against Bureau of Land Management agents in Nevada in past weeks.

The Department of Agriculture, like many federal agencies, has an investigative and law enforcement division. Agents of the DOA’s investigative division have since 1981 [pdf] had the authority to “conduct investigations of significant criminal activities involving USDA programs, operations, and personnel, and are authorized to make arrests, execute warrants, and carry firearms.”

These law enforcement divisions – which can be the subject of an honest debate that GOA is clearly not interested in having – have been growing steadily since the 1970s, long before Obama was president.

Tea Party Nation Wants Michael Sam's 'Nauseating' Kiss Off TV

Yesterday, Tea Party Nation president Judson Phillips sent members a column from his group’s website titled “Too Much Gay Everything,” which criticizes the media’s treatment of Michael Sam’s “nauseating” and “lugubrious” kiss.

The author, conservative activist Alan Caruba, writes that his anti-gay prejudice “is based on biology and history” and that “being gay is not normal.”

As is typical in anti-gay columns, Caruba goes on to warn that schools are promoting homosexuality and that “anyone with a handful of functioning brain cells” opposes legalizing same-sex marriage.

I like to think of myself as a tolerant person. I have, however, one prejudice that is based on biology and history.

Michael Sam, the first openly gay professional football prospect, made history when he was filmed by an ESPN crew giving his lover, Vito Cammisano, a long, lugubrious kiss to celebrate being selected in the National Football League draft on May 10th. The sight of two men kissing passionately was not something I and a lot of other folks wanted to see.

A spokesman for GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination, called the kiss “a significant milestone”, describing it as “touching.” No it wasn’t. It was nauseating to any heterosexual having to witness it or explain it to their children. We need to understand that being gay is not normal. Biologically, species exist because the male and female genders exist for the purpose of procreation and propagation.

Historically, gays have been held in disdain in every era of civilization. Today in the Islamic Middle East you can be killed for being gay, but you can also be killed for being Christian. In the West both actions are an abomination.



I don’t want to hear much about gays for any reason. The kiss was not something I would want young people to see on television or anywhere else. The bigger problem is that our younger generation, progressing through our schools, is being systematically taught to accept homosexuality as just another version of normality.



Being a youngster of any age is stressful enough, but being young and gay just adds to the stress and someone should tell them they will live with that for the rest of their lives.

Most certainly parents do not send their children to our public schools to learn about homosexuality, bisexuality, or being transgendered.

What a very large portion of the heterosexual population objects to is the appalling and aggressive effort of the homosexual minority to redefine marriage. Anyone with a handful of functioning brain cells knows that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage is an assault on the traditional, historical and global understanding of marriage, the keystone of any society.

Janet Mefferd Praises Matt Barber For Getting Christian Publisher Booted From NRB

When HGTV cancelled the planned reality show featuring David and Jason Benham after we wrote a post exposing their anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-Islam activism, right-wing radio host Janet Mefferd was absolutely furious, calling us a "nasty, vicious, Christian-hating hack site" that lied about the Benhams and "needs to be sued for libel, defamation."

While Mefferd was fuming that our post was just the latest example of the "out-of-control power of the LGBT agenda to smear and marginalize decent Christians and force them out of their jobs," Matt Barber was engaged in a campaign (with the support of Mefferd, no less) against the Christian publishing company WaterBrook Multnomah over a book entitled "God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships" by Matthew Vines that was published by a sister imprint.

As we noted last week, as a result of this book, Waterbrook Multnomah has now been forced to resign from the National Religious Broadcasters and so, of course, Mefferd had Barber on her radio show yesterday where she congratulated him on his success:

Mefferd: I'm going to go a little off the reservation for a second here and congratulate you because, last week, the National Religious Broadcasters decided that it would pressure Waterbrook Multnomah to put up or leave the organization over this issue of "God and the Gay Christian" and they ended up resigning from the NRB and I give you credit because you broke that story.

Barber: Well thanks Janet and that is good news. And I'm glad that Waterbrook Multnomah at least is stepping back. At least they've done what they needed to do here and they resigned from an organization that recognizes Biblical truth and intends to remain faithful to Biblical truth. And since Waterbrook Multnomah has kind of, you talked about going off the reservation, since they've gone completely off the Biblical reservation on the issue of sexual morality, it's good that they're at least stepping out and they can be a liberal, pro-homosexual, pseudo-Christian organization to their hearts content.

Mefferd: Yep, that's right. So anyway, you were the man so I wanted to give you the credit for having a big impact. That was awesome.

To recap: when Barber broke a story that ended up getting Waterbrook Multnomah forced out of the NRB for being too pro-gay, "that was awesome" ... but when we broke a story that resulted in two anti-gay activists losing their television show, that was part of a "nasty, vicious" agenda that seeks to destroy anyone who dares to disagree.

WorldNetDaily Pundit Wants To Put Obama In Jail

Recognizing that the process of impeaching and removing President Obama from office is a “dead end,” far-right WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Wheeler suggests today that Republican politicians move instead to prosecute the president for purportedly violating the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause.

“All patriots now have the opportunity to actively encourage Republican governors to have their state prosecute the president,” Wheeler writes. If successful, “Mr. Obama can be thrown out of office and go to jail.”

There are many barriers to impeachment. First is, you need Congress to do it. The invertebrates who run the GOP don’t have the spine for it. Second, impeachment is merely the indictment, issued by a House majority. That’s a many month-long arduous process. The actual trial is held by the Senate. Even if the GOP gains majority this November, it will be nowhere near the 67 votes to convict required by the Constitution.

So impeachment is a dead end. We need a law – a federal law on the books that bypasses Congress and for which you do not need the Justice Department to prosecute. It turns out there is just such a law. Here’s the law’s background.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, of the United States Constitution states:

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

This is the “Power of the Purse” clause, which Article I, Section 7, Clause 1, makes clear is exclusively held by the House:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”



But how do you enforce this power? Here is what may well be the single most important question to ask in America today:

Given that the current President of the United States is determined to bypass the House’s appropriation authority and spend gigantic sums on whatever programs he wants or enforcing whatever executive orders he issues, is there an enforcement mechanism for his violating the power of the purse clauses in the Constitution?

The answer is yes. There is a federal law that specifically codifies the power of the purse clauses and provides specific punishment for their violation by any “officer or employee of the United States government.”

This punishment is “suspension from duty without pay or removal from office,” and up to two years in federal prison.



Mr. Obama needs to be prosecuted in violation of the Antideficiency Act. He can be criminally prosecuted, per §1350, for knowingly and willfully violating it.



If a State, at the direction of its governor and attorney general, initiated criminal proceedings against the president as an officer and employee of the United States government for willfully violating the Antideficiency Act, the case per the Original Jurisdiction clause, must bypass all lower courts and go directly to the Supremes.

The opportunity is there on a platinum platter for Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Or Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Or any GOP governor wanting to fire up his 2016 presidential ambitions with rocket fuel.



We have the Constitution and the specific federal law to put an end to the tyranny. It’s time to go on offense. All patriots now have the opportunity to actively encourage Republican governors to have their state prosecute the president and to help conservative law firms build their case.

The Antideficiency Act is the means by which Mr. Obama can be thrown out of office and go to jail. Let’s use it.

William Gheen: 'If You Don’t Respect The Boundaries Of Countries, Why Would You Respect Boundaries Of Other People Sexually?'

William Gheen isn’t saying “that every illegal immigrant is a rapist or murderer,” but he does have to ask: “If you don’t respect boundaries of countries, why would you respect boundaries of other people sexually or anything else?”

The Americans for Legal Immigration PAC founder was a guest on LA’s “McIntyre in the Morning” May 14 to discuss his recent interview with the LA Times about efforts to make it easier for undocumented immigrants to obtain professional licenses.

Gheen argued to host Doug McIntyre that a very small number of undocumented immigrants “were brought here as little bitty babies” and that the rest “made a choice to invade this country, break in here, disrespect our laws, disrespect borders.”

“If you don’t respect boundaries of countries, why would you respect boundaries of other people sexually or anything else?” he asked.

Gheen has long sought to paint undocumented immigrants as innately criminal, an effort that was given a boost last week by a hugely flawed report from the Center for Immigration Studies .

Gheen: A very, very small percentage of the millions of illegal immigrants in California and across the country were brought here as little bitty babies across the border. But that’s what they do to try to say, ‘Oh, look, here’s a person that had no choice whatsoever over this.’ Ninety-nine percent of the illegal immigrants walking around in this country made a choice to invade this country, break in here, disrespect our laws, disrespect borders. And you have to understand, boundaries and borders are very important because when you’ve got a person who’s willing to – you know, 99.9 percent of Americans do not go out there violating the boundaries.

McIntyre: Well, if you don’t have control of your borders, you’re not a nation. It’s that simple.

Gheen: If you don’t respect boundaries of countries, why would you respect boundaries of other people sexually or anything else? And that doesn’t mean that every illegal immigrant is a rapist or murderer.

McIntire: Yeah, we know that.

Gheen : We have a lot of people who are being killed.

Larry Klayman Is Determined 'To Get The Truth' On Whether Obama Is 'Blackmailing' John Roberts

Larry Klayman may have absolutely no evidence to prove that President Obama used NSA surveillance to blackmail Chief Justice John Roberts into writing the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the Affordable Care Act, but the conservative legal activist claims he is just asking the question and pledges to “get the truth on this.”

And if Obama is (maybe) blackmailing Roberts, Klayman said in an interview with WorldNetDaily radio host Aaron Klein this weekend, then you know Hillary Clinton will probably take it to the next level.

“Unfortunately, there’s no way to sue the Supreme Court for decisions that it makes. There should be, and there should be a way to remove these justices for making decisions like that,” explained Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch who now heads Freedom Watch.

“But let’s take this possibility: Why did Chief Justice Roberts at the eleventh hour change his decision? He was going to side with the other justices and find that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Is it something that was dug up on him by the NSA or the CIA? Was that used against him to blackmail him?

“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing], and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA. It can happen in a democracy. So that may help explain it, and perhaps we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA cases. I intend to get the truth on this.”



“If the government wants to destroy you, it has to access the information that it can use to do it, and that’s why this is so frightening. [It has] a greater capability than King George III had in 1776. The tyranny is greater today than it was at the time of the American Revolution.”

Regarding the status of the legal cases against government spying, Klayman said, “The bottom line is this: Our so-called government is trying to delay final adjudication of the constitutionality of the CIA and NSA’s programs, and as a ruse, President Obama is claiming he wants to make modifications to those programs. They’re not modifications at all.”

Klayman also said it’s not just the Obama administration citizens should be concerned about.

“Can you imagine Hillary Clinton having the power to use this?” he asked.

GOP Senate Candidate Offers Chance To Win A Handgun AND Meet Extremist Gun Activist Larry Pratt

South Carolina State Sen. Lee Bright, who’s vying to defeat U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham in next month’s Republican primary was a pioneer in this year’s trend of conservative candidates giving away guns as campaign gimmicks. Back in January, Bright’s campaign raffled off an AR-15. And today, Bright’s supporters will get the opportunity to win a handgun…with the extra bonus of hearing a speech from Gun Owners of America director and Bright endorser Larry Pratt.

In case you need a refresher on Pratt.

Tony Perkins Twists Politico's 'Battleground Poll' To Claim 'Majority Of Americans Oppose Redefining Marriage'

Religious Right leaders Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer commissioned a poll last month of Republican and Republican-leaning voters which found, unsurprisingly, that most Republicans oppose marriage equality. Bauer, while speaking on Perkins’ radio show the next day, predictably misrepresented the poll and pointed to it as proof that “most Americans” are against legalizing same-sex marriage.

Today, Perkins tweeted that a “majority of Americans oppose redefining marriage,” linking to a new Politico poll.

Perkins, of course, fails to grasp that the poll is not a national survey, unlike the many national surveys that show majority support for the freedom to marry.

In fact, the poll surveys 867 likely voters in only certain areas of the country, namely “states with competitive Senate elections” and “competitive House districts.”

Likely voters were surveyed in the following states with competitive Senate elections: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia.

Additionally, likely voters were surveyed in the following competitive House districts: Arizona-01, Arizona-02, Arizona-09, Arkansas-02, Arkansas-04, California-07, California-10, California-21, California-25, California-26, California-31, California-36, California-52, Colorado-06, Connecticut-05, Florida-02, Florida-13, Florida-18, Florida-26, Georgia-12, Illinois-10, Illinois-11, Illinois-12, Illinois-13, Illinois-17, Indiana-02, Iowa-01, Iowa-03, Maine-02, Massachusetts-06, Michigan-01, Michigan-04, Michigan-07, Michigan-08, Michigan-11, Minnesota-02, Minnesota-07, Minnesota-08, Montana-AL, Nebraska-02, Nevada-03, Nevada-04, New Hampshire-01, New Hampshire-02, New Jersey-02, New Jersey-03, New Mexico-02, New York-01, New York-11, New York-18, New York-19, New York-21, New York-23, New York-24, North Carolina-07, Ohio-06, Ohio-14, Oregon-05, Pennsylvania-06, Pennsylvania-08, Texas-23, Utah-04, Virginia-02, Virginia-10, West Virginia-01, West Virginia-02, West Virginia-03 and Wisconsin-06.

Operation American Spring Boasts Of 'Enormous' Crowd Of Tens Of People

Operation American Spring protesters are still hoping to overthrow President Obama with their ever-dwindling rally on the National Mall, which even at its highest point on Friday came about 9,999,900 people short of its guarantee of 10 million attendees. More videos of the rally keep emerging.

In a video posted today by pastor Wiley Drake — the Southern Baptist preacher who has prayed for Obama’s death — a speaker calls the Obama administration “the most criminal government in the history of the world” and demands Congress “get rid of that tyrant in the White House.”

Then another activist posing as “the usurper Barack Hussein Obama” chants “hope and change” and sings “I’m so in love with you” to the crowd, which shouts back “Pakistan!” and “Kenya!”

On Friday, right-wing radio host Erik Rush—who has been promoting Operation American Spring for months—hosted Mike Volin of “Birther Report,” who told Rush that “this crowd is enormous and it’s growing as I speak.”

Rush later spoke with Operation American Spring’s chief organizer, Harry Riley, who said that he still expects “millions of individual citizens to come flocking in here and to stand and lock arms with us.”

Understanding The Benham Family's Expression Of Love

On Friday, Alan Colmes interviewed David and Jason Benham about the on-going controversy over the cancellation of their HGTV program due to their anti-gay, anti-choice, and anti-Islam activism.

For the last two weeks, the Benham brothers have been complaining that they were the victims of a "smear campaign" build on "complete lies" and when Colmes finally asked David to explain just how they had been lied about, David asserted that "Right Wing Watch published the fact that we said 'God hates Muslims,' that is a complete and total lie."

Ironically, the only lie here is from David, as we never asserted that he or Jason said that "God hates Muslims." What we did explain in our post was that their father, Flip, had organized protests outside of mosques where protesters screamed "Jesus hates Muslims."

Later in the interview, Colmes pointed out to David that we were talking about the protests organized by his father and never attributed that statement to him or to Jason, but David still asserted that it was untrue because "my dad would never say 'God hates Muslims'":

We find that a little hard to believe since Flip Benham is notorious for his anti-Islam protests, such as this one where he stood outside of a mosque with a PA system in order to inform the Muslims in attendance that he had come "not to dialogue with you [but] to slay your false god":

Perhaps it was from watching their father express his "love" for Muslims that David and Jason learned how to express their "love" for gays.

Religious Right 'Freedom And Liberty' Group ACLJ Backed Russian 'Gay Propaganda' And Blasphemy Bans

The American Center for Law and Justice, the group founded by televangelist Pat Robertson to be a right-wing counter to the American Civil Liberties Union, bills itself as a champion of the “ongoing viability of freedom and liberty in the United States and around the world.”

But the ACLJ – which has joined in the Religious Right chorus claiming that progressive policies are causing American Christians to lose their religious freedom – has never been so keen on the civil liberties of those with whom they disagree, especially in its work overseas. As we’ve noted in the past, the ACLJ led the fight to block the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” in Manhattan and through its African affiliate has backed efforts to prevent legalized abortion in Kenya and to keep homosexuality illegal in Zimbabwe.

And in recent years, the ACLJ’s European and Russian branches have also supported key parts of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s crackdown on gay rights and civil liberties, even as the group has served as a watchdog for Russia’s evangelical minority in the face of government persecution.

Both the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ) and the Slavic Center for Law and Justice (SCLJ) affiliates voiced support for Russia’s 2013 gag order on gay-rights advocacy. In addition, following the 2012 Pussy Riot protest, the SCLJ called for a law criminalizing religious blasphemy. One of its leading attorneys then helped draft one proposed version of the law.

In 2012, the last year for which records are available, the ACLJ directed $300,000 to funding the SCLJ with the “goal of protecting religious rights and freedoms of individuals and associations in Russia.” Its bigger overseas project is the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ), based in Strasbourg, France, to which it gave $1.1 million in 2012. The ACLJ’s chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, founded the SCLJ's overseas branches and serves as the chief counsel of the European affiliate. A handful of sources list him as the chief counsel of the Russian affiliate as well, although it is unclear if he still serves in that capacity.

The ACLJ did not respond to a request for comment on the work of its work in Russia.

Shortly after the feminist punk band Pussy Riot staged a protest at a Russian Orthodox cathedral – for which they were ultimately sentenced to two years in a penal colony for “hooliganism” – the SCLJ issued a press release endorsing the efforts of Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, an Orthodox Church official, to criminalize blasphemy, which at the time was punishable by just a small fine. The press release argued that “seemingly innocuous mischief of a few aggressive individuals led to real religious conflicts that posed a threat to people’s lives and health,” and recommending “harsh punishments” for people found guilty of blasphemy.

The press release called for Russian officials “to toughen laws against incitement of religious hatred and hostility, but also against insult to the religious feelings of the faithful and assaults against their shrines and temples. We also believe that there is an urgent need to introduce harsh punishments for disseminating such information on the Internet.”

The cynical, blasphemous actions in the Church of Christ the Savior that took place this week aroused a broad public outcry. The participants of the women’s feminist punk group Pussy Riot ran into the church wearing masks and performed a blasphemous song with a political subtext right before the altar. They recorded the “performance” on video. Based on these recordings, a video clip was put together and posted on social networks, after which a flood of blasphemous and anti-church comments appeared online.

SCLJ recently raised the issue of the danger of dissemination through social networks of blasphemous information that insults the religious feelings of the faithful, at times openly inciting interreligious conflicts. Today we see that this concern is becoming even more acute and urgent. Criticism of certain religious views and beliefs is undoubtedly possible; however, insult and humiliation of the dignity of individuals who hold them or profess any religion is simply unacceptable.

The main problem is that the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not currently contain adequate penalties for such acts. The maximum punishment that can be brought down upon the participants in this blasphemous act at the Church of Christ the Savior is that they will be cited for an administrative offense and required to pay a small fine. However, the consequences of their activities may be very serious.

It should be noted that such cases are not rare. SCLJ staff members have often come upon similar situations in other regions of the country. Moreover, in many cases, seemingly innocuous mischief of a few aggressive individuals led to real religious conflicts that posed a threat to people’s lives and health.

Law enforcement agencies typically respond to incidents of this nature by glossing over any anti-religious motives. No one wants crimes motivated by religious hatred and hostility. Therefore, officials strain to limit charges to “hooliganism” and sometimes refuse to open a criminal case at all.

In this regard, SCLJ supports the initiative of Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin to toughen laws against incitement of religious hatred and hostility, but also against insult to the religious feelings of the faithful and assaults against their shrines and temples. We also believe that there is an urgent need to introduce harsh punishments for disseminating such information on the Internet.

In September of 2012, members of the Duma introduced a bill that would criminalize “insulting citizens’ religious views and feelings.”

Despite SCLJ’s initial call for an anti-blasphemy law, the group’s co-chair Vladimir Rhyakovsky was apparently not thrilled with the first draft of the law. Rhyakovsky, a member of Putin’s Council on Civil Society and Human Rights, joined with a fellow council member to propose a revised version of the bill that proposed more moderate penalties for violation and created “zoned” free speech areas, but also, disturbingly, would have made the definition of “insulting religious feeling” even vaguer to cover such beliefs as “patriotism” and “commitment to traditional values.”

In June, 2013, Putin signed the final version of the blasphemy ban. The Moscow Times summarized its provisions:

The blasphemy law will punish “public actions expressing obvious disrespect toward society and committed to abuse the religious feelings of believers,” with potential punishment of up to three years behind bars, fines of up to 500,000 rubles ($15,430), and compulsory correctional labor, Lenta.ru reported.

It also stipulates fines of 80,000-300,000 rubles and a prison term of up to three months for hindering the activities of religious organizations and preventing religious rites from being conducted.

A fine of over 200,000 rubles can be levied for deliberate destruction of religious or theological literature.

Ryakhovsky – speaking in his capacity as a member of the human rights council – said after the Duma passed the bill that while he felt that it was “very important” to pass such a law and acknowledged that some of the human rights council’s proposals had been adopted, he was still concerned that “the problem of legal ambiguity remains,” which could “lead to arbitrary application and interpretation of the law, and willful use of it by law enforcement agencies.”

“Whenever the law, and especially criminal law, contains room for arbitrary interpretation, it is fraught with negative consequences,” he said. “I believe that this law is better than the one that was originally proposed, but on the other hand – it is not what it should be.”

That an ACLJ affiliate advocated for a blasphemy law – even if its leader offered only tepid support for the final product – is especially unsettling given that the group has strongly opposed blasphemy bans in its work at the United Nations. In a comment to the UN’s human rights committee in 2011, the ECLJ urged the committee to adopt a strong condemnation of blasphemy laws, such as those in Islamist countries. “Blasphemy prohibitions and laws regarding the defamation of religions violate the very foundations of the human rights tradition by protecting ideas instead of the person who hold those ideas,” the ECLJ wrote in a memo cosigned by its director, Gregor Puppink.

“Freedom of expression includes the right to be controversial, insulting, or offensive, even when such expression targets ideas that are devoutly held beliefs,” the group added.

The SCLJ and its leaders may have had mixed feelings about the final version of the blasphemy ban, but they offered more enthusiastic praise to another bill that Putin signed the same day: a ban on the distribution of “gay propaganda” to minors, essentially a gag order on gay-rights advocacy.

After the Duma passed the “propaganda” ban, Ryakhovsky’s fellow SCLJ co-chairman, Anatoly Pchelintsev, told Voice of America that although he would “refine” parts of the bill, it addressed an important problem. “You only have to turn on a few TV channels to become convinced: promotion of homosexuality is there in both direct and hidden forms,” he said.

Co-chair of the Slavic Center for Law and Justice Anatoly Pchelintsev told Voice of America that he believes there is such a thing as homosexual propaganda, and that it must be combated as much as possible. “You only have to turn on a few TV channels to become convinced: promotion of homosexuality is there in both direct and hidden forms.”

However, Pchelintsev believes there is no need to apply the law in all cases, since it is primarily minors who need protection against homosexual propaganda. “Adults are capable of understanding what is good and what is bad,” added Pchelintsev.

Pchelintsev says that he shares the opinion of Sergei Nikitin about the necessity of refining some of the terminology used in the bill. “You have to know what “propaganda” is before banning it.”

Pchelintsev told another outlet that he was “very pleased” about the move toward adopting the law because LGBT people should be allowed to “live as they want to, but without propagandizing their way of life.”

“I’m against homosexual propaganda, especially among minors. I am for strong families, but in this case I admit that there may be some kind of anomaly, it’s difficult to say in what way exactly—psychological, biological, or something else, but the problem exists—there are people like this. And let them live as they want to, but without propagandizing their way of life,” believes the scientific director of the Institute for Religion and Law, lawyer Anatoly Pchelintsev. “So I’m very pleased about the adoption of this law on the federal level. The key will be that it works and guarantees some kind of punishment. In my view, citation for an administrative offense is sufficient, violations like this do not fall under the purview of criminal law.”

The ACLJ’s European affiliate also voiced support for the “propaganda” ban. In an essay last year, ECLJ’s director, Gregor Puppinck, wrote that the law was “intended to protect children from messages about LGBT practices” that portray homosexuality as “favorable to or equivalent to marital relationships.” He portrayed Russia’s suppression of gay rights as a beacon of hope to France and the rest of Western Europe, showing that the trend toward gay rights is “strong, but not inevitable.”

ECLJ has worked closely with a number of French groups that have been touting Putin’s social conservative crackdown as a model for Europe. Last month, Puppinck joined a delegation of French activists in a visit to Russia to meet with leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church and members of parliament to discuss partnering in “protecting traditional values.”

Although participants in the meeting said that they avoided foreign policy subjects, the visit by the delegation just a few weeks after Russia’s seizure of Crimea provoked some controversy in France, including criticism from a French Catholic leader who said, “If they think that Russia protects human rights, they should go for a tour of Crimea.” The magazine Nouvel Observateur accused the delegation of endorsing Putin’s propaganda of “Russia as a paradise of Christian values.”

In response to the Nouvel Observateur piece the president of the leading French anti-gay group Manif Pour Tous denied that anybody of authority in her group had participated.

But the ECLJ was far from shy about its own participation. According to the Russian Orthodox Church’s representative in Strasbourg, it was Puppinck who requested that he organize the delegation of French activists who support “the traditional concept of the family and oppose abortion, euthanasia, etc.”

We haven’t been able to find any detailed accounts of the visit, but one member of the delegation, the Russian Orthodox church’s representative in Strasbourg, repeated the idea of Russia as the moral protectors of Europe. “Russia is a unique country in Europe,” said Abbot Philip Rybykh. “It seeks to protect the natural order of life, and not the various deviations from it.”

Another report notes that the delegates reached the conclusion that “Western societies would do well to emulate” Russia’s “religious awakening.”

Puppinck reportedly said during the visit that he was “very impressed” by Russia’s newly established “moral” policies, specifically citing the drop in the country’s abortion rate. Russia’s anti-gay policies and protecting Europe from the “contagion” of gay rights were also reportedly objects of discussion.

Iowa GOP Senate Candidate Fears Government Is 'Destroying Our Churches'

Last week, Iowa conservative talk show host and Republican US Senate candidate Sam Clovis appeared on “The Steve Deace Show” to deliver a warning about the government’s encroaching “soft tyranny.”

Clovis, whose campaign has been endorsed by Deace, said the government is “taking away individual liberty, attacking the family and destroying our churches.”

Clovis has also picked up support from Rick Santorum, Religious Right activist Bob Vander Plaats and the Tea Party Patriots.

Porter: Jason Collins' Homosexuality Is 'Very Dangerous ... To Our Freedoms'

Faith 2 Action's Janet Porter was the guest on Gordon Klingenschmitt's "Pray In Jesus Name" program today where the two spent most of the discussion railing against the gay fascist thought police who are out to destroy any Christian that is willing to stand and proclaim their faith.

Somehow during the conversation, Porter and Klingenschmitt ended up talking about gay NBA player Jason Collins, whom Porter asserted proves that nobody is born gay because Collins has an identical twin brother who is straight and so Collins' "choice" to be gay, she asserted, represents a dire threat to the freedom of Christians in America.

"Quite honestly," Porter said, "he makes the case that you're not born that way. This is a choice he's made and it is a choice that is very dangerous physically and it's very dangerous, as we see, to our freedoms in the nation."

Klingenschmitt readily agreed, declaring that Jason is "demon possessed" which opens him up to being "addicted to all kinds of sin":

Matt Bevin Hails Tea Party Activists As New Abolitionists, Suffragists And Civil Rights Leaders

In an interview with the Christian Science Monitor on Saturday, Mitch McConnell’s GOP primary challenger Matt Bevin said that the Tea Party movement “has always existed” in America but has simply taken different forms, pointing to movements such as the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage and the Civil Rights movement as predecessors to today’s right-wing Tea Party.

His views on the future of the tea party movement: “The tea party has always existed. It’s nothing more than people who value the things that this nation was founded on…. And they come out of the woodwork when they feel that their nation is doing them wrong. And maybe it has to do with abolition of slavery…. [Abolitionists] fought for change, and change happened. The same thing happened with women’s suffrage, with the ability of women to vote. They were mocked and ridiculed for having that opinion…. But they didn’t give up because they were right. And the same thing happened when it came to Jim Crow laws…. People rose up then, too…. Throughout history, these are people who are the fabric of America. And they rise up, they serve the purpose that is needed … and then they fade back into the woodwork. They’ve always been there, they’ll always be there. They’re not looking for power, they’re not looking for a party, they’re not looking for fiefdoms. They’re looking to resolve issues…. Today it is the debt of the nation that is causing people to come forward. And then when it’s been addressed to the degree that it can be, they’ll fade right back into the fabric of society whence they came, and where they will always be.”

Bevin also took the opportunity to deny reports that he has ever supported cockfighting. Bevin was caught on tape telling a pro-cockfighting rally that he opposes “criminalizing behavior [that] is part of the heritage of this state” when asked by a cockfighting activist if he will “vote to support the effort to legalize gamecock fighting in the state of Kentucky.”

On speaking at a rally for cockfighting, which is illegal: “I’ve never been to a cock fight. I don’t support cockfighting. It’s illegal … for a reason, because society does not condone this…. At the same time, there are people who apparently would like to see it legalized, just as there are people who want to legalize the use of various drugs…. It’s their first amendment right to gather and talk about it.”

BarbWire Fears The Rise Of A Gay 'False Religion'

With more Religious Right activists maintaining that gay rights advocacy is a new religion, it came as no surprise that a columnist for Matt Barber’s website BarbWire believes that there is a new religion which he calls “Gaydeology.”

“Gaydeology,” Lee Duigon writes today, “has all the earmarks of a new false religion, as fierce and intolerant as Islam.”

Duigon hopes that “this perverse and evil code” will “wither up and blow away as suddenly as it descended on us.”

Nevertheless, this very new notion that all sexual behavior is permitted, and that homosexuality and transgenderism (or whatever you want to call it) are especially worthy of esteem–this perverse and evil code has swept the Western world and carried off its ruling class, its pseudointelligentsia, its culture-shapers, and all those people willing to be shaped by culture.

This has happened with terrifying speed. The world has seen nothing like it since the rise of Islam–and we all know what a great blessing that turned out to be.

Will we be stuck with this for the next 1,500 years? Or will it wither up and blow away as suddenly as it descended on us? God grant the latter.

In the meantime, what I have come to call “Gaydeology” has all the earmarks of a new false religion, as fierce and intolerant as Islam; and we have not yet seen the worst of it.

Larry Klayman Says A Revolution Is Needed To Stop Hillary Clinton From Winning The Presidency And Destroying America

While very few people showed up last year for Larry Klayman’s rally to overthrow President Obama, the conservative activist said Friday that a “Second American Revolution” is needed to stop Hillary Clinton from winning the 2016 presidential election.

If Clinton wins, Klayman writes, she will “usher in the death knell of the United States of America” and “subjugate the American people to political slavery.”

Conservatives – and I am one with a large libertarian streak as well – are prone to see doom around every corner. But the present state of the nation is such that one cannot over-exaggerate the peril America now finds itself in – for on the horizon looms the now odds-on favorite to be our next president, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The possible election of the female partner of the Bonnie and Clyde duo of Bill and Hillary Clinton would usher in the death knell of the United States of America. Having fought the Clintons tooth and nail during the 1990s, and having pursued them for their commission of a host of crimes, ranging from Whitewater, to China-gate, to Travel-gate, and Monica Lewinsky-gate to name just a few of the 40 or so of their misdeeds, I speak from experience.



Coming after the failed presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama, a second “Clinton presidency” would be disastrous, not just because they would resume their practice of selling off anything of value for their political expediency – as they did with the Communist Chinese, with pardons, Commerce Department trade missions seats, overnight stays in the White House’s Lincoln Bedroom, judgeships, commissionerships, Cabinet secretary spots and anything else under their control – but because they have no moral compass. For the Clintons, and Bill would undoubtedly be right there at Hillary’s side, anything goes to further their hubris and hungry thirst for power. And, while they are not black Muslim-sympathizers like Obama and his racist comrades, Hillary has a documented certifiable history of taking money from Islamic interests, not just the Communist Chinese. In effect, the entire country would be put up for sale at a Bonnie and Clyde auction to further subjugate the American people to political slavery under their rule.

Yes, by the standards of yesteryear, Richard Nixon is not a crook, and whatever his shortcomings, Tricky Dick at least was not a traitor. Hillary Clinton, following the lead of her corrupt predecessors and her own felonious history and continuing modus operandi (and Benghazi is just one recent example during her tenure as Obama’s secretary of state), would make Nixon look like a saint.

All of this is why We the People must wage our Second American Revolution now, before it is too late, to free the nation and ourselves of the scourge of the likes of the Obamas and Clintons. If we do not do it now, then all is likely to be lost.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious