The editor-in-chief of Herman Cain’s Best of Cain website, formerly CainTV, is the latest right-wing activist to pounce on the controversy surrounding Mozilla’s CEO, who stepped down due to an outcry over his donation to the campaign to repeal marriage equality in California.
Dan Calabrese writes on Cain’s site today that gay rights advocates and websites like OKCupid -- which advised its members not to use Firefox (but despite some reports did not block the browser) -- are promoting fascism and Bolshevism while acting just like The Borg of Star Trek.
“This movement is evil,” Calabrese writes. “The gay movement understands something. They understand that in order for their movement to ultimately succeed, they need to turn the entire culture into a mindless army of obedient adherents like the Borg on Star Trek.”
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
People who are advocating a righteous cause do not seek to silence all dissent and destroy those who dare to disagree. They let the truth of their position speak for itself, and they don't fear those who mistakenly fail to see the virtue of their position.
Bolshevik. OkCupid is creating fascism, not love.
The essence of fascism is the stifling of dissent. You might argue that the term doesn't apply here because the power of government isn't the driving force behind it. I would tell you that's irrelvant [sic]. The tactics of fascism are the same regardless of who is weilding [sic] the power. What matters is that they have the power and are willing to use it, and right now gay marriage activists have the power because they are able to scare the bejeezus out of just about everyone.
And just to make sure you get the message, they won't just try to silence you today. They'll go back through your history and find out if you've spoken up in the past, and punish you for that - maybe by putting pressure on your employer to take away your job. Or maybe they will conscript the power of government, forcing you to provide them services that your faith would suggest you should not provide.
This movement is evil, not because homosexuality is a "worse sin" than other sins, but because its champions are trying to not only silence but in many cases destroy those who disagree with them. The gay movement understands something. They understand that in order for their movement to ultimately succeed, they need to turn the entire culture into a mindless army of obedient adherents like the Borg on Star Trek. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
And no one acts this way when their cause is righteous. They know they don't need to. They act this way when their cause is evil, and freedom of speech is their enemy because, ultimately, truth is their enemy.
Mission America head Linda Harvey dismissed concerns over homelessness in the LGBT community today, saying they are misplaced and blaming homeless LGBT youth for the problem.
Harvey explained on her radio show that the high homelessness rate among LGBT young adults isn’t a result of homes and shelters kicking people out due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, Harvey said that LGBT youth themselves are to blame for being “stubborn” and becoming drifters:
‘Kids are kicked out of their homes just for being who they are,’ is how the saying goes, well let me offer another possibility that I’ve heard far too often: a parent learns that a son or daughter is claiming to be gay but an underage child still lives at home, so the now-heartbroken parent puts new restrictions on some of the activities like for instance, the teen is no longer going to be having sleepovers with that same-sex friend, or if the friend is a college student or has an apartment, visits over there will not be permitted. What does the teen do? It may become a fight where the teen storms out by choice and leaves voluntarily because the homosexual relationship is more important than that of his or her parents. And when that all-important relationship ends, the teen is too stubborn or already too-involved in alcohol or drugs or the premature independence of the homosexual life and he or she would rather drift than return home. It’s not always the case of course but personal decisions are at the heart of these issues.
Following his opening segment railing against the firing of Brendan Eich, Glenn Beck spent the second segment of his radio program today warning that conservatives are being treated like pariahs in American society for their beliefs, which is unfair because they really have no choice but to hold such beliefs because that is what God commands.
"Those of us who believe in God," Beck said, "we don't feel we have a choice" but to be conservatives.
Just as being gay is not a choice, Beck said, because nobody would intentionally choose to live a life that results in them be discriminated against, likewise, nobody would choose to be conservative for the same reasons.
"Who would choose, in today's society, who would choose to say 'yes, I really believe in God,' and 'yes, I'm a conservative,' and 'yes, I don't agree with the president"? Beck asked. "Who would choose that?":
Earlier this year, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) endorsed Arizona’s failed “right-to-discriminate” bill for challenging attempts to “establish the religion of secularism.”
In reaction to Mississippi’s enactment a similar law, Gohmert yesterday told Washington Watch host and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins — who stood behind Mississippi’s governor at the bill’s signing ceremony — that he is “so proud of Mississippi and what they’ve done.”
After Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant came on the show to receive Gohmert’s plaudits, the congressmen called the anti-gay law “a wonderful example of real freedom” and attacked gay rights critics as intolerant: “You’ve seen it first hand, there is nobody more intolerant in this country than those that are screaming for tolerance. Christians are not intolerant but whoa, goodness these people that have their leftist agenda that are so intolerant so thanks for having the courage to stand up.”
Gohmert: I sure am proud of Mississippi.
Perkins: It’s good to be here in Mississippi, in fact the governor has just joined me here in the studio. Great leadership team in Mississippi.
Gohmert: Well he could probably care less of what Louie Gohmert thinks but I am sure proud of Mississippi.
Perkins: He says he’s a fan of Louie Gohmert.
Gohmert: We are so proud of Mississippi and what they’ve done.
Perkins: Here’s my co-host Gov. Bryant.
Gohmert: Governor, we are so proud, you have set such a wonderful example of real freedom. You’ve seen it first hand, there is nobody more intolerant in this country than those that are screaming for tolerance. Christians are not intolerant but whoa, goodness these people—
Bryant: It is the world of bizarro.
Gohmert: These people that have their leftist agenda that are so intolerant so thanks for having the courage to stand up.
Bryant: You’re quite welcome, thank you sir.
RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
Every time we think we are tired and bored from hearing the constant complaints from far-right pundits about how President Obama is a communist tyrant, they always seem to find new ways to entertain us. Maybe they will eventually move on to more pressing issues, like Satan’s use of graham crackers to advance homosexuality.
5. Satanic Graham Crackers
Joining other anti-gay activists calling for a boycott of Honey Maid graham crackers because of a TV ad featuring a gay couple, the American Decency Association said this week that the company’s “This Is Wholesome” ad is proof of Satanic deception: “Satan wants us to see sin as normal and not so bad…. Honey Maid and others are putting two moms in a same-sex relationship. They are making two dads to seem normal. Both are wrong; both are unwholesome; both run contrary to the Word of God.”
The group adds:
It’s not a matter of acceptance; it’s a matter of an evil agenda which is being pushed upon America and around the world. Satan continues to attack God’s design and skew it to his own workings. He continues to take words like “wholesome” and “family” and twist them for his own purposes. He takes a symbol of God’s promise (the rainbow) and hijacks it, twisting it to his own design. Satan calls it normal; God calls it sin. We live in a day when “evil” is called “good” and “good” is called “evil.” That which is meant to glorify God (family, the church, etc) is being taken and bent out of shape until it is hardly recognizable.
Honey Maid offered this moving response to their critics:
4. Revolt Against Obama’s ‘Communist States Of America’
Liberty Counsel attorney Matt Barber’s weekly columns are so consistently ridiculous (and unintentionally hilarious) that they seem to be written by a liberal trying to make conservatives look bad. Barber didn’t disappoint with his latest commentary accusing President Obama of bringing communism to America.
“[N]early every adult who, at any time, was in any position of influence over a young, soon-to-be-radicalized Barry Soetoro was an avowed communist,” Barber writes. “To all this I say, if the jackboot fits, wear it. If it quacks like a commie and goose-steps like a commie, then a commie it is.”
He concludes by calling for a revolt against Obama: “We are no longer the United States of America. We have become The Communist States of America. Which means, for those who love liberty, revolution is once again at hand.”
3. Tea Party Group Embraces ‘Sandy Hook Truthers’
The National Liberty Foundation, a Florida-based Tea Party group, is now pushing the latest “Sandy Hook truther” conspiracy that President Obama orchestrated the school shooting in order to justify a crackdown on gun rights: “This my dear friends was all staged… we didn’t believe it at the time, but this is how far your president went to get your guns…. Don’t let anything he does surprise you… He wants to be a dictator, he doesn’t want to get out of the White House and he loves spending your money… Hmmm, I wonder where their off to next?”
The group posted an image of a the razed Sandy Hook elementary, which was demolished after the town voted to tear down the school, to claim that the administration is “destroying the evidence.” The group also advanced the conspiracy theory that the same female actress was photographed at the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Boston Marathon bombing aftermaths.
Raw Story notes that the Tea Party group also “questioned whether Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 was hijacked and taken to a ‘secret U.S. military base on a remote island in the Indian Ocean.’”
2. Obama ‘Destabilizing’ America With ‘Hordes Of Dangerous Illegal Aliens’
Fox pundit Todd Starnes called the report “indisputable proof that the Obama Administration is destabilizing the nation by allowing hordes of dangerous illegal aliens to invade the country,” telling listeners of his radio bulletin to “be prepared to take whatever measures necessary to protect your family and your home.
This is not a time to be politically correct so here’s the cold hard reality - the United States is being invaded. And the Obama administration has been complicit in the invasion. Instead of repelling the invasion, the Obama administration is welcoming the invaders with open arms and providing them food stamps, driver’s licenses and health insurance.
Now we know how the Ukrainians feel.
It’s beyond frightening to imagine that our own government as unleashed this kind of evil on our streets. And heaven forbid, these illegals harm our wives and children. Should that happen, their blood is on the Obama Administration’s hands.
However, Fox News Latino pointed out the serious flaws in the report, which unfortunately will go unnoticed by most Fox viewers.
1. Celebrating Health Insurance Enrollments Proves Obama’s A Dictator
Glenn Beck is so outraged that the “sociopath” President Obama organized a press conference to hail the millions of people who enrolled in health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act, that he insisted he is “not going to pay attention” to Obama anymore… but nonetheless went on an epic rant where he criticized the “rat bastards” in the media and attacked Obama as a “full-fledged dictator.”
Glenn Beck reacted to the news that Brendan Eich had resigned from his new position as CEO of Mozilla following an outcry and boycotts stemming from his support for California's Proposition 8 exactly as you would expect Glenn Beck to react: with a lot of shouting punctuated by a diatribe about whether he is supposed to use the words "gay," "homosexual," or "queer."
He doesn't know which one to use, Beck said, because gay activists groups "are becoming nothing but a terrorist organization" who are continually changing the rules in order to keep people in a constant state of fear:
Alan Keyes has been organizing a campaign to call on congressional candidates to pledge to support the impeachment of President Obama, and is now citing the recent Fort Hood shooting in an effort to boost his impeachment efforts.
Keyes, who previously said that Jesus Christ will aid his drive to impeach Obama, writes in WorldNetDaily today that the military officials who ruled out terrorism as a motivation for the recent shooting must be lying, and therefore Obama should be impeached.
Of course Keyes offers no evidence to prove that officials were deceiving the public about the attack, but nonetheless demands that Congress impeach and remove Obama before he turns the US into a communist dictatorship.
The stories report that “officials” are saying that there was no indication that the second shooting spree at Fort Hood was terrorism-related. They say that “Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, III Corps commander at Fort Hood, said the shooter was a soldier who was under evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder.” They say that “the shooter, identified as 34-year old Ivan Lopez, is among the dead.”
So they say. But these days what brain-functional person believes what officials, even those in high positions of responsibility, say about events like this. Just yesterday, April 2, I was reading about Michael Morell, a former deputy director at the CIA, who told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence “that the CIA ignored a key piece of information that was the exact opposite of what then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice told the American public” about the attack on U.S. personnel in Benghazi that took the life of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, among others.
The information came from CIA officers on the ground in Libya, but Morell said “he did not believe there had been no protests because there were press reports describing protests.” What if the III Corps commander is saying there was no terrorism involved in the latest Fort Hood shootings because the people briefing him have read press reports saying there was no terrorism involved in the latest Fort Hood shootings?
That’s the problem with living in a media whirl where everything is being fabricated by people who believe that there is no “truth,” that it’s all relative to someone’s point of view. Of course that includes the bureaucrats’ concern with how others may react to what the facts say about their competence; the military officers’ view of how others will judge their fitness for command; the appointed government officials’ view of whether and how others will upbraid their policies; and the elected politicians view of how their backers will view their viability in the next election.
Moreover, when the power to fabricate information is comprehensively monopolized over several generations, as it was in the heyday of Communist Party dictatorship in the old Soviet Union, the time comes when people at large resign themselves to the fact that their peaceful daily existence depends on conforming to whatever “truth” those in power are determined to impose upon them.
In America we are still supposed to be able to do “the natural thing.” But how many of us discern the fact that our nation is now on the brink? One fact about the latest attack at Fort Hood should awaken us: “While it was happening, soldiers began jumping over fences to escape the attacker.” All were told to “Close your windows! Seek shelter immediately.” So thanks to the lie that guns kill, we lose the lives of people trained in using them to stop the real killers.
So what do you think they mean to do to the people at large, as they collude to disarm us and make us dependent on their commands for our life and health and daily bread, as Soviet citizens were dependent on their party bosses and bureaucrats? Until and unless we dramatically signify that we have not forgotten the allegiance to self-evident truth that has been the foundation of our nation’s exceptional character, we are doomed to be consumed by lies, just as they were.
But unlike them, we can still do the natural thing (i.e., the thing we are entitled to do, by “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”). As citizens we can use our votes to send a simple message to our elected representatives: “The purveyors of the culture of lies, behavioral cowardice and death must go, along with all of their collaborators, or else we will dismiss you.”
I see only one movement under way that rejects the vocationally political culture that now predominates in both so-called “major” political parties. It is the congregation of those who have pledged to use their vote to energize the political will needed to impeach and remove Obama from power, by constitutional means, along with his henchmen and collaborators,. Have you informed yourself about this movement? Have you signed on? Or are you content simply to cooperate with the twin-party sham, thereby proving that Americans, too, have now “lost our strength, our pride, our passion” for truth, justice and the liberty of our republic?
Even though the right-wing conspiracy theory about President Obama handing over control of the Internet to foreign powers has been completely discredited, the myth continues to survive among conservative activists and Republicans in Congress, who have seized upon the debunked claim to attack the Obama administration.
WorldNetDaily reports today that Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice, one of the chief groups pushing the false attack, has garnered over 100,000 signatures on its petition demanding Congress take action against the phony scandal.
GOP congressmen are more than happy to help. Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois told WND that Obama is helping “authoritarian governments” push “their anti-freedom agendas” on the Internet, while Tennessee’s Rep. Marsha Blackburn warned that Obama’s move “will allow countries like China and Russia that don’t place the same value in freedom of speech to better define how the Internet looks and operates.”
As we’ve noted before, the Obama administration actually turned down requests from China and Russia to give Internet oversight to a United Nations-led panel and instead completed a sixteen year plan to relinquish oversight to a non-profit backed by the US Department of Commerce.
But Republicans and right-wing activists don’t seemed to be bothered by the fact that the administration’s decision actually represented a rebuke to countries like Russia and China, and are more than happy to gin up fears that Obama is paving the way for the censorship of the Internet.
It took just days for more than 113,000 people to sign a petition by the American Center for Law and Justice opposing the plan.
Members of Congress confirmed that in just the past few weeks, some of the possible members of the multinational body — including Russia, Turkey, China and Malaysia — either have censored the Internet in their own nations or vowed to do it.
“This isn’t a theoretical debate,” warned Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., one of several lawmakers working on one of the legislative plans.
He’s joined by Reps. Todd Rokita, R-Ind., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.
“There are real authoritarian governments in the world today who have no tolerance for the free flow of information and ideas,” Shimkus said. “What possible benefit could come from giving the Vladimir Putins of the world a new venue to push their anti-freedom agendas?”
“This decision represents another hostile step by the administration on the heels of net neutrality and the FCC’s CIN Study that threatens our freedom of speech. Giving up control of ICANN will allow countries like China and Russia that don’t place the same value in freedom of speech to better define how the Internet looks and operates,” she warned.
The American Center for Law and Justice, which organized the petition effort, said the Obama administration is pushing into dangerous territory.
“This move would put the online liberty of Americans at great risk,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. “By turning over this key oversight to an international community – which is likely to include countries hostile to America – the world’s most powerful instrument of free speech would be subject to censorship, could be taxed, and would make it easier for cyber-fraud schemes to expand in countries around the globe.”
Sekulow said the “success and freedom of the Internet would be in grave jeopardy if the Obama administration is allowed to carry through with its plan to turn over control of the Internet to a ‘multinational’ body.”
“Free speech is at the core of our Constitution. We’re working with members of Congress on legislation to keep the Internet – and our free speech – free,” he said.
When the news broke earlier this week of another shooting at Fort Hood, Texas Republican Congressman Pete Olson's office sent out a tweet asking for people to pray, to which someone else on Twitter responded that what is needed is not prayer but for "cowardly congressman" to stand up to the NRA:
Apparently, this Twitter exchange was deeply upsetting to Olson because, when he appeared on Steve Malzberg's program yesterday to discuss the shooting, he brought it up four separate times during the ten minute interview.
Olson said he was experiencing a "deep anger" because this "cold, heartless liberal" did not support his call to prayer and instead sought to use the tragedy to promote a political agenda.
"Outrageous," Olson said. "Outrageous. So I'm angry about that."
Olson proceeded to mention this tweet several more times during the discussion and even closed out the interview by asking listeners of the program to go on to Twitter themselves and "respond to that women who gave the outrageous comment" and send her a message to "get the heck out of America":
Pat Buchanan is once again fawning over Russian leader Vladimir Putin. In a column today, “Is God Now On Russia’s Side?,” Buchanan hails Putin for leading “the counter-reformation against the new paganism” and “the same-sex-marriage pandemic.”
“In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity” and against “the West’s capitulation to a sexual revolution of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, assisted suicide – the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values,” Buchanan writes.
The right-wing pundit even likens Putin to Pope John Paul II and calls on Putin to deliver the keynote at the recently suspended World Congress of Families summit that was supposed to take place in the Kremlin.
With Marxism-Leninism a dead faith, Putin is saying the new ideological struggle is between a debauched West led by the United States and a traditionalist world Russia would be proud to lead.
In the new war of beliefs, Putin is saying, it is Russia that is on God’s side. The West is Gomorrah.
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism.
He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity. His recent speeches carry echoes of John Paul II whose Evangelium Vitae in 1995 excoriated the West for its embrace of a “culture of death.”
What did Pope John Paul mean by moral crimes?
The West’s capitulation to a sexual revolution of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, assisted suicide – the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum writes that she was stunned when in Tbilisi to hear a Georgian lawyer declare of the former pro-Western regime of Mikhail Saakashvili, “They were LGBT.”
“It was an eye-opening moment,” wrote Applebaum. Fear and loathing of the same-sex-marriage pandemic has gone global. In Paris, a million-man Moral Majority marched in angry protest.
But the war to be waged with the West is not with rockets. It is a cultural, social, moral war where Russia’s role, in Putin’s words, is to “prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.”
Would that be the “chaotic darkness” and “primitive state” of mankind, before the Light came into the world?
This writer was startled to read in the January-February newsletter from the social conservative World Council of Families in Rockford, Ill., that, of the “10 best trends” in the world in 2013, No. 1 was “Russia Emerges as Pro-Family Leader.”
In 2013, the Kremlin imposed a ban on homosexual propaganda, a ban on abortion advertising, a ban on abortions after 12 weeks and a ban on sacrilegious insults to religious believers.
“While the other superpowers march to a pagan worldview,” writes WCF’s Allan Carlson, “Russia is defending Judeo-Christian values. During the Soviet era, Western communists flocked to Moscow. This year, World Congress of Families VII will be held in Moscow, Sept. 10-12.”
Will Vladimir Putin give the keynote?
In the new ideological Cold War, whose side is God on now?
On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer took a call from a listener who expressed her sorrow over yesterday's shooting at Fort Hood and said that the key to preventing these kinds of things is for Christians to get back to abiding by the Ten Commandments, especially the practice of honoring the Sabbath on Saturday, as God intended.
While Fischer did not agree with the caller about the proper day for recognizing the Sabbath, he did agree about the importance of honoring the Ten Commandments, saying that maybe the shooter responsible for the attack at Fort Hood would not have done so had he grown up being taught the Ten Commandments in school.
Perhaps, Fischer speculated, had the message that "God said 'thou shall not murder'" been driven home to him, things would have been different.
"Somehow or other, that message didn't penetrate to this guy," Fischer said. "And part of it could be that he's just never heard it":
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is convinced that Modern Family is a “poisonous” show that deceives people into thinking “that heterosexual marriage is bondage,” and expounded on his disgust with the popular sitcom during today’s edition of Focal Point.
Unlike the straight couples on the sitcom who “bicker and fight all the time,” Fischer said, the gay couple and their daughter are portrayed like they’re living in “paradise.”
“It’s the Garden of Eden, it’s paradise, they are tiptoeing through the tulips, everything is wonderful,” he said, warning that the show makes people who “have a marriage of one man and one woman and are happy with each other” seem like “Neanderthals.”
Following last week’s Tea Party Unity summit in Texas, TPU head Rick Scarborough convened a conference call today with Howard Kaloogian of the Tea Party Express.
Kaloogian, a former Republican state lawmaker from California, told the Tea Party activists that God is on their side and opposes the work of progressives to reduce income inequality:
I think it’s very important that churches get involved and that Christians follow the dictates of biblical principles in casting their vote. I think it’s clear that God has a position on many of the things we deem political today, from life to theft to the doctrine of covetousness, which by the way seems to be the promotion of the left. You know, they talk about ‘income inequality,’ well what is that but covetousness? So how could somebody support that cause if they’re biblical believing Christians?
Scarborough later claimed that God will “intervene” on behalf of the Tea Party in order to save America from “collapse,” arguing that the 1929 economic crash and the Civil War were both God’s judgment on the nation.
If we do our part then I’m confident that the God of Heaven will intervene. This country has been on the brink of complete disaster and collapse in several occasions in our national history. During the Roaring Twenties, socially this country was on the brink and deserved judgment; go back during the pre-Civil War era when we were buying and selling human beings, we deserved God’s judgment. But there was always a thread of Christians active in politics who didn’t lose sight of the prize and did what they could and God intervened, and that’s what I pray for and work for in this latter period of our national history. No matter what we do, if God doesn’t intervene the country is lost. But I know this, all the prayers in the world won’t change this country and God’s not going to act if those of us who I call the remnant don’t get involved, pay the price, like you’re doing, so I encourage you to continue doing that.
After experiencing something of a meltdown on yesterday's radio broadcast, Glenn Beck returned to his television program last night to reiterate his new conviction not to pay attention to what is happening with the politicians in Washington, DC anymore because it is distracting him from his much bigger responsibility, placed upon him by God, to build his The Blaze network into a massive bulwark for the truth.
Saying that, last month, his website had 35 million unique visitors, Beck declared he wanted that number to be 100 million (nearly one-third of the entire US population) by the 2016 election. Why? Because God has some grand plan in the works that will save America and spread across the entire world. And while Beck admits that he doesn't understand what that grand plan is, he does know that it is happening already because, just five years ago, he hosted a gathering on the National Mall where they begged that "the next George Washington" would step and turn this nation around.
And now "it's happening!," Beck said. "It's happening. Mark it. Declare it. It's happening: Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz":
After American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer called Modern Family a dangerous “poison” that demonizes heterosexuality, Modern Family star Jesse Tyler Ferguson laughed off the criticism from the rabidly anti-gay activist.
Ferguson told Huffington Post Live that it is “hard for [him] to even comment” on Fischer’s “hilariously ridiculous” remarks, adding: “You have to allow it to roll of your back, as my favorite drag queen Jinkx Monsoon says, ‘water off a duck’s back,’ I try not to get too worked up about those things.”
The comments on Fischer start at the 14:40 mark.
Miller: One of the most popular shows on television, "Modern Family," and you have the guy from "Married With Children" who is married to a young, attractive Latina woman with a kid from another marriage. You've got the heterosexual couple with the stereotypical family; they're the most challenged or, dare we say, the most screwed-up. And then we have the same-sex male family where we have a man and man in a loving, committed relationship that just doesn't have any, any problems. And apparently the promotion on ABC has allowed this show to be very popular and it does impact people and you have good Christians who turn the other cheek, who don't want to be labeled as intolerant and yet, they don't want these values on the airwaves.
Fischer: What's illustrated there is way that the media influences the way that people think about life. The portrait there that's being presented is designed to make you think that same-sex households are wonderful, they're loving, this is paradise, this is the optimum nurturing environment for children; to make you think that heterosexual marriage is bondage, it's dreary, it's gloomy, and we know that the social research indicates exactly the opposite.
You know, that's the danger. It's just like getting a little bit of poison over a long period of time, eventually getting enough accumulation in there where it can be kind of lethal to the organism. And I think that's what you're seeing with a lot of this programming. It has to do with kind of the basic view of morality and marriage and life and family that people have. It's very corrosive; people are just watching TV to be entertained, not realizing that their view of life is being twisted in a way that's very harmful to them and harmful to our culture.
It has been rich with irony that Religious Right activists are simultaneously calling for a boycott of World Vision for its move — since retracted — to recognize gay employees’ spouses while criticizing gay rights advocates who are upset that Mozilla’s new CEO donated to the campaign to repeal marriage equality in California.
WorldNetDaily, which has published several articles attacking World Vision over the matter, today published a column by Phil Elmore criticizing the dating website OKCupid for informing members using the Firefox browser that Mozilla's new CEO, Brendan Eich, donated to the Proposition 8 campaign (OKCupid users on Firefox can still use the browser). “If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal,” the note reads.
Elmore writes that the “progressive mind-control mob” is trying “to establish thoughtcrime” punishments that are “marginalizing and criminalizing any opinion with which they disagree, declaring it ‘hate’ and an assault on ‘rights’ (while denying First Amendment freedom to those they threaten, bully, and hector).”
“If you are a liberal, you have rights. If you are a conservative, you don’t,” he claims, before suggesting that liberals will have their opponents killed: “You must therefore be denigrated, punished and silenced – and that’s only because the libs haven’t yet worked up the courage to murder you. Yet.”
Liberals have invaded your computer and attempted to dictate which browser you may use based on the political incorrectness of a single employee at a single software firm. Specifically, the management of dating site OKCupid has declared Mozilla’s new CEO, Brenden Eich, persona non grata because – GASP! – Eich has dared to exercise his constitutional right to free speech and freedom of religion by donating to political causes he supports (and of which progressives disapprove). Eich donated to California’s Proposition 8, stating his support for the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman (a position held by President “Mom Jeans” Obama until only recently).
This definition is no longer good enough for liberals. We saw it when the progressives targeted Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby. In every case, whether the target is high technology or old tradition, the result is the same: Liberals wish to purge from both public and private life any religious conviction or devotion to traditional morality. They do so by marginalizing and criminalizing any opinion with which they disagree, declaring it “hate” and an assault on “rights” (while denying First Amendment freedom to those they threaten, bully, and hector).
What, after all, is Brenden Eich’s crime? He committed no illegal act. He did nothing improper or immoral. He violated no campaign finance laws. He simply expressed an opinion in accordance with how our political system is supposed to work. For daring to do so he is now being punished by an overreaching and unrelentingly “progressive” mind-control mob. This mob seeks, on multiple fronts, to establish thoughtcrime. It seeks to redefine a lack of affirmation for liberal ideas as the active opposition of them. That opposition, in turn, is redefined as illegitimate and as hatred. Conservatives are thus redefined as haters and then consigned to irrelevance in liberal politics (as seen recently in New York, when Gov. Andrew Cuomo told conservatives there was no place in the state for their opinions).
In a “free” country, your government can force you to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, but Muslim cashiers don’t have to check out pork or alcohol. These conclusions are inconsistent because liberals in power believe wholeheartedly in a double standard. If you are a liberal, you have rights. If you are a conservative, you don’t. You are, in fact, an evil, hateful person if you believe in traditional morality or, God help you, Christianity. You must therefore be denigrated, punished and silenced – and that’s only because the libs haven’t yet worked up the courage to murder you.
Last month, two women were arrested on charges of child abuse after a bruised and malnourished 8 year-old girl was in the couple's home, along with two other children.
On today's "Pray In Jesus Name" program, "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt discussed the case to argue that even if gay couples who have children do not physically abuse them, they are still abusing their kids by depriving them of either a mother or a father.
"Even if a child is not physically abused," Klingenschmitt asked, "what's the next worst thing you can do to a child? Is to take away their mother."
"In the case of homosexual couples who get 'married,' so to speak," he continued, "and then they adopt children, even if they never physically harm those children, they are taking away that child's right to a mother, or maybe they're taking away that child's right to a father. And that, in my opinion, is also abusive":
The GOP’s brazen attempts to politicize the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi are getting even more pathetic, if that’s possible. In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that because ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell’s recent congressional testimony didn’t support her discredited Benghazi conspiracy theories, he must be “taking the fall” for Hillary Clinton and “preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected.”
“[I]f Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA,” Bachmann told the fringe conspiracy website. “That’s what this is all about.”
She suggested that Clinton will in turn appoint Morell to lead the CIA, explaining that is the only reason why Morell didn’t corroborate her conspiracy theory: “The cover story matches the Obama story.”
In an exclusive interview with WND, Bachmann said former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell could be repaid for his efforts by being named head of the CIA if Clinton is elected president.
Bachmann said Morell’s testimony Wednesday before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was the narrative that will be pushed to protect Clinton from any future Benghazi political fallout.
“She couldn’t have a better person to take the fall for her because Morell was involved in rewriting the talking points and was the No. 2 at CIA. So, he can come in authoritatively say, ‘No, that’s not the story. The story is the fake story we tried to push.’”
Bachmann explained to WND that Morell is taking the fall by pointing at underlings and saying he relied on analysts. That way, “he can preserve his status, so, if Hillary becomes the next president, he can safely become the next director of the CIA. That’s what this is all about.”
“They don’t care about Obama now,” she said. “The more important thing is making sure it preserves the way for Hillary, because Democrats can’t afford to be exposed for what they are: failures on foreign policy, defense and intelligence. We have never had a bigger failure than under the Obama administration in any of those areas.”
“So, they’re essentially buying out Morell,” Bachmann said. “The cover story matches the Obama story. And all Morell has to do is point to the wrong view of the underlings and say, ‘Well, I was relying on what they told me. The president was relying on his analysts. Hillary Clinton relied on the analysts.’”
“Now, its [sic] about preserving the chance for Hillary to get elected. And the only way they can do that is absolve her from any responsibility. And so Morell, who is now in Hillary’s think tank, probably being paid very well, is in cold storage for one reason and one reason only, and that’s to take the fall for Hillary Clinton and clean up any dirt from Obama.”
This post originally appeared on the People For blog.
Chief Justice Roberts caps his opinion in McCutcheon v. FEC by waxing eloquently about the need to ensure that elected officials are responsive to the people. This and other cases have described campaign contributions as a way to promote such responsiveness. But considering that this case is about a non-constituent buying influence in elections across the country, the passage's repeated references to constituents seems strangely out of place:
For the past 40 years, our campaign finance jurisprudence has focused on the need to preserve authority for the Government to combat corruption, without at the same time compromising the political responsiveness at the heart of the democratic process, or allowing the Government to favor some participants in that process over others. As Edmund Burke explained in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol, a representative owes constituents the exercise of his "mature judgment," but judgment informed by "the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents." Constituents have the right to support candidates who share their views and concerns. Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials. (emphasis added, internal citations removed)
Shaun McCutcheon – whose contributions are at issue in this case – told the Court that he wanted to make contributions of $1,776 to each of more than two dozen different congressional candidates (as well as to various party committees) during the 2012 election cycle. It seems unlikely that he could have been a constituent of more than two dozen different members of Congress.
Obviously, people have a First Amendment right to participate in congressional races outside of where they live. But a stirring paragraph about political responsiveness to constituents hardly seems appropriate in a case that is all about political responsiveness to non-constituents.