Last night's Glenn Beck Program kicked off with twenty five minutes of paranoid raving from Beck about how the federal government is stockpiling armored vehicles and billions of rounds of ammunition because "they know something we don't know," by which he presumably meant that President Obama is preparing to foment a civil war.
In fact, according to Beck, these developments are part of the administration's effort to impose gun control on the nation by buying up all of the ammunition to make it impossible for American citizens to obtain any, which is itself apparently part of an even larger conspiracy to re-institute slavery:
Larry Klayman is out with another column calling President Obama an anti-SemiticMuslimdictator, this time warning that President Obama is deliberately inciting a race war. He argues that Obama sees tax increases on top earners as an effort to “make whitey pay his fair share of ‘reparations’ to blacks” as “Obama's constant derogatory references to the "rich" are mostly just a "politically correct" euphemism for ‘whitey.’”
Klayman claims “Obama and his ‘white slaves’ in The White House, like his embarrassing boy press secretary Jay Carney” have pushed “attacks on whites” and “provoked this burgeoning race war.”
“Put Obama's Muslim identification, his anti-Semitism and his pounding of rich whites together and you have a certified, and highly dangerous Black Muslim in The White House – ala (pun intended) Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan,” he said.
But Obama's scorn goes far wider than just the religion and ethnicity of Jews and Christians. Particularly apparent since his last fraudulent election to the Office of the President in 2012, it has also become crystal clear that he simply hates people of the white race, even though he is one half white himself.
During the campaign he constantly berated Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as the nominee of the rich, vowing to make the rich pay their fair share in taxes and other socio-economic forms of "reparations" during his second term. And, in just the last few months since his reelection, Obama and his Democrat enablers and lackeys in Congress have moved arrogantly and aggressively to make good on his promise – and he has done so with a vengeance. Obama's constant derogatory references to the "rich" are mostly just a "politically correct" euphemism for "whitey," just as attacks by anti-Semites, of which Obama is also one, frequently are leveled against Israel, in order to mask their hatred of the true target, Jews themselves. In short, making "whitey" pay his "fair share" has become a constant drum beat of Obama and his "white slaves" in The White House, like his embarrassing boy press secretary Jay Carney.
Put Obama's Muslim identification, his anti-Semitism and his pounding of rich whites together and you have a certified, and highly dangerous Black Muslim in The White House – ala (pun intended) Malcolm X, Elijah Mohammed and Louis Farrakhan.
That whites have come to believe that Obama truly hates them is becoming apparent even in the mainstream media. During a recent broadcast of Fox News' "The Five," former President George W. Bush's press secretary Dana Perino, a Washington establishment figure if their ever was one (she was appointed to the Board of Directors of government owned Voice of America), stated clearly that she believes that Obama does not like people like her. Bill O'Reilly has expressed similar sentiments of late, referring to Obama's dislike of "traditional Americans." While O'Reilly's comment was also racist and offensive (since what qualifies as a "traditional American" other than a white person?), it underscores how Obama is increasing stoking and provoking anger among whites with his attacks on them, economically and socially. But this media backlash against Obama's attacks on whites has not stopped with political commentators on Fox News, but has now extended to even the likes of the well respected liberal investigative journalist Bob Woodward.
This explains why Woodward has been among the first of liberal journalists to call it like it is and "out" Obama and his White House for threatening him over his reporting of the on-going "sequester" crisis – which Woodward revealed was the brainchild of the president. Other white journalists on the left then followed suit and revealed that they too had been threatened over even their infrequent criticism of Obama. While one can argue that this backlash against Obama was "on the merits" of the looming sequester disaster, the very fact that the left is now coming forward to challenge Obama, shows that much more in play here. Like Dana Perino, I believe that even these liberal reporters have come to see that Obama does not like them and fear his latent racism toward whites, which they likely have come to deeply resent. As has been Obama's mantra, the sequester debate has been couched by the president and his minions as an economic disaster that would hurt his lower and middle income persons many of whom are black or of mixed race, at the expense of the rich. This is why Obama now wants to use his presidential leverage to negotiate a deal with Republicans to again raise taxes on the rich – in effect to again make whitey pay his fair share of "reparations" to blacks.
It is very sad and frightening that Obama has provoked this burgeoning race war. The nation, divided unlike any time since the Civil War, is about to explode in anger – primarily pitting black against white and vice versa.
The Religious Right has been predictablyoutraged over a new transgender-inclusive policy in Massachusetts that is designed to prevent gender identity-discrimination in schools and so it was only a matter of time before Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber weighed in, which he did on a recent radio program where he compared being transgender to a Caucasian child deciding that he is really an Asian child or a person deciding that they are a horse and wanting to run in the Kentucky Derby.
"The [LGBT] chain is only as strong as the weakest link," Barber declared, and "this transgender notion is absolute absurdity. It's a weak chain to begin with, but it's the weakest link in this LGBT alphabet soup of nonsense":
Is this really the sort of bigoted rhetoric with which Tim Tebow wishes to associate himself?
Recently, New York Jets backup quarterback Tim Tebow pulled out of a scheduled appearance at Robert Jeffress’ megachurch “due to new information” he received regarding Jeffress' view. While he never specified what the “new information” was, Tebow was almost certainly referring to Jeffress’ virulent attacks on gays and lesbians, Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam and President Obama.
Harry Jackson is out with a column today accusing gay rights supporters of seeking “to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.” He specifically takes issue with the fact that marriage equality supporters cite the Fourteenth Amendment and Loving v. Virginia, which found anti-miscegenation laws to be unconstitutional.
Jackson explains that same-sex couples don’t have a right to marry because “‘marriage’ means what it has always meant in America: the union of one man and one woman,” and cites a Nevada ruling which argued that marriage laws aren’t discriminatory because a gay person has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Ironically, those two arguments were exactly those used by supporters of laws banning interracial marriage.
Not only did they not consider interracial marriage to be a “marriage,” but they also argued that anti-miscegenation laws were not discriminatory because they applied to people of every race and did not target one race in particular.
Despite this history about marriage laws, Jackson concludes his column by insisting that “the notion that homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the law becomes absurd.”
From the very beginning, homosexual “marriage” activists have sought to hijack not only the moral authority of the Civil Rights Movement, but also the legal arguments which liberated minorities from centuries of legalized oppression and discrimination.
After decades of aggressive activism, the common sense understanding of marriage has become almost hopelessly mired in incomprehensible legal terminology. It becomes difficult for everyday observers to navigate the convoluted logic homosexual activists employ as they attempt to remake one of civilization’s oldest institutions. The argument that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples is only “fair” rests on a specious interpretation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause reads as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As most of us know, the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted just before the end of the Civil War in response to the Black Codes of the South. The Black Codes were various state laws which, among other things, prevented blacks from owning property and imposed harsher penalties for crimes on blacks than on whites. The Fourteenth Amendment clarified that these laws were unconstitutional, and that the government was obligated to protect the rights of all citizens equally.
So what about the “right” to marry? Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) activists argue that the state is abridging their privileges, often citing Chief Justice Earl Warren’s words in Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 decision that overturned state bans on interracial marriage: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
I agree with Justice Warren that marriage is a central ingredient in the pursuit of happiness. I disagree with LGBT activists about what “marriage” is. And it is very hard to have a reasonable or productive discussion when the two sides cannot agree on the definition of a central term. You and I may agree that it should be legal to walk a dog in a particular public park. But you may think that the term “dog” includes only domesticated members of the Canis lupus familiaris species, and I may think that the term “dog” can include large gray wolves. You may argue that “dog” should be defined by the laws and traditions that have governed dog ownership for generations, and I may feel that such an approach in unfair to people who want to walk wolves in the park. The point is that we cannot get anywhere until we agree on what a “dog” is.
Homosexuals are not being denied “marriage” rights any more than wolf enthusiasts are being denied dog-ownership rights. Last November, a federal appeals court in Nevada pointed out homosexuals are not, in fact, being denied the right to marry, as the term “marriage” has been long understood. A lesbian couple had sued the state, seeking to overturn Nevada’s ban on gay marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wrote Judge Robert Jones:
Like heterosexual persons, they [homosexuals] may not marry members of the same sex. A homosexual man may marry anyone a heterosexual man may marry, and a homosexual woman may marry anyone a heterosexual woman may marry.
Judge Jones went on to point out that homosexuals have little cause to identify with historically oppressed minorities in the United States, observing that, “Homosexuals have not historically been denied the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, or the right to own property.” Judge Jones starts with the assumption, as we all should, that “marriage” means what it has always meant in America: the union of one man and one woman. If we begin with that reality, the notion that homosexuals are being denied equal protection under the law becomes absurd.
In an action alert today, GOA asks its members to call on their senators to oppose Halligan, calling her the “most anti-Second Amendment nominee in recent history,” a “zealot” and a “radical leftist.”
Among those who might disagree with GOA’s assessment of Halligan are former Bush judicial nominee Miguel Estrada, Reagan administration attorney Carter Phillips, and numerous law enforcement groups, all of whom have endorsed her nomination.
The Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin was the guest on "WallBuilders Live" today for a discussion of the Pentagon's recent decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat. Not surprisingly, Boykin opposes the idea, wondering why the Obama Administration would approve this change even as Congress was working to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, claiming "there is such an inconsistency here":
The Congress, the Senate at least, passed the Violence Against Women Act which was designed to protect our women. Now it had some flaws in it, so we don't support it ... but it's violence against women, protect our women.
Now with this decision by Leon Panetta and the President, what we're doing is we're saying 'now you ladies, fix your bayonets, we're going to send you right into hand-to-hand combat with these men that are physically more capable than you in most cases and they're going to try to kill you.' There is such an inconsistency here.
On Friday's radio program, Bryan Fischer attempted to make that case that African Americans ought to be opposed to any effort to reform the nation's immigration laws and grant a pathway to citizenship for those who are here illegally.
In Fischer's view, immigrants take the low-wage, low-skill jobs that African Americans need "to get their foot on the bottom rung of the ladder of success" and so "if they are thinking logically, clearly, and rationally, they should be the most adamant that we need to secure our borders, that we cannot provide these people a pathway to citizenship, it's just rewarding the breaking of the law, because it is damaging, it is harming the African American community":
Conservative activists are inanuproar over a new transgender-inclusive policy in Massachusetts [PDF] designed to prevent gender identity-discrimination in schools. Today, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council added his voice, arguing that Massachusetts schools will soon see “teenage boys invading girls’ locker rooms.” He blamed the new policy on the 2004 legalization of same-sex marriage in the state, which he said led to “the fundamental altering of society,” and called on parents “to protect your kids from a fate like Massachusetts’s” by opposing marriage equality.
If there's one subject giving Massachusetts schools trouble, it's anatomy! Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. In kindergarten classes, learning about genders won't be the problem--but ignoring them might be! Under a new statewide directive, Massachusetts officials are rolling out the welcome mat to cross-dressing students by banning everything from gender-based sports teams to sex-specific bathrooms. And anyone who doesn't like it had better keep quiet--or else. If a student so much as refers to a peer by their biological sex, it's "grounds for discipline." And people wonder why families are pulling their children out of public school! Maybe, you've fallen for the lie that same-sex marriage won't affect you. Well, it may take teenage boys invading girls' locker rooms to prove it. Redefining marriage is about a lot more than two people who love each other. This is about the fundamental altering of society. If you want to protect your kids from a fate like Massachusetts's, it starts by defending marriage now.
Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum on Friday warned that the Obama administration has estimated that the average family will pay a minimum of $20,000 for health insurance once the health care reform law goes fully into effect.
The only problem with Schlafly’s claim is that the government never issued such an estimate.
The IRS simply used the $20,000 figure as an example for calculating the “shared responsibility payment,” or penalty, for a nonexempt family that does not acquire health insurance.
The IRS used $20,000 in a hypothetical example to illustrate how it will calculate the tax penalty for a family that fails to obtain health coverage as required by law. Treasury says the figure “is not an estimate of premiums.”
[T]he regulations weren’t a “cost analysis” at all. A spokesperson for the Treasury Department confirmed to FactCheck.org in an email that the IRS wasn’t making any declarations or projections about what prices will be.
“[Twenty thousand dollars] is a round number used by IRS for a hypothetical example,” the official wrote. “It is not an estimate of premiums for a bronze plan for a family of five in 2016.”
Schlafly wasn’t the only conservative leader to fall for the false story, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel also wrote an article arguing that a government “cost analysis based on ObamaCare regulations show[s] that the cheapest healthcare plan in 2016 will cost average American families of four or five members $20,000 per year for the so-called ‘bronze plan.’”
The Obama Administration is now estimating that by 2016 the minimum annual cost of health insurance for an average American family under ObamaCare will be $20,000. And there is no guarantee that the health insurance will actually cover all the medical treatments that the family wants and needs. $20,000 is merely the minimum annual cost; many families could face even higher premiums. Millions of Americans will be faced with the choice of buying this expensive health insurance, or paying hefty penalties to the IRS. Those who choose not to buy health insurance will be slapped by the IRS with thousands of dollars in additional taxes. Is this what Americans really want? Certainly not. $20,000 is many times more expensive than what most Americans pay for health insurance today.
It's not only families who will be hit by these enormous price increases under ObamaCare. One study predicts that a 27-year-old non-smoking male in Texas will go from paying $54 a month in health insurance premiums to a whopping $153 per month as soon as ObamaCare goes into full effect. That will be on top of the massive student debt that so many young people are already struggling to pay off. The real result may be that many Americans will choose to drop their health insurance simply because they cannot afford it. But that is the opposite of what ObamaCare was supposed to achieve.
None of this is a surprise to those who have criticized ObamaCare for years. Not a single Republican voted for this costly injection of federal bureaucracy into the American health care system, which has been the finest the world has ever known. Many businesses are decreasing the number of hours that their employees can work in order to fall below the threshold requiring employers to buy this costly insurance for their employees.
First Baptist Dallas Pastor Robert Jeffress, who made headlines when Tim Tebow backed out of an upcoming appearance at his new $130 million megachurch campus, spoke at length about the controversy during a recent appearance on the Alan Colmes Radio Show. Jeffress complained that he had been taken out of context and tried to downplay and sidestep some of his most explosive remarks. But for the most part, he just cemented his reputation as an extremist.
Jeffress began his defense on an inauspicious note, noting that he has a Jewish friend in New York so he can’t possibly be anti-Semitic. While we’ve never called him anti-Semitic, we have noted that Jeffress believes Jews are destined for hell – along with Catholics, Mormons, Muslims and gays, so at least they’ll have company.
Colmes asked Jeffress about many of his most contentious remarks, such as whether he ever said that “Roman Catholicism is Satanic.” “I never used the term ‘Satanic,’” Jeffress responded. That’s technically true but highly misleading: Jeffress has said Satan is behind the Catholic Church. It only got more disingenuous from there.
Jeffress relegated the overwhelming majority of the world’s Catholics to hell while trying to make it sound like he was doing no such thing:
I believe today that there are millions of Catholics who are gonna be in heaven because of the relationship with Christ. I work with Catholic priests in our community. We march together on the pro-life issues. I think there are millions of Catholics who are in heaven.
There are over one billion Catholics alive today around the world, and there have been countless more over the course of nearly two millennia. Jeffress wants to assure us that he’s not an extremist who would just assign all Catholics to hell. So instead he damned about 99% and saved “millions” from eternal damnation. Lucky for Jeffress, they’re the same ones that show up for anti-abortion rallies. What are the odds?
Jeffress also tried to clear up a misunderstanding about President Obama and the Antichrist. He does not believe that Obama is the Antichrist per se, as some have reported, but merely believes that Obama is paving the way for the Antichrist, as we first reported. Gee, I can't imagine why there was confusion.
Jeffress was only willing to fully own up to one of his comments. “Mormonism, you said, Islam, is from the pit of hell?” Colmes asked. “Yes, now that one they actually got right Al,” responded Jeffress.
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is out with a column today arguing that President Obama “committed an impeachable offense” in his handling of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and that homosexuality is “self-destructive.”
Fischer also recycled his usual claims that gays should be treated like cigarette smokers and intravenous drug users, arguing that “We should no more normalize homosexual conduct, let alone homosexual marriage, than to normalize shooting up with needles.”
He even envisioned a government campaign against homosexuality based on smoking-prevention efforts: “We have spent billions of dollars urging children not to take up cigarette smoking because of its harm to human health. We should be making the same effort persuading children and adults not to start engaging in homosexual conduct, and if they have started, helping them to stop.”
The case against same-sex marriage is simple and straightforward: it’s contrary to the laws of nature and nature’s God, it’s enormously destructive to human health, and it’s bad for kids.
The president is now openly pledged to fight against natural marriage in court, by arguing against California’s Proposition 8. He has also committed an impeachable offense by refusing to defend DOMA in court, even though it is one of the laws of the land he took an oath to “execute faithfully.”
Since the president himself has abandoned his moral and constitutional duty and thrown his considerable weight behind counterfeit marriage based on the infamous crime against nature, it’s important for the American people to think clearly about marriage and be able to defend it in conversation and in the public square.
Second, homosexual conduct is contrary to the “laws of Nature,” to use the Founders’ phrasing, and is devastating to human health. Whether you believe in evolution or in creation, as I do, homosexual behavior puts the human body to sexual uses for which it clearly was not designed.
Homosexual sex is not behavior that any rational society should endorse, promote, normalize, or protect in law. Calling relationships “marriages” that are based on the act of sodomy, which was a felony everywhere in America for the first 255 years of our existence, gives society’s ultimate stamp of approval to behavior that is self-destructive, destroys human health, and shortens life. This is obviously short-sighted and callous public policy.
The CDC informs us that over 90% of all men who have ever been diagnosed with HIV-AIDS contracted it through having sex with other men (61%), intravenous drug abuse (21%), or both (9%). Homosexual conduct thus is even more of a risk to human health than intravenous drug injection. We should no more normalize homosexual conduct, let alone homosexual marriage, than to normalize shooting up with needles.
We have spent billions of dollars urging children not to take up cigarette smoking because of its harm to human health. We should be making the same effort persuading children and adults not to start engaging in homosexual conduct, and if they have started, helping them to stop.
Mario Diaz of Concerned Women for America promoted the upcoming Marriage March by warning that gay rights advocates seek to “silence” opponents and that marriage equality “will mean the destruction of freedom and liberty.”
We want people who love God and His principles and who are aware of what the attack on traditional marriage will do to come out and stand up for marriage and for God’s principles and to send a message to the Supreme Court and to other people that we will not be silenced because that is the intent and the strategy of the other side to silence those of us who stand up for the traditional view of marriage.
With truth on our side we most definitely can make sure that our children’s future is protected, God can do it. I know that conventional wisdom says out there that we are losing this fight and there is no use in fighting anymore but we don’t have that luxury. We believe that the destruction of this institution established by God will mean the destruction of freedom and liberty. We must stand and we will on March 26, we hope you can be here with us.
Yesterday on Focal Point it took American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer just a few minutes to transition from praising NFL teams for asking about players’ sexual orientations to talking about why he believes President Obama has no soul.
First, Fischer said that the NFL shouldn’t sign gay players because they would cause a “grenade-like explosion” that would destroy the team. He said that the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is doing such damage to the military, even though all the reports so far show that the new policy has had zeronegativeimpacts.
Just minutes later, Fischer went on a rant about how he believes Obama lacks empathy and “seems to be soulless,” maintaining that the “pathologically narcissistic” president callously views people as imaginary avatars in SimCity.
Sean Hannity last night was clearly upset that Rep. Keith Ellison exposed him for what he is — a partisan hack — and he is now launching attacks on the congressman by recycling statements Ellison made in the 1990s about the Nation of Islam, a group that the congressman later vociferously denounced. He even wondered if “we have somebody then in Congress that is the equivalent of one side of what the Klan is?”
Hannity has attacked Ellison over his faith in the past, arguing that Ellison’s use of Thomas Jefferson’s copy of the Quran during his symbolic swearing-in ceremony “will embolden Islamic extremists” and is no different from a congressman using “Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which is the Nazi bible.”
While the use of inflammatory language and false claims is nothing new for Sean Hannity, we decided to use the segment as an opportunity to highlight the five Islamophobic smears regularly found on Fox News.
1. Obama is a Secret Muslim:
Fox News host Eric Bolling claimed that Obama “answers to the Quran first and to the Constitution second” and Hannity himself alleged that Obama “went to a Muslim school.” Regular contributors like Charles Krauthammer and Donald Trump have also floated the claim that Obama was raised as a Muslim and back in 2007, Fox News ran with the discredited story that Obama was a student an Islamic “madrassa” in Indonesia.
2. Park 51 Will be used for Terrorism:
Dick Morris, who just recently was booted from the network following his hilariously bad election predictions, said that the Park 51 Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero is planning to “train the same kind of terrorists” that attacked the U.S. on 9/11, warning the building will be a “command center for terrorism.” Bolling alleged that Park 51 is being built to represent “the people who flew planes” into the Twin Towers and Bill O’Reilly warned the project is housing “condos for Al Qaeda.”
3. Al Jazeera Conspiracies:
Fox News contributor Lisa Daftari warned that Al Jazeera’s acquisition of Current TV will activate terrorist “sleeper cells” in Detroit and regular Fox guest Michelle Malkin called the channel “a cheerleader for terror” and “a Trojan Horse for terror TV.”
Brian Kilmeade of Fox & Friendsclaimed that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims” and Bill O’Reilly has implied that all Muslims were responsible for 9/11. Fox News regularly hosts anti-Muslim guests such as Brigitte Gabriel, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. In fact, Fox News host Laura Ingraham and contributor John Bolton prematurely blamed the far-right terrorist attack in Norway on government offices and a left-wing party youth summit on Muslims.
While the Supreme Court prepares to take up cases on marriage equality, the Family Research Council’s latest mailing [PDF] takes on ENDA – the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act. “Like a B-grade 1950’s horror-movie, ENDA is coming back from the dead,” warns FRC President Tony Perkins. Perkins says President Obama is working with the “totalitarian homosexual lobby” to sneak ENDA into law, and if that happens, “Our freedom of religion will be destroyed.” The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer sounded a similar alarm in January.
“In fact,” says Perkins in his new letter, “under ENDA biblical morality becomes illegal.”
What ENDA would really do is simply extend existing protections against various forms of legal discrimination in the workplace to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The real point of the FRC letter is to raise money from people who think persecution of Christians in America is just around the corner, if not well under way:
“And no battle could be more urgently important than the battle against NEDA. The rights of more than 60 million Americans – the right to live and share our faith and live according to biblical values – are literally at risk of being vaporized by a single vote of Congress or the stroke of the President’s pen.”
Polls show overwhelming public support for protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination on the job. But that doesn’t matter to FRC, which has a lot invested in convincing its supporters that LGBT equality is incompatible with religious freedom.
Several years ago, FRC warned that a federal hate crimes law would be used to silence preachers. Other religious right leaders said Christians would be tossed into jail for preaching against homosexuality. That legislation was signed into law in 2009; as Perkins himself makes clear, the freedom to trash-talk LGBT people has survived.
Pat Robertson reacted to the news that Chicago public schools will teach kindergarteners “the basics about anatomy, reproduction, healthy relationships and personal safety” by claiming it is “one more of the liberal initiatives to force their point of view” on others.
“You see we believe in America, in freedom, in free choice, free enterprise, freedom; but the liberals, the progressives so-called, they want to enforce their point of view and have people in lockstep accepting what they want,” Robertson said.
He then went on to say that liberals are using public schools just like Communists in Russia and China used prison camps: “If people won’t accept it, the Russians were willing to put them in gulags; the Chinese have been willing to put them in prisons. Here in America, the liberals think they’ve got them in school and they want to indoctrinate them and force them into a mindset that is contrary to what their parents believe.”
The ferventlyanti-gaywriter Frank Turek takes to Townhall today to present an interesting analogy. Turke argues that when gays and lesbians advocate for marriage equality, they are being just as unreasonable as someone who “can’t qualify to become a police officer” protesting “when the government pays other people to be police officers.” He goes on to say that gays and lesbians can “simply marry someone of the opposite sex” and that the legalization of same-sex marriage will harm children and cause Americans to “lose the freedom of speech.”
Here’s why promoting natural marriage exclusively does not deny anyone equal rights.
First, everyone has the same equal right to marry a qualified person of the opposite sex. That law treats every man and woman equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. Same sex marriage and natural marriage are different behaviors with different outcomes, so the law rightfully treats them differently. One behavior perpetuates and stabilizes society, and the other doesn’t. Promoting one behavior does not deny rights to people who don’t engage in that behavior.
An analogy may help clarify this point. Like marriage, the government promotes police work by paying people to become police officers because police do much good for society. But if you can’t qualify to become a police officer, or if you choose another vocation, your rights are not being violated when the government pays other people to be police officers. All people, regardless of their vocation, experience the benefits of police, just like all people, regardless of their marriage status, experience the benefits of natural marriage.
Some will ignore those biological realities and object, “But men and women are the same so there’s no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships!” If that were true, no one would be arguing for same-sex marriage. The very fact people demand same-sex marriage is precisely because they know men and women are drastically different. If men and women were the same, no one would be spending time and energy trying to get same-sex marriage approved. They would simply marry someone of the opposite sex—which according to them is the same as someone of the same sex—and be done with it.
Now, I am not suggesting that a law would fully achieve either, but only to point out that natural and same-sex marriage should not be legally or culturally equated. The truth is homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. We hurt everyone, especially children, by pretending otherwise.
Finally, as jurisdictions with same-sex marriage show us, people lose their freedoms of speech, association, religion and even parenting due to the imposition of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, for example, parents now have no right to even know when their kids as young as kindergarten are being taught about homosexuality, much less opt out of it; business owners must now provide benefits to same-sex couples, and they can be fined for declining to provide services at homosexual weddings; Catholic charities were forced to close and leave Massachusetts and Washington D.C. because both governments mandated that all adoption agencies had to provide children to homosexuals. So much for freedom of religion! And in Canada, same-sex marriage has led to such a chilling restriction on speech, that my speech here today could get me fined or jailed if given there.
To sum up, the government already permits homosexual relationships, but promoting them by equating them with married heterosexual relationships ignores the facts of nature, the needs of children and the health of society. While people with different sexual attractions are equal, not all behaviors are equally beneficial. True equality treats equal behaviors equally. It doesn’t demand that different behaviors be treated the same.
The congressman even agreed with Gaffney when he made the egregious claim that the Obama administration wants to “prop up” the Iranian regime.
Rohrabacher also suggested that the US should arm the Mujahedeen-e Khlaq (People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran), which last year was delisted as a foreign terror organization. Gaffney’s CSP has criticized the MEK as being a “pro-Saddam Hussein group” and noted its record of violence.
Rohrabacher: In order to accomplish what we need to have accomplished in Iran is regime change and we haven’t gone down anything in that direction and we—
Gaffney: Arguably to the contrary, we’ve been helping prop up the regime in the face of a lot of opposition at home.
Rohrabacher: Well that’s it. With the opposition at home we should be supporting all of those people within Iran who are enemies of the mullah regime. I just came back from a congressional delegation to Central Asia and we met with leaders of the MEK who are an anti-Mullah group and they are controversial to some people but the bottom line is they are actually fighting the mullahs, the mullah regime. We should be indiscriminately working with those groups that want to eliminate the mullah regime and hopefully will replace it with a democratic government. I support for example the Baloch, there are six million Balochis in the southern part of Iran, they are Sunnis I might add, and they are persecuted by these mullahs and I have been doing everything I can to support the insurgency and the independence of Balochistan. There are several groups, there are Kurds in Iran. We have not done anything to actually support the enemy of our enemies unlike Reagan which ended the Cold War because he supported the enemy of our enemies rather than deploy American troops everywhere.
South Dakota’s state senate today passed a bill that would extend the mandatory 72 hour waiting period women face when seeking an abortion in the state to specifically exclude weekend days and holidays from counting towards the 72 hour period. Apparently, South Dakota’s Republican lawmakers think women aren’t able to think as well on weekends.
The South Dakota Senate has given final legislative approval to an extension of what is already the nation's longest waiting period for a woman to receive an abortion.
Senators voted 24-9 Thursday to approve the bill, which has already been passed by the House. The measure will become law if signed by Gov. Dennis Daugaard.
Women seeking abortions in South Dakota currently must wait three days after seeing an abortion clinic doctor before they can have the procedure. The bill would make it so that weekends and holidays do not count in calculating the three-day waiting period.
The state House of Representatives approved the anti-choice legislation earlier this month, and it now heads to the governor’s desk.