Fighting the Right

Fischer: It Is 'Ignorant, Ignorant, Ignorant' To Think Human Behavior Can Impact The Climate

As he does every day, Bryan Fischer began his radio program with a Bible reading and discussion, in this case, a passage from Psalm 135 which he cited not only as proof that God struck down the Native Americans so that the United States could be established by Christians, but also as proof that there is nothing that human beings can do to influence the climate.

Verse 7 of the Psalm declares that "He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; he sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses."  As such, Fischer said, "that's why it is dumb, dumb, dumb; it is stupid, stupid, stupid; it is ignorant, ignorant, ignorant to think that there is anything that man can do to control the climate through human behavior."

"If you want to do something about the climate," Fischer said, "you want to do something about the weather, there is only one thing that we can do to affect climate or affect weather and that is to pray to Yahweh":

Beck: Obama Can 'Get Away With Murder Because He's Likeable And He's Black'

It is always fascinating to hear what comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth when he asserts that he is simply stating "facts," mainly because it provides an insight into just how truly warped Beck's view of the world has become.

Today on his radio broadcast, Beck repeatedly asserted that it was just a fact that President Obama "doesn't know who Americans are" because for his entire life "he has been surrounded by people who hate the United States of America. That's not a slam on him, that is a fact. It's just a fact"

Bizarrely declaring that Obama "is not a sports fan" because "he didn't grow up here [and] he wasn't immersed in the culture," Beck went on to claim that Obama did not "earn" the Presidency of the United States, saying rather that "he was chosen by the [George] Soroses of the world" to become president because he would be able to "get away with murder because he's likeable and he's black":

Is Bryan Fischer Too Bigoted Even For The Values Voter Summit?

The last time Bryan Fischer spoke at the Values Voter Summit was back in 2011, when organizers tried to hide his involvement in the conference because of his long history of unabashed bigotry.  The effort failed as the decision to allow him to speak badly backfired when Mitt Romney, who was also speaking at the event, called out Fischer's bigotry from the stage and repudiated it.

In 2012, VVS organizers wised up and dropped Fischer from the program altogether, though Fischer insisted at the time that he was not being shunned, but was simply giving up his normal speaking slot to AFA President Tim Wildmon:

“The explanation is quite simple,” Fischer wrote. “I was filling in the last couple of years for our president, Tim Wildmon, who has had scheduling conflicts in the recent past. As a devoted father, he didn’t want to miss any of his son’s high school football games. Now that his son has graduated, he’s back on the podium at VVS, and I happily defer to him. I will be there, broadcasting my radio program on both Thursday and Friday as I have done in previous years.”

The next annual VVS is taking place next month and once again it looks like organizers have decided to drop Fischer from the program since he appears nowhere on the list of confirmed and invited speakers.

Despite the fact that the AFA is one of the primary sponsors of the event, neither Fischer nor Wildmon appear on the speakers' list even though other radical Religious Right activists like Rick Scarborough, Janet Porter, Jerome Corsi and AFR radio host Sandy Rios are all confirmed:

Is it really possible that Bryan Fischer has finally become so toxic that he is not being allowed to speak at an event that his own organization is co-sponsoring?

How To Make 'The Whole Homosexual Marriage Debate Go Away'

Anti-gay activists can’t be happy that polling data shows that a majority of Americans support marriage equality, and are also displeased with libertarian and conservative leaders who think it might be time for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

In a WorldNetDaily article about the debate on “privatizing marriage,” Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said that while heterosexual marriage should remain a government-sponsored institution, he is “fine with privatizing homosexual relationships” since gay people haven’t proven how same-sex unions “benefit society.” Jennifer Roback Morse of the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute agreed that removing a government role from marriage “capitulates” to the gay rights movement and harms children.

Herb Titus said the government should define marriage based on Leviticus and “screen out those people who were violating the rules the Bible laid down as to who could be married and who could not be married.”

But Matt Trewhella has a plan to end the debate over marriage rights once and for all.

Trewhella, the Religious Right activist who you may remember for his rant about how gays are “filthy people,” revealed that the only way to make “the whole homosexual marriage debate go away” is not through “privatization but the re-criminalization of sodomy.”

Jennifer Morse, president of the Ruth Institute, which supports traditional marriage, says privatizing marriage “doesn’t really resolve the gay marriage issue, it capitulates on the key point, which is what is the public purpose of marriage, and whether the state has any role in protecting the interests of children.”

“This is a rhetorical tactic for trying to make it go away. I don’t think it works.”

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, said marriage deserves a privileged place in the law because it brings benefits “that are important to the well-being of society as a whole and not just a couple.”



Sprigg, a leading defender of traditional marriage, sayid [sic] he’s “fine with privatizing homosexual relationships” but rejects privatizing true marriage because of its special status.

“Society gives benefits to marriage because marriage gives benefits to society. Therefore the burden of proof is on the advocates of alternatives to marriage to prove that their relationships benefit society. I think that’s a burden of proof that same-sex marriage cannot meet.”

Morse said the libertarian idea that two or more people can make up their own “marital” contract any way they wish collides with the needs of children. Crafting intimate arrangements without guidance from God, culture or the state “just doesn’t work when you have a child,” she said. “The modern world does not know quite what to do with these helpless creatures.



Herbert W. Titus, former dean of the Regent University School of Law and Government, agrees that state and federal laws, especially no-fault divorce, have fostered social chaos but says a return to marriage laws that conform to biblical norms is the solution, not privatization.

Marriage licenses serve a useful purpose, Titus said, because they determine “if you’re entitled to a marriage certificate” and “screen out those people who were violating the rules the Bible laid down as to who could be married and who could not be married.” He cited Leviticus 18, which forbids sexual relations between close relations, family members and individuals of the same sex.

But once the law allows same-sex marriage, Titus said, “then it’s very difficult to see that there are any … barriers to marriage,” and that opens the door to sodomy and polygamy.



Conservative Protestant minister Matt Trewhella, founder of Missionaries to the Preborn, is sometimes lumped in with the advocates of marriage privatization because he tells Christians not to get marriage licenses and refuses to marry couples who do.

Trewhella regards marriage licenses as a grant of authority to marry from the state. “The state cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.”

Despite that view, Trewhella wants the state to ban same-sex marriage.

“I think the whole idea of privatizing marriage is absurd because the state should uphold and affirm the law word and created order of God regarding marriage as revealed in Scripture.”

He believes the solution to same-sex marriage is not privatization but the re-criminalization of sodomy.

“That’s what makes the whole homosexual marriage debate go away,” he said.

Stemberger: 'Abuse' To Affirm LGBT Youth; Sexual Relations Among Boy Scouts Will Become 'Commonplace'

John Stemberger, who leads the new anti-gay alternative to the Boy Scouts of America, reassured conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday that his group, Trail Life USA, is “not going to tolerate” any openly gay members, describing them as a threat to the “safety and security of our children.”

While the BSA allows openly gay youth (but not adults) to join, Trail Life USA will ban anyone who is gay, unless he is working to hide and banish his gay demons. Stemberger, who also runs the Florida Family Policy Council, blames “society and schools and even parents” for affirming LGBT youth, which he said is “tantamount to abuse.”

“That is just absolutely nonsense and it’s an abuse to the child,” Stemberger charged. “We are not going to tolerate someone who is ‘here and queer; loud and proud,’ all of that nonsense, that is completely inappropriate in a program where there’s children.”

Stemberger: We’re very sad to leave the Boy Scouts of America. It was a great organization but unfortunately it has taken a turn in a fundamental compromise on its values that is just not acceptable to parents and the safety and security of our children.

Mefferd: Absolutely. Now a lot has been reported about how you will handle the issue of sexuality in the Trail Life USA organization. How did it come about that you put together the parameters that you did and how do you reassure parents that the issues that may come up in the Boy Scouts are not going to be the same in Trail Life USA?

Stemberger: Well first of all, we’re not going to allow open and avowed homosexuality. It’s really important that we distinguish between a mere same-sex attraction, which by the way 20-25 percent of young boys as they are growing up will experience some sort of gender ambiguity or confusion, or just needing to wonder who they are, needing affirmation, that’s not uncommon at all. But what’s horrible is to have the society and schools and even parents, which is tantamount to abuse in my judgment, saying ‘oh he is special, he must be gay, he must be gender confused, let’s let him explore.’ That is just absolutely nonsense and it’s an abuse to the child. We need to be reaffirming that child of their God-given biology that they are special, made in His image, and help them understand these things. So we’re not going to turn away a kid like that, but we are not going to tolerate activists. We are not going to tolerate someone who is ‘here and queer; loud and proud,’ all of that nonsense, that is completely inappropriate in a program where there’s children.

Later in the broadcast, Stemberger warned that when AT&T CEO and BSA board member Randall Stephenson becomes the leader of the organization, it is likely that openly gay adults will be allowed to take part in scouting as well.

While Stemberger said he was “never concerned about the adults” because “the adults have a two-deep leadership policy where no adult can be alone with any scout at one time in scouting,” he told parents to fear openly gay adult leaders anyway and defect to Trail Life USA: “We’re not trying to be bashing the BSA but we are going to be committed to letting parents know of this and that this is a risk, this is a health and safety risk to boys.”

Stemberger even predicted that sexual relations and “physical, sexual and psychological abuse” will become “commonplace” as a result of the decision to end the ban on openly gay youth.

Mefferd: You told us that Randall Stephenson, the head of AT&T, is now going to be in charge of the Boy Scouts. Now this is somebody who drew an awful lot of fire prior to this vote as somebody a lot of conservatives wanted ousted from the Boy Scouts.

Stemberger: That’s right, in May of next year he will become the president of the Boy Scouts of America and he is on the record saying he doesn’t agree with the current policy, doesn’t go far enough, he wants open homosexuality not just with boys but with men as well. When that second shoe drops then we will be positioned to see even more parents come and join Trail Life USA. Honestly, I just hate this. I don’t like this. We’re not trying to be bashing the BSA but we are going to be committed to letting parents know of this and that this is a risk, this is a health and safety risk to boys. They have already issued proclamations saying you will not treat openly gay boys any different, that is they are going to be tented with other boys; they are not going to be separated out in anyway lest they be bullied.

This is where it’s going and this will absolutely increase boy-on-boy sexual contact, which will further contribute to the scandal and the very unfortunate abuse to countless numbers of boys who will undergo physical, sexual and psychological abuse as a result of this policy change. That is the bottom line, that is the thing no one wants to talk about, that is the reality of this change. They can deny it all they want to but you can’t control boys. I was never concerned about the adults; the adults have a two-deep leadership policy where no adult can be alone with any scout at one time in scouting. But you can’t do that with boys. They are high-risk, they’ve got testosterone, they do crazy things and so you’re going to have stuff happen commonplace as this policy goes into effect.

Pat Robertson Loses Fight To Keep 'Gay AIDS Ring' Video Off The Internet

Two weeks ago, the Christian Broadcasting Network tried to cover up remarks made by Pat Robertson, the founder of CBN and host of its flagship show the 700 Club, about how he believes gay men wear special rings that cut the hands of people they meet in order to infect them with HIV/AIDS.

CBN not only had the video we posted of Robertson’s comments removed from YouTube by complaining that it violated copyright laws, but also edited the comments out of its own broadcast of the show.

We reposted our video elsewhere, but CBN also had it removed from websites such as Vimeo and Dailymotion.

We filed a counterclaim with YouTube asserting that our video was protected by Fair Use and yesterday we finally received word that our video had been restored:

But the episode reveals the lengths CBN will go to hide and censor the statements made by its own leader. Now, the network is even considering legal action against a documentary critical of Robertson.

Texas Textbook Reviewer Sheds Light On Creationist Efforts To Undercut Science Education

In a letter sent to the State Board of Education, Jimmy Gollihar of the University of Texas at Austin’s Center for Systems and Synthetic Biology describes the lengths to which creationists are going to undermine science and advance Creationism in Texas classrooms, as well as the help they are receiving from board chair Barbara Cargill.

While the panels reviewing science textbooks are supposed to be independent of the school board, Cargill worked closely with creationism advocates on the panels, leading Gollihar to note that Cargill aided “those who might reasonably be regarded as creationists.”

Gollihar’s letter details how the creationists who are serving on the panel not only lack any credentials but seem not to understand basic science, such as the one panelist, a dietician, who demanded that biology textbooks incorporate “creation science based on biblical principles.”

“With such a gross misunderstanding of science, it is hard to fathom that any other comments the reviewer made would have been helpful or even accurate, and it further underscores the unfortunate skewing of the panels away from real, practicing scientists,” Gollihar writes.

As Dan Quinn of the Texas Freedom Network points out, Gollihar’s name was even added to the anti-evolution panelist’s comment.

“The net result of having a huge raft of non-scientists on the panels was that rather than checking for factual errors in the texts I was put into the position of having to painstakingly educate other panel members on past and current literature,” Gollihar continues. “[E]ven beyond the obviously ideologically-derived comments on the materials many of the comments found littered throughout those reviews make no sense whatsoever from a scientific viewpoint.”

He notes that actual biologists are being sidelined in the process as he was “among a small minority of panelists that possessed any post-secondary education in the biological sciences.”

By stacking the panels with advocates of Creationism, the bodies did “not in any way reflect the distribution of viewpoints within the scientific community.”

First, it would seem that the selection process for reviewers is lacking, at best — politically motivated at worst. Coming into the live review session in Austin, I fully expected that as a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin I would be the least-qualified member on the panel. My fears of inadequacy would soon subside; it seems that I was in fact one of only two practicing scientists present; indeed, I was among a small minority of panelists that possessed any post-secondary education in the biological sciences. Given the high interest amongst the scientific community in improving science education in Texas, I doubt that the make-up of the panel reflected the application pool in any way.

In fact, I know that several of my colleagues who hold PhD or equivalent degrees in their respective fields were passed over in the selection process. Instead, we had several well-known creationists and even a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design think tank. Beyond the established creationists, apologists for “creation science” were scattered throughout each of the review teams. This does not in any way reflect the distribution of viewpoints within the scientific community. It is impossible to conclude that the teams reviewing textbooks were anything other than grossly skewed and obviously biased.

The net result of having a huge raft of non-scientists on the panels was that rather than checking for factual errors in the texts I was put into the position of having to painstakingly educate other panel members on past and current literature. Somewhat unsurprisingly, a reviewer from another table, who is also a well-known creationist without any training in biology, was quite proud that he was the one reviewing the sections on evolution for his table … with no scientific counterpoint to be had. As a result, even beyond the obviously ideologically-derived comments on the materials many of the comments found littered throughout those reviews make no sense whatsoever from a scientific viewpoint and are absolutely not germane to the content prescribed in the TEKS [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills].

Secondly, I and other members of my group grew increasingly concerned with both the actions and presence of Chairwoman Barbara Cargill during the review of course materials for high school biology. We appreciated her kind words about our service to the state, but we were taken aback by the sheer amount of time spent with other panel members, especially those who might reasonably be regarded as creationists. From our vantage, Ms. Cargill was clearly trying to steer the independent review process by providing specific guidance and direction to the two other teams. She appeared to be pointing to specific locations within certain texts and encouraging the members of the panel to recommend changes to the publishers. It is our understanding that the review process should be absent of any undue influence from SBOE members.

...

Finally, I have recently been made aware that a reviewer from another team made what appears to be a grossly misrepresentative comment to the publisher. For example, in the review of the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt textbook, an incredible resource, a panel member comments:

I understand the National Academy of Science's strong support of the theory of evolution. At the same time, this is a theory. As an educator and parent, I feel very strongly that "creation science" based on Biblical principles should be incorporated to every Biology book that is up for adoption. It is very important for students to use critical thinking skills and give them the opportunity to weigh the evidence between evolution and "creation science."

This is disturbing for a number of reasons. The author of this comment has obviously not mastered the material contained within the TEKS, especially 2C. With such a gross misunderstanding of science, it is hard to fathom that any other comments the reviewer made would have been helpful or even accurate, and it further underscores the unfortunate skewing of the panels away from real, practicing scientists. Moreover, while I entered into this process hoping to improve it, I now find that my name appears on the final document containing this comment! At no time did I ever sign anything resembling such nonsense. In fact, the author of that comment and I never worked on anything together. I do not know how this inaccurate statement and my name have been paired, but because I am a professional in good standing I strongly ask you to please remove my name from anything that does not have my direct signature when providing materials to the public. To do otherwise is to potentially sully my reputation. In sum, the review process is either broken or corrupt.

In hopes of the former, let’s learn from this and ensure that the next generation of students from our state is equipped with a solid foundation in the biological sciences and can compete globally. Future panel members should be experts in the irrespective fields, preferably practicing scientists up to date on the modern information that students need. If necessary, it might be useful to partition the TEKS to academics and professionals who deal with these topics in their work and research. We should absolutely not see network, mechanical or chemical engineers, dieticians or others making decisions or pressuring publishers to change books on biology. Let biologists do biology. We’re actually pretty good at it.

Fischer: Stopping Terry Jones' Koran-Burning 'Is Really No Different Than What The Pharisees Did To Jesus'

Yesterday, radical anti-Islam pastor Terry Jones was arrested while transporting nearly three thousand copies of the Koran that had been soaked in kerosene which he intended to burn in protest of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

Jones was charged with illegally carrying a firearm and unlawful conveyance of fuel and the latter charge struck Bryan Fischer as laughable as he defended Jones' right to burn the Koran on his radio program today, saying that using this sort of trumped-up charge to stop him "is really no different than what the Pharisees did to Jesus."

"They had to find some kind of trumped up charge," Fischer said, "in order to accuse him and convict him before the Sanhedrin; they tried to suborn testimony, they couldn't even get these counter-witnesses, these false witnesses to agree with each other but that was what they were trying to do, find some kind of trumped-up charge to get him in trouble.  So that's what they did with Terry Jones":

Erik Rush: Obama Engaging In Triple Cover-Up Of Benghazi

Channeling Glenn Beck, WorldNetDaily columnist and Fox News regular Erik Rush today writes that President Obama orchestrated the attack on the US annex in Benghazi, which he claims had “clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria,” to cover up the weapons shipment. 

Now why would Obama and his supposed Islamist allies attack the same US annex they believe was arming Islamists? Well, as Rush explains, it was all an effort to cover up the fact that they were doing it in the first place, and then the administration had to cover up the reasons for the attack.

A cover-up of the cover-up.

But despite the fact that this makes absolutely no sense, Rush went on to say that the insurgents in Syria “came to possess chemical weapons” thanks to Obama, so now Obama must attack Syria in order to “erase the evidence of having provided them” and cover that up too.

Yep, it’s the old cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up.

Most observers have settled on the likelihood that it is his desire to redirect attention from his many scandals, Obamacare and immigration reform legislation that impels the president toward carrying out this attack. There is also a distinct possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood (whom he has supported worldwide and who have fighters among the rebels in Syria) is putting pressure on him to deliver after his failure to resist the ouster of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Q: How does Obama know what kind of weapons the rebels in Syria have?

A: He has the receipts …

I propose another scenario: It has been well-established that the Obama administration clandestinely provided arms to the rebels in Syria. (I say “rebels in Syria” rather than “Syrian rebels” because many of them are jihadis from other nations.) It is a pretty safe bet that this operation was at least part of the reason for the 9/11/12 attack on the American facility in Benghazi. I have contended for some time that President Obama himself either orchestrated the attack or was party to it. His motivation, I have asserted, would have been in perceiving a need to erase the evidence of the Benghazi operation – and perhaps even some of the personnel involved.

A subsequent revelation that Morsi provided military assets for the attack on the Benghazi compound does tend to lend credence to the notion that Obama was involved. After all, Obama was Morsi’s benefactor; indeed, there would have been no Arab Spring and no Muslim Brotherhood ascendancy in Egypt had it not been for Obama’s destabilization of the region.

Since it has been established that the Obama administration provided weapons to the rebels in Syria, and nearly a certainty these factions came to possess chemical weapons, is it then possible that Obama’s desire to strike Syria with all due speed stems from a need to erase the evidence of having provided them, and perhaps even other treasonous actions? It would certainly make the truth getting out with regard to Benghazi much more of a threat to Obama if evidence speaking to this being factual exists.

If this is factual, Barack Obama might ultimately be looking at occupying a noted place in history quite different from the one he currently occupies.

Now Glenn Beck Is Dismissing Romney As Just Another 'Progressive'

On his radio broadcast this morning, Glenn Beck told some story about how, last week, he had rescued a lost sheep that had disappeared from his ranch over a year ago and, in typical Beck fashion, he saw it as some sort of allegory for the nation about how God allowed President Obama to win in order to ensure that the Tea Party remains awake and saves the nation and ultimately rescues all the "lost sheep" in America and blah, blah, blah.

While telling the story, Beck made an absolutely remarkable statement in passing when, around the 3:45 mark, he speculated that if Mitt Romney had won the election, he too might be pressing for military action in Syria "because, in the end, we all found out that he was the progressive."

Just think about that statement.

During the campaign, Beck spent every day telling his audience that Romney's performance was divine providence, that his victory was going to be a massive mandate and a work of God and that Romney was a modern-day George Washington and Abraham Lincoln:

But now Beck is dismissing him as just another progressive. 

If that is true, then why was Beck so enthralled with him during the election? Just where was Beck's self-proclaimed "gift" for being able to look into someone eyes and see their heart or his vaunted ability to see down the road and predict what will be coming our way? 

Beck says Romney revealed himself to be a "progressive" during the final presidential debate, which took place on October 22.  Yet two days after that, Beck was comparing Romney to George Washington on his radio broadcast.

If Beck knew that Romney was a "progressive" during the election, why didn't he warn his audience instead of repeatedly likening him to towering figures such as Washington and Lincoln? 

We have an archive full of examples of Glenn Beck saying utterly ridiculous things, but this current effort to rewrite his own history has to be one of the most fundamentally dishonest things he has ever said.

Cahn: Gay Marriage And Obama's Re-Election Are Signs Of The End Of America

Author Jonathan Cahn has become a star in Religious Right circles over his new book, The Harbinger, which basically claims that biblical prophecy regarding ancient Israel applies to the United States today. Cahn states that the September 11 attacks were a warning from God to repent and prophesied in the Bible. Instead of repenting, however, America is increasingly rebelling against God and Cahn predicts that such defiance will lead to the country’s ultimate destruction.

He appeared on Washington Watch with Tony Perkins yesterday to mark the anniversary of 9/11 and discuss a recent prayer gathering in the Capitol, where Michele Bachmann delivered a Cahn-like speech about how 9/11 and the Benghazi attack represented divine judgment. Cahn also spoke at the event.

After Perkins asked Cahn if the US is “responding to these warning signs of the Lord” appropriately, since Cahn of course knows exactly how God views America, Cahn responded that while America is in spiritual decline, the good news is that lots of people are buying his book!

The End Times author reiterated his claim that members of Congress are reading The Harbinger, including members he met at the Capitol prayer summit.

Unfortunately, America is still going downhill thanks to gay marriage and the re-election of Obama, so we may all be doomed anyway.

What I’ve experienced is there’s a lot of people—The Harbinger’s been spreading across the country, it’s even been reaching Capitol Hill. You and I were there on that night of prayer and several congressmen came up to me about it, so it’s been spreading on one hand. So we’re seeing prayers, we’re seeing repentance; we’re seeing much of that. But, on the other hand, as a nation since The Harbinger came out, America has continued its descent, its moral descent, rapidly. And this has affected the church. I believe, when I look back at it, it came out in 2012 and 2013, this is a real tipping point time where for the first time you have more Americans in favor of gay marriage, you have a president who was re-elected after declaring this, you have states coming forward, you have so many tipping points. I think there’s a reason why The Harbinger came out at that time because it’s a warning and it’s a wakeup call. What happens with a tipping point is things accelerate, unless there’s an intervention of God, things accelerate and I believe we’re really watching an acceleration; the Supreme Court just came out with its decision, I mean so much.

Perkins: Boycott Betty Crocker For Baking Wedding Cakes For Gay Couples

When gay rights advocates criticized Chick-fil-A for the company’s financial support of anti-gay organizations, the Family Research Council decried their “gaystapo tactics.” Apparently, the FRC believes that boycotts are only acceptable if they are organized by conservative groups.

In fact, the FRC is already boycotting companies like Starbucks and McDonalds, and even the Girl Scout Cookies.

Today on his daily radio commentary, FRC president Tony Perkins urged listeners to also boycott Betty Crocker and offered a link to the National Organization for Marriage’s campaign at DumpGeneralMills.com.

Perkins was outraged that Betty Crocker donated custom cakes to three gay Minnesota couples who were married after the state legalized same-sex marriage, and upset that a company spokesman said that “Betty celebrates all families.” Perkins warned that Betty Crocker’s “latest promotion is a recipe for disaster” and claimed that it is offensive to a majority of Americans who have already “made it tough on companies like Target, Starbucks and JC Penney” for not opposing gay rights.

“When you’re at the store, think outside the Betty Crocker box!”

At Betty Crocker, the only thing they're mixing up is their priorities. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. If you ask conservatives, Betty Crocker's latest promotion is a recipe for disaster. This summer, the famous dessert line decided to jump on the same-sex marriage bandwagon and bring cakes to celebrate. In Minnesota, where parent company General Mills is headquartered, Betty Crocker decided to donate wedding cakes to the first homosexual couples who exchanged vows on the first day that counterfeit marriage was legal. "Betty celebrates all families…. We don't want to be old fashioned," the company explained. Unfortunately for General Mills, the majority of Americans think natural marriage is anything but old fashioned. And they've made it tough on companies like Target, Starbucks, and JC Penney who disagree. Know where your money is going. When you're at the store, think outside the Betty Crocker box!

How Big Money Bought North Carolina for Extremists

In the years since Citizens United, North Carolina has provided a clear example of what happens when a small number of corporate interests, allied with a far-right base, are allowed unbridled influence over elections.

Klingenschmitt: Colorado Recall Election A Victory For Jesus

Heavenly angels were singing when two Democratic state senators in Colorado were defeated in a low-turnout recall election that focused on the lawmakers’ support for tougher gun laws, at least according to “Dr. Chaps” Gordon Klingenschmitt. The exorcist and former navy chaplain actively campaigned for the Republican challengers, the Colorado Independent reports:

“I was praying tonight that God would inspire His people,” Gordon Klingenschmitt, assured Linda Herpin, wife of the GOP recall challenger, minutes before El Paso County Republicans announced that her husband had unseated Morse, a Democrat.



“I wanted to help recall John Morse specifically because of 2nd Amendment issues,” he said. “As a Christian, as a person who follows Jesus, I believe in the 2nd Amendment. I believe that when Jesus said, for example, ‘sell your cloak and buy a sword,’ that he endorsed the idea of self-defense, that defending yourself is not a crime. In fact, it’s a moral obligation to defend your wife, to defend your family, and John Morse stands against families who want to do that —stands against people who want to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.”

In an email to members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project, Klingenschmitt writes that Jesus was the real winner in Colorado:

Victory! Jesus and 2nd Amendment win Colorado Senate races

Not only do I live in southern Colorado, where conservatives just successfully recalled two gun-grabbing liberal Senators who voted to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights, but I got personally involved in the local politics (block walking, petition gathering, donating, making phone calls, and praying) that helped elect a new Republican State Senator Bernie Herpin and throw out the Democrat Senate President John Morse. This internationally-watched race confronted President Obama himself, who sent VP Joe Biden to lobby the Colorado Senate to punish gun-owners, but those efforts backfired.



That said, I still believe religious freedom is the First right, because even if you have the right to bear arms, assemble, speak, and petition, but you don't have the right to worship Almighty God or pray in Jesus' name, then the government still owns your soul. Let's tell them "not my soul" today.

Napolitano: Syria's Use Of Chemical Weapons Is Just Like President Clinton's Murder Of The Branch Davidians

Judge Andrew Napolitano was the guest on Glenn Beck's television program last night where Beck introduced him as "the man who actually can save our nation" before the two men sat down for a discussion about the possibility of military action against Syria for its use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Napolitano said any such action by the United States would be illegal because the US has not been attacked, is not in danger of imminent attack, nor has an ally been attacked. 

Furthermore, he said, Syria's use of chemical weapons was no different than what the Clinton administration did to the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas back in 1993.

"Who's used chemical weapon on their own people," Napolitano asked. "How far are we from Waco, Texas where federal agents used chemical weapons to murder 76 Americans in 1993 in the Clinton Administration? Can you imagine if China or Russia wanted to bomb us to punish us for what we did at the time? Come on! Where are we going with this?"

WND Is Just Asking The Question: Is Obama 'Ushering In Islamic Caliphate?'

Today’s WorldNetDaily News Alert was a true double-whammy, with two heavily slated reports phrased as questions so as to not take actual responsibility for the incendiary claims made in the articles.

“Are Terrorists Setting U.S. Wildfires?’ Joe Kovacs asks, relying on unsupported claims that Islamic extremists were maybe behind a Colorado wildfire.

As WND reported in June, an expert on Islamic terrorism believes a wildfire that ravaged the outskirts of Colorado Springs, Colo., killing two people and destroying more than 500 homes, should be examined by terror investigators.

“One thing that my investigators have given me the authority to state is that they have all but ruled out natural causes as the cause of this fire,” said Sheriff Terry Maketa at the time. “I can’t really go any further on that, but I can say we are pretty confident it was not, for instance, a lightning strike.”

In a message to WND’s Muslim readers, the NewsAlert offered this message: “If you are a Muslim … a Sunni Muslim … and you dream of the day the caliphate will be restored … then thank Allah for this man …”

Obama, of course!

WND reporter Aaron Klein’s post, “‘Manchurian President’ Ushering In Islamic Caliphate?,” argues that Obama has “empowered Islamic radicals” in order to create a global Islamic government. Klein, the author of “The Manchurian President,” is publicizing his new book “Impeachable Offenses.”

Since assuming office, President Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening U.S. enemies and tacitly supporting Muslim Brotherhood revolutions that have empowered Islamic radicals, charges a new book.

In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,”New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott demonstrate that Obama’s policies have been helping to install Muslim Brotherhood-friendly regimes to the detriment of U.S. national security and world stability.

“Obama’s policies are installing political Islam throughout the Middle East and North Africa in a tidal wave of change already reaping disastrous results for those regions as well as for U.S. interests there,” write Klein and Elliott.



Islamic caliphate?

Mubarak was only the beginning, write Klein and Elliott. Obama’s support for a U.S. ally’s ouster and replacement with radical Islamic elements would be repeated numerous times in the Middle East and North Africa, to the great detriment of the American war on terror, the authors write.

Barton Cites Decade-Old Survey As Proof Abortion Will Be Illegal In Twenty Years

One of the great things about David Barton is that once he has adopted a talking point, he continues to repeat it regardless of how absurd or out of date it has become.

For example, earlier this week Barton appeared on "Praise the Lord" where he told hosts Matt and Laurie Crouch that legal abortion will not be an issue in twenty years because God has sent a new generation of teenagers who are overwhelmingly pro-life.

Claiming that polls show that 72% of teens oppose abortion, Barton said they were "an answer that God has sent with a new generation; we just gotta train these guys right and turn them loose to get this thing fixed":

If you actually bother to find the poll Barton cites, you discover that it is from 2003 and it found that 72% of teens thought that abortion was morally wrong.

If you trust Barton, then abortion should be illegal within the next decade, since the poll he is using it over ten years old.  The only problem is that the teens in that survey are now adults and according to a Gallup poll conducted in May of this year, 50% of adults ages 18-29 consider themselves to be pro-choice while 41% consider themselves to be pro-life.

Of course, as with so many of Barton's other talking points, he doesn't bother to mention any of that because doing so would completely undermine the very claim that he is making.

Voter suppression and intimidation reported in Colorado recall election

The recall effort began earlier this year as a grassroots protest and on Tuesday resulted in State Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs and State Senator Angela Giron of Pueblo losing their seats.
PFAW

'Homo Akbar!' Bryan Fischer Decries The 'Homosexual Mafia' And Obama's 'Spiritual Cleansing'

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer yesterday tied together the closure of an Oregon bakery that refused to serve gay customers who were trying to find a wedding cake and the rapidly-collapsing story of an Air Force officer who insists he was punished by a superior over his views on gay marriage. Fischer said that the two accounts were proof of growing anti-Christian persecution in Obama’s America.

Lifting a line from WorldNetDaily, he accused gay rights advocates of using mob-like tactics and shouting “Homo Akbar!”

“This is happening everywhere,” Fischer argued. “That bakery couple in Oregon had their bakery completely shut down by a homosexual mob, a homosexual mafia; they cried ‘Homo-Akbar!’ and assaulted, stormed metaphorically, the bakery and got it completely shut down.”

Later in the segment, the Focal Point host maintained that President Obama “has made it a criminal offense to be a sincerely devoted follower of Jesus Christ in the United States Military” and accused Obama of “leading this purge of Christians from the military. This is ethnic cleansing, this is spiritual cleansing.”

Watch:

Anti-Immigrant Activist on Undocumented Population: 'Weed The Garden' And 'Cull The Herd'

Zack Taylor of the National Association for Former Border Patrol Officers has been a leading voice against immigration reform, charging that “America’s immigration laws are not broken” and estimating that there are around 20 million undocumented immigrants in the US. In an interview with the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios today, Taylor claimed that of the 20 million (a grossly inflated number), “potentially thirty percent” have criminal records – and that immigration enforcement officials must “cull the herd” of immigrants.

Actually, immigrants – both documented and undocumented -- are far less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans, and many of those who are in prison are there as a result of immigration violations rather than violent crimes.

Taylor then went on to falsely suggest that the Obama administration is ignoring laws and not targeting immigrants with criminal records. But as Beth Caldwell notes, two million undocumented immigrants have been deported in the last five years and the Senate reform bill “categorically excludes most people with criminal convictions from relief.”

“It’s just like having a garden; you have to weed the garden. If you’re raising animals; you have to cull the herd. That’s what needs to happen,” Taylor said.

This whole business about legalizing an unknown—when I talk about unknown, we’re talking about potentially 30% of the people that are here have criminal records. Why don’t we just go ahead and enforce the current immigration laws? It’s just like having a garden; you have to weed the garden. If you’re raising animals; you have to cull the herd. That’s what needs to happen. We need to turn our law enforcement people into a screw to where the people that are taken full custody arrest of are processed for immigration backgrounds and those that have criminal records removed. That’s not so hard to understand because these people are being picked up committing other crimes.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious