Fighting the Right

Religious Right Responds to DOMA Decision: 'Absurd'; 'Profound Injustice'; 'Shameful Day in American History' (UPDATED)

Religious Right activists are none too pleased, to say the least, about today's DOMA decision.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.

Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from their union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.

Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense, and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. While the culture has failed in many ways to be marriage-strengthening, this is no reason to give up. Now is the time to strengthen marriage, not redefine it.

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council:

We are encouraged that the court learned from the disaster of Roe v. Wade and refrained from redefining marriage for the entire country. However, by striking down the federal definition of marriage in DOMA, the Court is asserting that Congress does not have the power to define the meaning of words in statutes Congress itself has enacted. This is absurd. The Defense of Marriage Act imposes no uniform definition of marriage upon the individual states. However, the states should not be able to impose varying definitions of marriage upon the federal government. The ruling that the federal government must recognize same-sex 'marriages' in states that recognize them raises as many questions as it answers. For example, what is the status of such couples under federal law if they move to another state that does not recognize their 'marriage?' This decision throws open the doors for whole new rounds of litigation.

Gordon Klingenschmitt, Pray In Jesus Name Project:

Friends, today is a shameful day in American history. When courts refuse to enforce good existing laws (including God's law), they give (by default) permission for sin to run wild across America. But when they claim the Founding Fathers somehow endorse sodomy, they have betrayed all that God and the Foundering Fathers ever stood for.

Bill Donohue, Catholic League:

It is clear from today’s two rulings that the ball has been moved down the field to a point where the pro-gay marriage side is in the red zone. Whether they can be stopped from crossing the goal line depends solely on the prospects of having a constitutional amendment affirming marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

William Owens, Coalition of African-American Pastors:

"We are devastated that the Supreme Court succumbed to political pressure by voting to weaken the sacred institution. They neglected our most precious children who need a mother and a father united in marriage for healthy development," said Rev. William Owens, President of CAAP. "The African-American community has already been plagued with problems related to children growing up in single parent households. This ruling will only accelerate the further erosion of our communities and society."

...

"We will not give up on marriage as the solid social institution recognized by cultures worldwide," he said. "It is time for African-Americans and the Christian community to rise up and renew their efforts to protect marriage and strengthen the families in their communities. African-Americans pay a disproportionate price as collateral damage of the aggressive gay agenda, and it will take leaders across the country to resist the cultural shift on marriage."

Louis Sheldon and Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition:

Some days our civilization erodes slightly in feet and inches, other days it drops a mile at a time. Today is one of those days when our culture's decline is widely felt.

The climate in America has changed because America has become a blur. Our government is a scandal-ridden, ominous force operating outside the U.S. Constitution. There is no long any "Unum" to which the many can rally.

Justice Scalia's great dissent on DOMA today needs to be preserved for that day in the future when the real impact of this decision is felt, that day when perhaps another generation assesses who spoke up and what was done when a great darkness began to overtake our country.

Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America:

Today the Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade of marriage. These rulings will continue to divide our Republic just as Roe continues to do 40 years later. The Supreme Court continues to lose credibility at an alarming rate with today’s decision.

...

While the justices sit in their high chairs, these decisions will have very real-life consequences for American families, especially as it relates to our religious liberties. Those who hold a Biblical view of marriage can expect much persecution from the government in the years to come. In addition the thirty-eight states that have affirmed the traditional definition of marriage can expect to be dragged into future courts. The Justices have thrust us into another life-long battle for religious freedom and a bitter dispute for truth, just as they did with Roe.

Janice Shaw Crouse, Concerned Women for America:

The Supreme Court rulings fly in the face of reams of research showing that the best household arrangement for children is a married mom and dad. It contradicts centuries of experience across time and cultures for the best family structure for strong nations. It represents a national experiment in social reconstruction at the expense of our children's futures and the future of America. These decisions repudiate--with a vengeance--the sacred trust of the founders who built this great nation 'under God' and on a foundation of Judeo- Christian principles that have stood the test of time."

Fr. Shenan J. Boquet, Human Life International:

"We must continue to demand that our political leaders recognize and protect this most natural institution especially in this time of intense bigotry and discrimination toward those who defend marriage in the public square," said Father Boquet.

"Most Americans know that this debate over marriage will never ultimately be settled by the Court, for at least two reasons," said Father Boquet. "First, those who are leading the assault on marriage have demonstrated again and again their disdain for laws that defend marriage and for the will of those with whom they disagree. Theirs is a crusade against both faith and reason, and they are no more likely to stop with a court decision than are the defenders of marriage."

...

"Finally we note that these decisions do not bode well for the freedom of those religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, who can only uphold the true definition of marriage. We expect that persecution of the Church will increase as opponents of true marriage demand that no dissent be tolerated, and that religious institutions participate in performing 'marriage' ceremonies for same-sex couples or suffer charges of discrimination. We are prepared for these inevitable events, and we stand in solidarity and hope with all who defend marriage."

Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel:

Today, the United States Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy as an arbiter of the Constitution and the rule of law. Today is the death of the Court’s legacy, because the decision in the Federal Defense of Marriage Act case defies logic and is a pure invention of a handful of Justices.

Marriage predates government and civil authorities. No civil authority, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage was not created by religion or government and is ontologically a union of one man and one woman. For any Court or civil authority to think it has the authority to redefine marriage is the height of hubris. Deconstructing marriage will hurt children and society. While today’s decision on DOMA did not redefine marriage, it has provided the foundation on which to do so. Today’s decision is the equivalent of the 1972 contraception decision involving unmarried couples and the so-called right to privacy on which the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v. Wade was constructed. Today, the Supreme Court has damaged its image, lost legitimacy, and set in motion considerable harm to society and to the State of the Union.

Richard Viguerie:

Such a ruling is certainly the height of mindless legalism and in place of the duly expressed will of the people of California it substitutes a strange rule of the elite for our federal system of representative government.

...

While we decry the Supreme Court’s erosion of government’s foundational role in creating a moral order for society, the most frightening part of today’s decisions is that the Court appears to have removed the power to order society’s moral framework from “We the People,” and vested it in an elite class of judges and public officials who may ignore our will at their pleasure.

Brian Brown, National Organization for Marriage:

"In a miscarriage of justice the US Supreme Court has refused to consider the decision of a single federal court judge to overturn the perfectly legal action of over 7 million California voters who passed Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman," said Brain Brown, NOM's president. "The Supreme Court's holding that proponents of an initiative had no legal right to appeal ignores California law and rewards corrupt politicians for abandoning their duty to defend traditional marriage laws. It's imperative that Congress continue to preserve the right of states to protect true marriage and refuse to recognize faux marriages performed in other states or countries."

...

"There is a stench coming from this case that has now stained the Supreme Court. They've allowed corrupt politicians and judges to betray the voters, rewarding them for their betrayal. It's an illegitimate decision. We and millions of other Americans will refuse to accept this rogue decision rewarding corruption. " Brown said.

Rick Scarborough, Vision America Action and Tea Party Unity:

Reacting to the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) of 1996, Vision America Action President Dr. Rick Scarborough declared: "The definition of marriage is not within the purview of the United States Supreme Court, or any other court, for that matter. God defines marriage. Governments either conform to His will or ignore it -- at their very great peril."

...

"Justice Kennedy has shown utter contempt for constitutional self-government and seems interested only in promoting the use of state power to displace biblical values and to enforce sexual immorality," Scarborough said. "This is a profound threat to the freedoms of religion, speech and association."

Gary Marx, Faith and Freedom Coalition:

Today's ruling by the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act is a direct ATTACK on the foundation of American families. Our opponents have shown that they won’t stop until they’ve completely redefined what marriage means, and we can’t let them win.

The Faith & Freedom Coalition is dedicated to defending marriage. Study after study has shown that children do best when raised in a home with a married mother and father. Marriage and family are the foundation of a civil society, and we must not let that be taken away.

Richard Land, Southern Baptist Convention:

“Same-sex marriage in America has been a divisive and controversial issue for some time—and will continue to be,” says Southern Evangelical Seminary President Richard Land. “Today is a devastating day for traditional marriage and religious freedom.

“In spite of the blow to this sacred union, we must always remember that marriage is precious, a biblical gift, and one that should not have been tainted by redefining it in a way that is counter to God’s plan for families and for America. Defining marriage for the American people is way above the Supreme Court’s pay grade. God created marriage, and He has defined its parameters, regardless of what the majority of Supreme Court justices might think.”

Gary Bauer, American Values:

The Supreme Court today struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that prohibits federal benefits from being awarded to same-sex couples only in states that permit same-sex marriage. I agree with Justice Scalia and the dissent that this was an overreach of the court's authority, striking down an overwhelming vote of Congress and the signature of a Democratic president. It hastens the day when same-sex marriage will be forced on the American people.

...

Make no mistake about it: The legal battle over the definition of marriage is in reality a battle over whether America will be completely ripped away from its Judeo-Christian foundation. While the media continue to act as if this is only about marriage rights, it is ultimately a battle over religious liberty. Today's rulings guarantee that it will continue to rage.

Harry Jackson, High Impact Leadership Coalition:

Todd Starnes, Fox News:

Mike Huckabee, Fox News:

Ralph Reed, Faith and Freedom Coalition:

Bryan Fischer, American Family Association:

Rep. Huelskamp: 'Radical' DOMA Decision Means 'Children Will Be Hurt'

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), a staunch opponent of gay rights, warned that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act will harm children. Speaking at a Heritage Foundation summit today, Huelskamp claimed that “children will be hurt” by the “radical” decision and accused the justices of having “substituted their personal views on marriage for the constitutional decisions of the American voters and their elected representatives.”

Watch:

Heroic Filibuster in TX Stops Sweeping Anti-Choice Bill

A sweeping anti-abortion bill that would have decimated women’s rights in Texas was defeated thanks to Sen. Wendy Davis’s 13-hour filibuster.

Tony Perkins Cheers Gutting of Voting Rights Act

While civil rights leaders are denouncing the 5-4 Supreme Court decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins is cheering.  In an email alert sent at the end of the day on Tuesday, Perkins says, “With help from the U.S. Supreme Court, America may finally be turning a page on the racial politics that have haunted our last 50 years.”  Oh, yes, giving a green light to the kind of blatantly discriminatory voter disenfranchisement efforts that we’ve seen in recent elections is certainly going to help America “turn the page” on racial politics.

Like other Religious Right leaders, Perkins loves to denounce “judicial activism” when judges uphold reproductive choice or legal equality for LGBT people. But he happily embraces this ruling in which a narrow Court majority rejected a huge bipartisan congressional vote that reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 on a matter in which the Constitution specifically and intentionally gives Congress wide discretion. Perkins complains that “Congress insisted on reauthorizing a Voting Rights Act that was rooted in one of the darkest chapters of U.S. history.” And he claims that “In recent days, the Voting Rights Act has been a tool for a liberal and politically-motivated DOJ to shape laws to its advantage.”

Perkins seems deeply concerned about “the red tape of the Voting Rights Act” that he said has been “unnecessarily handcuffing” states whose history of disenfranchisement meant that they had to have changes in voting procedures pre-approved by the Justice Department or by a three-judge District Court in the District of Columbia. In contrast, Perkins seems utterly unconcerned about more recent voter disenfranchisement campaigns waged by the GOP and its allies. 

Perkins cites Chief Justice John Roberts’ disingenuous suggestion that the court was not acting in a way that would encourage discriminatory disenfranchisement. "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting," Roberts insisted. "Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions."

Is there anyone who thinks Roberts and Perkins actually want the federal-government-hating Tea Party Republicans who are calling the shots in the House of Representatives to support the creation of a new formula that would subject more states to federal oversight?  Perkins makes his thoughts on that point abundantly clear with this comment about the Justice Department: “And in an administration as corrupt as President Obama's is proving to be, the less power it has over the states, the better!”

Perkins: Gay Marriage Ruling Will Undermine Court's Legitimacy, Freedom in America

Family Research Council head Tony Perkins yesterday chatted with Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association on Today’s Issues to discuss the Supreme Court’s imminent decisions on Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Perkins warned that if the Proposition 8 is overturned, then the “legitimacy of the court” will be called into question.

Despite all evidence pointing to overwhelming support for marriage equality among young voters and heaviest resistance among seniors, Perkins said in reference to gay rights advocates that “time is not on their side.”

“They need the court to impose this on the entire nation, because the more time that it takes them to push their agenda, the more Americans will realize the unintended consequences of it,” Perkins claimed. “It’s going to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in our country.”

After Perkins bizarrely argued that marriage equality supporters are in a race against time, Wildmon wondered if opponents of gay marriage would be “hauled off to jail” in a few years. Perkins added that anti-gay activists may be “prosecuted by our government” soon as marriage equality eviscerates freedom.

Watch:

Perkins: I would think they’re going to be hard-pressed to overturn California’s Prop. 8. That would have serious ramifications, I think, for I really think the legitimacy of the court to undermine what the voters of California did.



Perkins: There’s this idea that this is inevitable, that’s what they want to present, this idea that this is inevitable, I think certainly to influence the court and the American people. The reason they’re trying to make it appear to be inevitable is because time is not on their side. They need the court to impose this on the entire nation because the more time that it takes them to push their agenda, the more Americans will realize the unintended consequences of it. This is not just about the marriage altar; this is about fundamentally altering America: religious liberty, parental rights, free speech, all of that goes by the wayside if we embrace this notion of redefining natural marriage.



Wildmon: For the next year or two, three years perhaps, in terms of the Christian community in this country that wants to defend natural marriage and believes in Romans 1 among other biblical verses that homosexuality is sin, are we going to be able to believe that teaching anymore without being hauled off to jail?

Perkins: Well you certainly can believe it. I do think there is coming a choice, whether or not that happens immediately, that we have to choose between not only believing scripture but living according to it and being prosecuted by our government, the time frame in which that happens I’m not certain. But clearly we’re already saying those who hold to a biblical view of morality are being marginalized and stigmatized with the intention of silencing them in the public square. It’s going to be a clear and present danger to the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in our country.

WND: Obama Wants Kids 'Brainwashed into Believing They're Homosexuals' and 'Emulating Street Thugs'

Columnist Mychal Massie is convinced President Obama is turning kids into gay street thugs through public school brainwashing…and it probably goes without saying that the venue he has chosen to publicize this revelation is WorldNetDaily. In his column, Massie compares Obama to “the serpent that beguiled Eve in the Garden” and one of the snakes Saint Patrick drove out of Ireland, before pouncing on the bogus claim that Obama made comments attacking parochial schools while visiting Northern Ireland. 

“True to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy, he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church,” Massie writes, adding that “Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up with instruction about homosexuality” and learn “about abortion and birth control devices.”

Besides learning about homosexuality and abortion, according to Massie, kids won’t learn much else in Obama’s schools: “He wants children to grow up in failing schools with poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves had received…. Having children brainwashed into believing they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we want for our progeny.”

Saint Patrick may have been recognized for driving the snakes out of Ireland, but this past week one of them slithered back in. Obama is the personification of an elapid that is now without the appendages some believe the serpent that beguiled Eve in the Garden had possessed before it was made to slither upon the ground. That said, he has not shed the character of the personage incarnate in that first serpent.



But Obama sees Catholic schools as the bane to social stability and antagonistic toward his worldview and social order. He said, “If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden – that too encourages division and discourages cooperation.”

I am convinced that his words were carefully chosen and intended to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church while providing him a thin veneer of deniability.

Obama is deeply resentful of the stand the Catholic Church has taken against his health-care legislation. And true to his petulant, narcissistic sociopathy, he chose to lash out at the Catholic Church before the audience he did.

Obama had his educational purview shaped by the Marxist pedophile Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky and Jeremiah Wright. That does not mean we should allow his views to corrupt ours.

Catholic-school education remains one of the finest educations children can receive. I applaud the verbiage of the archbishop when he said, “Catholic education provides young people with a wonderful opportunity to grow up with Jesus.” Obama would rather have children from grades K through 5 to grow up with instruction about homosexuality. He would rather have children grow up as his daughters (according to the words from his mouth), learning about abortion and birth control devices. He wants children to grow up in failing schools with poorly educated teachers providing even less instruction than they themselves had received.

But for those of us who believe that the Word of God is final and that Christ-centered education is critical, the words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33 are undeniable truth. Paul wrote, “Be not deceived: evil company corrupts good morals.” Having children brainwashed into believing they’re homosexuals and lesbians, emulating street thugs and graduating from high school with minimal reading, math and comprehension skills is not what we want for our progeny.

Buchanan: Opening Combat Roles to Women Makes US Less Civilized than Nazi Germany

Just when we thought we were done hearing Nazi comparisons today, Pat Buchanan is now arguing that the new military policy opening up combat and special unit roles to women is so wrong that even the Nazis wouldn’t have considered it. In his column, “The Pentagon’s Surrender to Feminism,” Buchanan argues that “even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle.”

He writes that putting women in combat positions “violate[s] common sense” and “thousands of years” of human civilization, even insisting that “the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology” will encourage rape and displace men. He also cites mass murderers and violent criminals to prove his point that “men are bigger, stronger [and] more aggressive” than women.

This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon’s salute to feminist ideology.

This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men.

But if this were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?

In the history of civilization, men have fought the wars. In civilized societies, attacks on women have always been regarded as contemptible and cowardly. Even the Third Reich in its dying hours did not send women into battle, but old men and boys.



Sending women into combat on equal terms seems also to violate common sense. When they reach maturity, men are bigger, stronger, more aggressive. Thus they commit many times the number of violent crimes and outnumber women in prisons 10 to 1.

For every Bonnie Parker, there are 10 Clyde Barrows.

Is it a coincidence that every massacre discussed in our gun debate – from the Texas Tower to the Long Island Railroad, from Columbine to Fort Hood, from Virginia Tech to Tucson, from Aurora to Newtown – was the work of a crazed male?



Undeniably, some women might handle combat as well as some men. But that is true of some 13-, 14- and 15-year-old boys, and some 50- and 60-year old men. Yet we do not draft boys or men that age or send them into combat. Is this invidious discrimination based on age, or ageism?

Carry this feminist-egalitarian ideology to its logical conclusion, and half of those storming the Omaha and Utah beaches should have been girls and women. Is this not an absurdity?

We have had Navy ships become “love boats,” with female sailors returning pregnant. At the Naval Academy, three midshipmen, football players, allegedly raped an intoxicated classmate. For months, she was too ashamed and frightened to report it.

An estimated 26,000 personnel of the armed forces were sexually assaulted in 2011, up from 19,000 in 2010. Obama and the Congress are understandably outraged. Such assaults are appalling. But is not the practice of forcing young men and women together in close quarters a contributory factor here?

Among the primary reasons the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA, went down to defeat three decades ago was the realization it could mean, in a future war, women could be drafted equally with men and sent in equal numbers into combat.

But what appalled the Reaganites is social progress in the age of Obama. This is another country from the one we grew up in.

Rep. Broun: Immigration Reform 'Will Destroy Our Country' and 'Destroy our Constitution'

Congressman and US Senate candidate Paul Broun (R-GA) told conservative talk show host Steve Malzberg yesterday that comprehensive immigration reform “will destroy our country” and “destroy our constitution and limited government.”

Broun agreed with Malzberg’s claim that Republicans “will never win another election” if a reform bill passes because liberal groups won’t ever be satisfied with the law and “the CBO says 40 more million immigrants in twenty years, 95 percent of them are going to vote Democrat; to me it’s political suicide.”

“You’ve got that just absolutely correct,” Broun said, “I don’t understand why Republicans are embracing this.”

Gohmert & Robertson Push Conspiracy Theory that Homeland Security Is Going To 'Force Something on the American People'

On today’s edition of the 700 Club, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) pushed the discredited conspiracy theory that the Department of Homeland Security is stockpiling arms to suppress Americans, asking Christian Broadcasting Network reporter Jennifer Wishon: “Why do you need all this protection? Are you about to force something on the American people you know they’re going to get upset about?”

Host Pat Robertson, who earlier this year alleged that Homeland Security is treating Americans as “the enemy” and preparing to “shoot” and go to war “against us,” blamed the Bush administration for creating the “bureaucratic monstrosity” of the DHS. “This was wrong and we’re beginning to see the price,” Robertson said. “They are stockpiling hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, they’ve got armored vehicles traveling the roads of America, whoever heard of such nonsense?”

Watch:

Robertson: US Abortion 'Holocaust' Worse than Nazi Germany, Will Lead to 'Wrath of the Lord'

Televangelist Pat Robertson warned today that America will face divine punishment if it doesn’t recriminalize abortion, telling 700 Club co-host Wendy Griffith today that only anti-choice laws can “avert the wrath of the Lord, but it will come upon this nation unless we do something.” Robertson and Griffith discussed a puff piece about a Pennsylvania program backed by Republican Gov. Tom Corbertt to fund anti-choice “crisis pregnancy centers,” which frequently offer misleading and inaccurate information to women.

Robertson hailed Corbett and hoped that his leadership could end the “holocaust” of abortion, which he said is worse than anything done by Adolf Hitler. Griffith called legal abortion “insane” and Robertson warned “we’re going to have to pay a price one of these days for what we’re doing.”

Watch:

Robertson: Wendy, we have fifty-five million babies that have been aborted in this country since Roe v. Wade, fifty-five million, that is a holocaust. You figure, Hitler at the height of his monstrous evil killed six million people, six million; we have in this land of the free and home of the brave, we have killed fifty-five million.

Griffith: And we’re doing it legally, you know, it’s insane.

Robertson: Exactly. The Supreme Court says, hey you have a right to, constitutionally. We’re going to have to pay a price one of these days for what we’re doing. Let’s hope that governors like Corbett and others, the tide will begin to turn and we can avert the wrath of the Lord, but it will come upon this nation unless we do something.

Oops: Five Conservative IRS Conspiracy Theories Fall Apart

Just as the GOP’s hyperventilation and grandstanding over Benghazi turned up empty, so are their claims that the IRS has been targeting right-wing groups. New reports show that the IRS did apply extra scrutiny to groups with phrases like “Tea Party” in their names…but the agency also applied the same scrutiny to groups with “progressive” or “occupy” in their titles. This backs up an earlier story from The Atlantic which also found that liberal groups had been targeted.

Prior to these revelations, we learned that the White House had no role in the supposed targeting and that the IRS manager accused of political bias is a conservative Republican.

But for some reason we don’t think this will stop right-wing activists from alleging that President Obama directed the IRS to go after political opponents as part of his plans to create an all-powerful, totalitarian government.

The IRS story has made its way into five right-wing conspiracy theories that we don’t expect to go away any time soon, despite being totally ungrounded in reality.

1) IRS May Deny Medical Care To Conservatives

Rep. Michele Bachmann led the way in giving credence to a claim that the IRS, through Obamacare, might attempt to “deny or delay” access to medical care for conservatives. After embracing the WorldNetDaily-inspired conspiracy theory, she told Fox News that the IRS may deny or delay health care “based upon our political beliefs.” Even Rand Paul latched onto the debunked conspiracy theory.

Right on cue, James Dobson’s son Ryan alleged that his father may be denied medical treatments under Obamacare, and Janet Porter said that the IRS may use the reform law to “target individuals on whether or not they have the ability to exist as a live human being” by denying people “lifesaving treatment” based on their “political views.”

2) Obama’s The New Hitler

Glenn Beck reacted to the IRS story by warning that the government could “shut down” and “scoop up” Tea Party members much like how Adolf Hitler persecuted Jews. “This is the way totalitarian states are created,” Beck argued. “We will be remembered as the most evil nation in the history of the world, we will dwarf what Germany did.”

World Congress of Families spokesman Don Feder agreed, maintaining that “Concentration Camp Obama” may “shove you in a cattle car” and take you “‘camping’ in a very real sense” if you are part of the conservative movement, all by “using the IRS as a presidential goon squad.” Todd Starnes of Fox News even pointed to the IRS controversy to claim that conservatives “could be facing a 1930s Germany here,” while End Times radio host Rick Wiles used the IRS as proof that Obama is leading a “modern day Nazi regime” and the “Fourth Reich.”

3) Obama Committed Impeachable Offenses

Naturally, right-wing activists brought impeachment into the debate over the IRS. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice said Obama may face the same impeachment charges as Richard Nixon as a result of the “misuse and abuse of the IRS.” Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly said that the “IRS scandal is much worse than Watergate” and agreed that “there are many reasons why Obama should be impeached.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry similarly drew a comparison to Nixon and said that the “scandal” may “reach the level of criminal activity” and reveal “a pattern of abuse of power.” Washington Times columnist Jeffrey Kuhner went even further and asserted that Obama is “ worse than Nixon” and added it to his long list of supposedly impeachable offenses, while Alan Keyes demanded that the GOP’s “cry should be ‘IMPEACHMENT NOW!’” Not to be outdone, Glenn Beck argued that “if there aren’t impeachment hearings” then America is “already operating under tyranny.”

4) Obama Would Have Lost If It Wasn’t For The IRS

Even though conservative outside groups greatly outspent their left-leaning counterparts in the last election, the IRS controversy has led some to allege that conservatives groups were not allowed to get off the ground and that must have been why Obama won his race for re-election.

Janet Porter reasoned that “the elections were affected” because “every Tea Party group and every conservative group…weren’t allowed to exist” or “inform their members of what’s going on and what’s at stake.” John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, a champion of suppressive voter ID laws and voter purges, told Fox News that “the real voter suppression in the 2012 election was done at the IRS” and “suppressed the vote” to the point that it “may have played a role in the outcome of that very close election.”

The American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis even made the dubious claim that 5-8.5 million voters didn’t vote last year due to IRS actions. Dean Chambers, whose “unskewed” polls predicted Obama’s defeat, claimed he was right all along, alleging that the “systematic and wide-scale suppression of Tea Party and conservative activity and votes, via the IRS targeting of those groups” had “clearly denied Mitt Romney the election that [he] clearly would have won by about the very margin I predicted on November 5 of last year.”

5) Demonic Forces Behind IRS Scandal

Larry Klayman said that “felonious liberal Jews” have used the IRS to attack conservatives to undermine “our proud Judeo-Christian roots and heritage,” but televangelist James Robison took it one step further, arguing that “Satan himself” had a role: “He and his demonic forces are fiercely focusing their fury against God’s kingdom purpose and anyone committed to it. What you are witnessing daily in news reports concerning Washington’s bad practices and policies related to the gross abuse of power by the IRS, along with unconstitutional checks on the free press, reveals satanic intent to take away freedom.” Rick Wiles also saw a demonic role in the IRS pseudo-scandal, stating that the IRS is creating the “Fourth Beat as foretold by Daniel in the Holy Bible.”

Beck: Food Network Dropping Paula Deen Is McCarthyism

Conservatives seem to have developed a belief lately that the First Amendment's right to free speech also entitles one to immunity to criticism or repercussions for the things that one might say.

This theory was once again on display on Glenn Beck's television program last night when he opened with a long monologue defending the importance of the First Amendment by blasting the on-going fall-out surrounding comments made by Paula Deen, seemingly taking the position that Deen, and everyone else, ought to be able to say anything they want without having to worry about suffering any sort of consequences ... because apparently the possibility of there being ramifications for actions is nothing more than McCarthyism.

Beck literally compared the practice of "discouraging people from speaking their minds" to putting explorers like Magellan and Columbus in jail or preventing Martin Luther King from standing for civil rights, saying that the Food Network's decision not to renew Deen's contract has "contributed to the growing un-American atmosphere of fear and silence; hello, Joseph McCarthy!"

Somehow, this is all related to Nancy Pelosi being booed while speaking at the Netroots Nation conference last weekend, which Beck cited as proof that "eventually progressives run out of people to blame and they go after anyone, anyone who's not in power, and they'll go after liberals as well; welcome to the America that you've helped create":

Solomon: Obama Is Gay and a Wannabe Drag Queen

Stan Solomon interviewed antifeminist icon Phyllis Schlafly last week to rail against the women’s movement. When Schlafly repeated her claim that feminists “control the Obama administration,” it gave Solomon the opportunity to go one step further: “Barack Obama is a wussy guy who throws a ball like a girl, who everyone knows was involved in homosexuality and I think he is the stereotypical—if he could get away with it he’d be in drag. I don’t think he’s a man at all and he leads a whole group of men that are that way.”

Schlafly, whose son is gay, didn’t address Solomon’s, er, colorful claims, but criticized Obama for “catering to the gay political agenda” and said that an unsuccessful marriage equality bill in Illinois was a “defeat for the gays” and their fight against “real marriage.”

Watch:

Steve King: DREAM Act Could Benefit Drug Smugglers, Destroy the Family

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) chatted with Steve Deace last week where he applauded Deace’s column, in which he calls immigration activists “bratty” and “entitled.” The congressman agreed with Deace’s claim about immigrants’ “sense of entitlement” and wondered if it comes from “the false allegation that somebody took the southwest away from them and now they are getting it back in better condition than they left it.”

King, who earlier this month tweeted that “20 brazen self professed illegal aliens have just invaded my DC office,” told Deace that one of the young activists disrespected his office by charging his cellphone, which he thinks “might have been an ‘Obama phone,’” by using “the wall outlet to charge the battery as if they lived there and paid the rent.” Of course, King doesn’t pay for his office either, but apparently this is proof positive that immigrants are smug and entitled, as he went on to deride the “attitude of entitlement that came along with it and of course they are pressing us now to finish out their education and fund their college education and grant them a job.”

But King wasn’t done, as he then implied that many young immigrants were smuggling drugs into the country: “we know that they aren’t all the unwitting, innocent little babes that were brought across by their parents; there were a lot of them that came across that border and that fence with a pack on their back and we all know what’s in that pack on their back.”

He concluded by asserting that the DREAM Act would “exempt people from the decisions made by the parents,” warning that such a move could lead to the end of the family as it would “equalize all parenthood and that means that you can’t let children be raised by a mom and a dad in a home.”

It’s a good observation that you make about that sense of entitlement, the false allegation that somebody took the southwest away from them and now they are getting it back in better condition than they left it. Here’s a vignette from just this past week when I had twenty self-professed illegals came into my office, they were wearing graduation gowns and mortarboard caps, and they were a little bit verbally competitive for the most part though they weren’t abusive. But they came in and filled my office and I was busy in the judiciary committee room arguing immigration issues and they insisted that they wanted to see me and they wanted apparently to talk me into their position. One of the things that happened just as soon as they came in that one of them got out their—it may have been an ‘Obama phone’—but their cellphone and plugged it into the wall outlet to charge the battery as if they lived there and paid the rent. Just that attitude of entitlement that came along with it and of course they are pressing us now to finish out their education and fund their college education and grant them a job, apparently, and it is so wrong to think there is an entitlement that goes along with this.

If their parents broke the law by bringing them in here, no one is talking about putting their parents back in the—well the people that are for these open borders or for the DREAM Act, they are not talking about putting the parents back in the condition they were in before the parents broke the law, they say the parents are at fault but they’re not holding them accountable and they want to give a pass to the children. I would argue that first of all we know that they aren’t all the unwitting, innocent little babes that were brought across by their parents; there were a lot of them that came across that border and that fence with a pack on their back and we all know what’s in that pack on their back. We are all beneficiaries or we are sometimes disadvantaged by the decisions made by our parents. We cannot exempt people from the decisions made by the parents. If we did that, then we’d have to equalize all parenthood and that means that you can’t let children be raised by a mom and a dad in a home.

Steve Deace Fantasizes about Assaulting Jason Collins

Anti-gay talk show host Steve Deace is still reeling about Jason Collins’ decision to come out of the closet, and on the Friday edition of his radio program, even fantasized about assaulting him. Collins had been engaged to a woman when he was closeted and while his former fiancée Carolyn Moos said that she was “shocked” by his announcement, she hopes Collins can be “happy” and “stay true to who he really is, inside and out.”

But Deace had a much uglier response, saying that if was her father, it would be a good thing we “have a waiting period to buy a handgun” and saying that Collins would have “an indentation from the side of his face, permanently ensconced on my knuckles.”

He then turned right around, did a fundraiser with Michelle Obama and now is doing LGBT promotion, and that’s really what this in the end is all about. If a guy was having sex with your daughter for years while he was also having sex with other guys, asked her to marry him, then called off the wedding but then said he wanted to stay engaged to get married at some point in the future, and engaged in this behavior for six, seven, eight years, hey dad, would that guy be a trailblazing hero to you? No, he’d be a real good reason why maybe we have to have a waiting period to buy a handgun, that’s what he’d be. He’d be an indentation from the side of his face, permanently ensconced on my knuckles, that’s what he’d be to most dads. That’s what Jason Collins did to his girlfriend, but he’s a hero, when Jason Collins does it, we call him a hero.

 

Thanks to RWW reader Matt for the tip!

Gohmert: Kids Don't Need Sex-Ed Because This Isn't The Soviet Union

On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton and Rick Green were joined by Rep. Louie Gohmert for a discussion about the dangers posed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the organization's "indoctrination" of students.

Predictably, Green, Barton, and Gohmet all repeated the absurd right-wing talking point that the SPLC has been "linked to domestic terrorism," but Gohmert seemed primarily dismayed by the idea that kids might be learning about sex.

Kids don't need to learn about these things, Gohmert insisted, because "mankind has existed for a pretty long time without anyone ever having to give a sex-ed lesson to anybody" but now such instruction is commonplace in public schools ... and it all reminds him of the Soviet Union:

Let the kids be innocent.  Let them dream. Let them play. Let them enjoy their life. You don't have to force this sexuality stuff into their life at such a point. It was never intended to be that way. They'll find out soon enough.  And, in fact, ... mankind has existed for a pretty long time without anyone ever having to give a sex-ed lesson to anybody.  And now we feel like, oh gosh, people are too stupid to unless we force them to sit and listen to instructions.  It's just incredible.

And there is a natural law that parents should be involved in education, they should know about, they should be part of the training - that's a law of nature; Alan Keyes was just talking about it this weekend when we were together. That is such an important part of nature and yet that is the very thing that some of these liberals want to take away.

And it reminds me so much of the summer that I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union back in the Seventies and I was shocked when they were saying 'no, the children don't belong to parents, they belong to the state.' And if any parent said anything in front of their children negative about the wonderful Soviet Union, then we will take their children away and give them to somebody more deserving.  And I just thought how horribly shocking that was, that of course parents were the ones who love the children, not the state. And I thought thank God that we don't have that in our country.

And now I've seen this coming with a lady from MSNBC saying "hey, children belong to the state" ... and it just sent chills because it took me back to the Seventies when that's what the Soviet Union used to say and we know how well that worked out.

Tony Perkins Attacks Red Sox for Hosting 'Pride Night,' Lauds Museum that Discriminates Against Same-Sex Family

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins joined MassResistance president Brian Camenker in condemning the Boston Red Sox for hosting a “Pride Night,” which included Jason Collins throwing out the ceremonial first pitch. Red Sox fans gave Collins a standing ovation, despite Perkins’ erroneous claim that “most parents object to” gay rights. Perkins quoted Camenker in calling homosexuality “destructive” and called on fans to tell the franchise not to “bombard families with a controversial message.”

This month, the Red Sox are delivering a new pitch--for homosexual rights. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. The Red Sox may have won their game on June 6th, but they sure struck out with some fans. People who paid to watch baseball had to sit through a celebration of homosexuality, too. For the first time in franchise history, Boston decided to host "Pride Night" and bombard families with a controversial message. Jason Collins, the openly gay NBA player, threw out the first pitch. And the Sox even donated a portion of the proceeds to a radical LGBT group. Unfortunately for parents, the team kicked off its "Calling All Kids" program the same night, meaning that a lot of children were exposed to an agenda--and a topic--most parents object to. "For a professional sports team to promote behavior that's destructive," said conservative Brian Camenker, "... is problematic." Let's hope the Sox hear from a lot of fans who tell Fenway that's no way to run a franchise!

While Perkins was upset that the Red Sox welcomed gay fans, he thanked a Florida museum that discriminated against a family headed by same-sex partners by revoking their “family membership.” He even accused the parents of persecuting the museum:

At a Jacksonville children's museum, they've got one thing on display: religious conviction. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins with the Family Research Council in Washington. When it comes to the family, there are no substitutions. That's what a Florida children's museum tried to explain to a lesbian couple, who wanted a family discount. We're sorry, the director said, but the museum's policies are very specific about families needing a mom and a dad. So is Florida law, which defines marriage as a union of a man and woman. So when a mom put her name where the application said "dad," the office was justified in saying no. The difference was only $10, but that didn't matter to the woman, who shouted down the director and threatened to sue. In a statement, the museum said it did nothing wrong by making a policy consistent with their religious beliefs. These days, people care more about political correctness than right and wrong. And if America isn't careful, this museum's freedom will be just another relic from a bygone age.

Staver: SCOTUS Ruling for Marriage Equality Will Have 'A Catastrophic Consequence' for 'Human Existence'

In December, Liberty Counsel head Mat Staver told conservative radio host Janet Parshall that a Supreme Court ruling favorable to marriage equality “could cause another civil war” or even a second revolution. While speaking to Parshall last week, Staver argued that the court’s decision would have “a catastrophic consequence” for freedom, liberty and even “human existence” itself.

The Liberty University law school dean, who said that Obama will introduce “forced homosexuality,” went on to say that the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to civil and criminal penalties for opponents of same-sex marriage, such as losing one’s job. As a result, anti-gay activists “cannot acknowledge that decision as being a legitimate one” and should treat the Supreme Court as “an illegitimate institution.”

If the court goes the wrong way within the next week on these issues, it will become an illegitimate institution and we should treat it as such. It is that dire. It is exactly as simple and as plain as you said it: God said marriage is between one man and one woman, and some civil institution says no it’s not. That has a catastrophic consequence for our religious freedom, for the very function of the family, for marriage, for our human existence, for civil society and for any area of our liberty, it is a catastrophic game changer and it will be more destructive than Roe v. Wade. Why? Because Roe v. Wade, as destructive as it is and it is destructive, does not force you to have an abortion. Now Obamacare is forcing us now to fund abortion. But this will not just simply say, ‘ok same-sex marriage, I don’t agree with it but I can go on and live my life,’ no. You want to work in the DOJ? You’ve got to support it. You want to work in any other area? You’ve got to endorse it. This will not be coexistence, this will not be the government’s got a bad policy, this will be the government’s got a bad policy but you must advance it, you must support it; if you don’t, you will be punished, you won’t have your job, you will be punished in some other civil or even criminal way. That’s why it’s going to be more coercive than Roe v. Wade, it is a line—I’m telling you, I’m hoping people understand this—that we cannot cross. If we cross that line, we have to push back; we cannot acknowledge that decision as being a legitimate one.

Citing MLK, Gary Glenn Calls On Christians And Governors To Ignore Any Pro-Marriage Equality Ruling From SCOTUS

Last week, the Frederick Douglass Society hosted a Junteenth Celebration in Michigan at which Gary Glenn of the American Family Association spoke.

During his remarks, Glenn declared that the Republican Party had been formed for the express purpose of fighting slavery and defending marriage, which inspired him tie Martin Luther King's famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" to the forthcoming Supreme Court decisions on marriage equality by calling on Christians and the governors of the states which have outlawed gay marriage to ignore any ruling that might strike down those laws.

"With the heritage we have from the freedom fighters and the Freedom Riders who came before us," Glenn declared, "God forgive us if we fail to stand. But if we do, as Martin Luther King said we should do to fulfill our Christian duty, we will threaten those, we will over come those who threaten our faith and freedom.  And we will be proud to stand with you in that struggle for our faith [and] we will be blessed for doing so":

Creech: Being Gay like Thinking You're a Squirrel

Christian Action League head Mark Creech is mourning the collapse of the ex-gay group Exodus International today in the Christian Post, arguing that Christians should not believe that sexual orientation exists as it is merely “a broad term developed in modern times to provide credence for the growing number of sexual perversions.”

Creech urged people to dismiss claims from gay people who believe that their orientation was shaped by biological factors, just as they would refuse to affirm a person who thinks they are really a squirrel: “if one felt that he or she was a squirrel, would that qualify as proof that one was justified in risking life and limb by climbing trees and eating only nuts?”

But Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, takes umbrage with Chambers' apology, arguing: "I think there is a tendency to see Exodus folding as a parable of Christian capitulation and ethic. That is not what is happening. Instead what you have is an organization that has some confusion about its mission and purpose…What is not happening here, is an evangelical revision of a biblical sexual ethic."

Peter LaBarbera, who leads Americans for Truth About Homosxuality [sic], would agree with Moore. When OneNewsNow recently asked LaBarbera about Exodus shutting down, he said, "I think Alan Chambers, who basically ruined the organization, had no choice because the affiliates were leaving. All the people who support the truth that homosexuals can change and overcome this perversion through Jesus Christ were leaving Exodus."

LaBarbera, who called Exodus' closing one of the greatest tragedies he had witnessed in the pro-family movement, also shared where he believes the ministry made its fatal mistake. He said, "Homosexuality is about behavior, and behaviors can be changed with the help of God and through Christ…That's what Exodus used to be about. But once they started talking about so called 'gay sexual orientation,' as if this is the inherent state of somebody's being, they got in trouble."



It's interesting that the concept of "sexual orientation" is based strongly upon one's feelings. How does one know that one is gay? Conventional wisdom says because of the way one feels. Numerous are the individuals who have said, "I've felt that I was gay since I was a child." But if one felt that he or she was a squirrel, would that qualify as proof that one was justified in risking life and limb by climbing trees and eating only nuts?



To those who would contend the Bible is silent about "sexual orientation," let it be said this is because no such notion is based in truth. It is a broad term developed in modern times to provide credence for the growing number of sexual perversions.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious