Fighting the Right

C.L. Bryant: Obama's Election Is A 'Slap In The Face' To Black Americans

Right-wing pastor, radio host, and Tea Party activist C.L. Bryant was a guest on Bryan Fischer's radio program yesterday, promoting his film "Runaway Slave," which seeks to woo black voters away from the Democratic Party:

Using leading black conservatives as "conductors," Rev. Bryant believes it is time for a new Underground Railroad to help liberate all Americans from the Government plantation that has left the black community dealing with a new form of slavery: entitlements.

During the interview, Fischer and Bryant asserted that President Obama is not an authentically black American and so his election was actually a "slap in the face" to all those who are.

After Fischer wondered how things would have been different if someone with an authentically black American experience had been elected president, Bryant asserted that "Al Sharpton would have been a more legitimate first black president than Barack Hussein Obama" because Sharpton "has a slave history."

"When you look at Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was Kenyan, his mother is white," Bryant said, "he does not have that history to tell about how he overcame. ... See, black people are so emotionally attached to the color of skin that sometimes we will accept the fact that well, he's black. Not in the sense that you're talking about."

Fischer then went on to assert that Obama "experienced privilege all along the line" and never experienced any sort of mistreatment and therefore cannot serve as "a living testimony to the promise and the possibility that the United States offers, that these things are no longer things that need to hold you back or restrain you or restrict you [because] in Obama's case, they never did."

"His election," Bryant responded, "over anybody like a Herman Cain or an Alan Keyes or someone of that nature is actually a slap in the face":

League Of The South: Selma March Was An 'Orgy Of Sex, Alcohol And Drugs'

The League of the South marked the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery civil rights march by criticizing the liberal media for refusing to tell the “great untold story” of “the orgy of sex, alcohol, and drugs that took place between Selma and Montgomery in the spring of 1965.”

The city of Selma, League president Michael Hill wrote on the group’s website, is now “a few short steps from Third World status” as a result of federal intervention into the Southern state.

The neo-Confederate group also praised the posting of a billboard honoring Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, near the Edmund Pettus Bridge, saying that it “is nice to have a bit of civilization on what us rednecks sometimes refer to as Little Harare on the Alabammy! Keep the skeer on ‘em indeed!”

The weekend of 7-8 March 2015 marked the 50th anniversary of what the US “civil rights” establishment calls “Bloody Sunday.” In 1965, marchers–local and regional negro leaders and outsider leftists of all stripes (Jew and Gentile alike)–descended on the quiet and quaint central Alabama river town of Selma to begin a 50-mile “voting rights” march to the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery. The first march plummeted like a lead balloon, as local and State law enforcement officials turned back the marches before they could cross the now-famous (0r [sic] infamous) Edmund Pettus Bridge. After the national news media showed the encounter between the marchers and Alabama officers, public pressure from outside the South got the feds involved and the march finally took place. The great untold story by the anti-South media was the orgy of sex, alcohol, and drugs that took place between Selma and Montgomery in the spring of 1965. But to deal honestly with these event and personalities would not have advanced the agenda of the evil South and the righteous left.

The rest, as they say, is history. Today Selma has lost fully one-third of its population of 30,000 in 1965, along with most of its tax base. Far from being a prosperous Southern river town, Selma sometimes, at least according to some of the residents, cannot even collect the garbage on a regular basis. The town is an economic and social basket case, dependent on federal largesse to function. It is but a few short steps from Third World status.



Well, we in The League of the South salute Miss Patricia and General Forrest. It is nice to have a bit of civilization on what us rednecks sometimes refer to as Little Harare on the Alabammy! Keep the skeer on ‘em indeed!

Sandy Rios: Obama Wouldn't Have Marched In Selma Because He's Too Privileged

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association took to her radio show today to blast President Obama for making remarks in favor of gay rights in his speech at the event marking the 50th anniversary of the Selma civil rights march. Rios said Obama, along with Attorney General Eric Holder and Rev. Al Sharpton, would never have marched in the Selma protests because they are too comfortable with their wealth and power.

“I can’t imagine the president and Eric Holder marching, knowing on that bridge that they might be giving their lives,” Rios said. “I find myself thinking that there is way too much privilege and pleasure and wealth in this new generation of black leaders to understand the sacrifices of their founding fathers of the Civil Rights Movement like Dr. Martin Luther King.”

Rios claimed Obama and Holder simply don’t understand the civil rights struggle since they have “gotten wealthy complaining about things they’ve never experienced” and are “privileged men who have been to great universities, accumulating great wealth, great privilege.”

“They do very well and yet they complain,” Rios said. “They stoke at the sores of the real grievances, the real legitimate grievances of black Americans and they make money off of it, they get rich off of it, they upset people over it in order to take power over them, to make them think that they actually care and they actually want to do something when all they really want is their vote and their massive support so that they can do other things that really and truly will undermine and destroy the black community.”

Rafael Cruz: Nondiscrimination Measures Let Football Teams 'Decide That They Want To Shower With The Girls'

Rafael Cruz, the Religious Right activist and father of Sen. Ted Cruz, told an Oklahoma church last week that LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances allow entire high school boys football teams to decide “that they want to shower with the girls.”

Cruz told the Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Oklahoma, that the Supreme Court’s striking down of part of the Defense of Marriage Act has wreaked havoc in municipalities, including Houston, which “has a lesbian for a mayor”:

In Houston, Texas, in the heart of the Bible Belt, that city has a lesbian for a mayor. Well, a few months ago that mayor and that city council passed an ordinance that if a man, today, feels like a woman, he has the right to walk into a women’s bathroom. And if a woman is in there and she complains, she can be sued for that man because she is violating his civil rights.

As a matter of fact, according to that ordinance, if the football team in the high school decides that they want to shower with the girls and the girls complain, they can be sued. This is an abomination!

Cruz made a similar claim last month , telling fellow anti-LGBT activists that “God will hold you accountable” for failing to stop such ordinances.

Oklahoma State Sen. Joseph Silk: Gays 'Do Not Want People To Have Freedom'

Last week, Oklahoma state Sen. Joseph Silk made news by defending a bill that he had introduced that would allow Christian business owners to discriminate against gay customers under the guise of protecting religious liberty, telling the New York Times that gay people "don’t have a right to be served in every single store."

Naturally, Silk was a guest on Bryan Fischer's radio program today, where he declared that such legislation is necessary because gay activists "do not want people to have freedom"

"I tell people this all the time," Silk said, "the LGBT activists do not want people to have freedom. They do not want people to be able to exercise their religious convictions. They don't at all and people really don't understand that."

After warning that "there is a tremendous amount of spiritual warfare going on" in the fight over his legislation, Silk went on to call upon the church "to get vocal" in support of this bill before the government shuts them down.

Gays "want their behavior condoned and they want their behavior accepted," Silk said, "and the church doesn't understand it's coming to the church. If we continue to lose this, very, very soon the church will not have the right, according to the government, to preach that homosexuality is wrong. That's where this road is going. That's why it's so important":

Rand Paul: The GOP's 'Principled' Flip-Flopper

Following his upset victory in the 2010 Republican U.S. Senate primary in Kentucky, Rand Paul told the country that he had “a message from the Tea Party.” That message has turned out to be a mix of anti-establishment libertarianism in the mold of his father and tired GOP ideas repackaged under the brand of the Tea Party.

Glenn Beck To GOP Hopefuls: 'I Don't Think You Have A Chance' Of Winning Without Coming On My Show

Last year, Glenn Beck was telling everyone who would listen that he hated politics and was tired of talking about it, so he wasn't going to waste his life anymore and was, instead, going to change his direction completely.

But that was last year.  So far this year, it feels to us as if Beck has spent show after show talking about almost nothing but politics, especially the question of who will be the GOP's presidential nominee in 2016. To that end, Beck's network has started taking a monthly poll of whom Beck's followers want to see win the nomination and today they released the results of second monthly poll, which finds Ted Cruz and Scott Walker taking the top spots.

While discussing the results on his radio show today, Beck noted that lots of the candidates have appeared on his program in the past, with the exception of Walker. Walker's apparent reluctance to come on Beck's show, Beck warned, could spell disaster for Walker's presidential aspirations because "I don't think you have a chance" of winning without doing so.

When Beck asked co-host Stu Burguiere if, were he running for president, he would agree to appear on Beck's show, Burguiere noted that his campaign advisers would probably recommend against it but that, as a co-host of the show, he believes that "if you could get this audience behind you, you have a strong chance."

"I don't think you have a chance without it," Beck responded. "I just don't think you can get the Tea Party to be excited. If you're not going to actually address them where they live - and I'm not just saying our audience, I mean the people like us - if you don't come and court the audience where they live, we won't believe you."

Refusing to appear on Beck's show, he said, "shows something about your courage":

Roy Moore: SCOTUS Gay Marriage Ruling Paves Way For Government To 'Take Your Children'

Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore told the audience at the Family Research Council’s “Faith and Family Summit” on Friday that if the Supreme Court rules that states don’t have the right to impose bans on same-sex marriage, it would give immense power to the federal government. If marriage and family life become federal issues, Moore warned, “they’re going to be taking your children simply by the same logic they’re following.”

“They’re going to define who your children can be and who they answer to,” Moore said. “People will say, ‘oh we couldn’t go there, ‘well we’re going somewhere else right now that we didn’t think we would be going.”

Moore told FRC President Tony Perkins that “Christians need to stand up and do their duty to God as their duty to their country” by fighting gay rights. He declared that the issue of marriage rights is much more important than foreign affairs, immigration, economics or the national debt: “This is the most critical issue that faces this country. And I want to disagree a little bit with what I’ve heard about asking our presidential candidates [about marriage rights]. We should not have to ask them, Tony. If they haven’t come up and said it, they should not even be considered.”

If the court introduces the “redefinition of a word that existed for thousands of years before this country came into existence, and if we go there, then we’ve ruined the definition of the family and we’ll go to parent-and-child [marriage] next.”

Birther Joseph Farah Wants PFAW Help To Block Third Obama Term. Let’s Make A Deal.

Last Friday, Miranda noted that birther, conspiracy theorist par excellence, and WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was publicizing one of the more ridiculous right-wing scare-stories: that President Obama will refuse to leave the White House after his second term is over in January 2017. Farah said in a column last week that “there’s great concern” about the possibility “out there across the fruited plain.”

In classic Fox News and far-right trolling style, Farah said he didn’t actually believe Obama would refuse to leave office, but was just asking questions: why should we should take a departure for granted given what he calls Obama’s “contempt of the law” and “disrespect for American tradition” – and “the ever-present reality that Obama himself may not even be constitutionally eligible for office.”  

Farah was seemingly not pleased that RWW poked fun at his column, responding over the weekend with an appeal to another unimpeachable source of information on the president’s plans, Rush Limbaugh.  Limbaugh, says Farah, responded to a Friday caller raising the same question by spinning out a hypothetical scenario in which Obama refuses to go. Here’s Limbaugh:

“So as a service to the nation, he is going to forget the 22nd Amendment and either not leave office or run for re-election himself as the Democrat nominee. Just imagine that scenario. I don’t care how unreal it sounds, how unbelievable it sounds. Imagine it.

What would anybody do? What would Mitch McConnell do? What would John Boehner do?

Adds Farah,

“There’s simply no organized opposition to Obama’s illegal, criminal actions and behavior. He’s getting away with all of it. There are no serious repercussions. No political price. No major media opposition. Few judicial rulings that worry him. Not one political, religious or social institution that is holding him accountable – least of all the Republican Party."

Farah was apparently bothered that Miranda’s RWW post did not include a pledge that People For the American Way would “use all of its influence and legal firepower” to stop Obama from chucking the Constitution in a White House power-grab. Of course we don’t take the possibility seriously, but since Farah seems to, let’s offer him a proposition: If President Obama refuses to allow a constitutional transfer of power to his successor, we will join you at the barricades. If the American republic miraculously survives, you will stop polluting the public discourse with toxic nonsense. Deal? 

Craig James: Satan Pushing Gay Rights In Pro Sports

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins broadcast his “Washington Watch” radio program live from FRC’s “Faith and Family Summit” on Friday where the major topic was, predictably, the supposed persecution of conservative Christians at the hands of the LGBT rights movement.

Perkins invited Craig James, the former pro football player who joined FRC after being fired as a Fox Sports commentator, to discuss the decision of several professional sports teams to join a brief on behalf of gay marriage at the Supreme Court.

James worried that the decision by the New England Patriots, the Tampa Bay Rays and the San Francisco Giants to join the marriage brief could cause an “implosion” in team locker rooms and intimidate players who oppose marriage equality from speaking their minds.

“If I were a current player in that locker room and my livelihood depended on me being quiet or losing it because of my belief system, I worry, I wonder,” he said. “So, that’s Satan working on us.”

Later in the interview, Perkins warned of a coming clash between LGBT rights and religious liberty, saying, “There’s no avoiding this conflict, it’s coming, as we redefine marriage and with it everything else in society. “

“It’s not so much about the marriage altar, this redefinition of marriage, it’s about altering all of society,” he added.

James agreed, adding that he had recently been studying the book of Genesis and found that the story of Adam and Eve proves that if you support gay marriage, you “have a problem with God.”

Right-Wing Activist: Flee America Before Gay Marriage Causes God To Destroy Us

On Thursday, End Times broadcaster Rick Wiles invited John Price, a onetime failed Republican Senate candidate from Indiana and author of “The End of America,” to discuss his decision to move to Costa Rica three years ago in order to follow God’s call to “flee from the daughter of Babylon and not stay and participant in her sins and not be around when the nation is destroyed.”

Price told Wiles that other Americans should consider leaving the U.S., which he said is “truly is the daughter of Babylon” as a result of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.

“For Christians, there’s a really major troublesome thing coming and it’s going to be set loose on the country sometime between now and the end of June,” he said, predicting that the Supreme Court will “prohibit any state from establishing the parameters of marriage” and make “same-sex marriage the law of the land.”

Price said that same-sex couples will use the Supreme Court case to sue churches that decline to perform same-sex weddings, which he said was prophesied by the Bible. Eventually, Price predicted, “there will even be blood in the church and blood of the martyrs in Babylon and violence in the land.”

The two Religious Right activists agreed that once the Supreme Court strikes down bans on same-sex marriage, God will unleash His wrath upon America in the form of an “old fashioned paddling.”

“I honestly believe this is going to be the ruling that America crosses the line,” Wiles said. “What would a human father do with a son or daughter that had been blessed, had been a fairly good child most of his or her life and then suddenly just goes off the rails and becomes evil, wicked, rebellious, defiant? What would that father do? He would strip away that child’s blessings, and that’s exactly what our heavenly father is going to do to the United States of America. We’re about to get an old-fashioned paddling that is going to be extremely painful for this nation. 

He recommended that “people who don’t want to be paddled” choose to “flee” the country.

Price concluded that God will permit widespread “persecution of the church, pastors being arrested” in order to encourage Christians to flee: “He’s a loving God and he would allow persecution for a good purpose.”

Lively: America Will Face 'Calamity And Judgment' If Gay Marriage Is Legalized

On Friday, rabidly anti-gay activist Scott Lively joined Bryan Fischer in-studio for several segments, where the two argued that homosexuality is worse than murder and genocide and that acceptance of gay marriage is "a harbinger of wrath of God."

In a later segment, Lively warned that while other nations may have already legalized gay marriage, it will be different when America does so because "we're the only nation established on the Bible." As such, America will face a massive "calamity" and wholesale collapse of our national infrastructure if gay marriage ever becomes legalized throughout the country, he said.

"When the United States, in its official policy, establishes homosexual sodomy as a basis for marriage under the Constitution," Lively warned, "that's a whole new ballgame and I'm predicting that we're going to see some kind of calamity and judgement is going to occur ... We're going to suffer the consequences of this and we're going to see a rapid meltdown of the infrastructure of the country, especially anything related to the Christian infrastructure of America."

"When they pass this, if God doesn't intervene, they're going to come out of the gate," he continued, "the entire leftist block is going to declare complete victory for their entire agenda and they're going to shift to the last part of their stage of their conquest, which is punishing dissenters. You haven't seen anything yet":

Mark Regnerus Defends Flawed Research On Same-Sex Parenting

Back in 2012, University of Texas sociologist Mark Regnerus published a study claiming that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be molested, abuse drugs and alcohol, do poorly in school, and experience any number of other maladies. The study quickly made its way into anti-LGBT talking points around the world, even as Regnerus’ fellow academics began to find serious problems with his methodology.

The main issue with Regnerus’ work was that he based his conclusions on same-sex parenting on respondents who said their parent had been in a same-sex relationship at some point when they were a child – not necessarily adults who had been raised by a same-sex couple. Ultimately, only two of the people he studied were actually raised by same-sex couples. He also failed to control for destabilizing childhood events like divorce. Sociologist Darren Sherkat summarized the problems with the Regnerus study in a 2013 interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center:

The key measure of gay and lesbian parenting is simply a farce. The study includes a retrospective question asking if people knew if their mother or father had a “romantic” relationship with someone of the same sex when the respondent was under age 18. This measure is problematic on many levels.

Regnerus admits that just two of his respondents were actually raised by a same-sex couple, though I doubt that he can even know that, given his limited data. Since only two respondents were actually raised in gay or lesbian households, this study has absolutely nothing to say about gay parenting outcomes. Indeed, because it is a non-random sample, this study has nothing to say about anything.

It failed to take into account normal family effects on wellbeing, to control for known​ sources of positive or negative outcomes. Indeed, since he only had two stable lesbian “couples” (or at least a young adult who said that, retrospectively, in a non-random, convenience sample), he instead just constructed differences from a group of people who were raised in unstable environments. Sexuality has nothing to do with that.

Then, earlier this year, Catholic University professor Paul Sullins published a paper with conclusions similar to those put forth by Regnerus...and similar methodological flaws.

As Emma Green wrote in “The Atlantic” recently, most social science “suggests that there are no differences between kids raised in stable households by gay or straight parents” — in other words, most scientists are finding that it’s the stability of their household, not their gender of the parents, that most affects the wellbeing of kids.

But now Regnerus is defending the findings of his and Sullins’ studies by arguing essentially that families headed by same-sex couples are inherently unstable — so there is no need to control for stability in studying the wellbeing of children raised in by same-sex parents. Regnerus told World Magazine this week that divorce is “still, so far as I can tell, the primary means by which a child comes to be in a same-sex household,” so “I think we should evaluate reality as it exists, not complain about the ideal data situation that does not”:

Critics of Sullins’ study claim it can’t tell us anything meaningful about same-sex parenting because it includes children of divorce, who are themselves more likely to suffer from emotional, behavioral, and academic problems. In order to fairly represent gay parents, critics seem to suggest, surveys should only include children who did not experience divorce and were raised from infancy by stable gay couples. In other words, the childhoods Lopez and Barwick experienced should be tossed out of the data pool.

But such “ideal” same-sex parent situations are rare and would be difficult to measure using a random representative survey. Besides, is it fair to ignore the very factor that often precedes same-sex parenting situations: divorce?

“[Divorce] is still, so far as I can tell, the primary means by which a child comes to be in a same-sex household,” said Mark Regnerus, a University of Texas at Austin sociologist whose own survey of same-sex households in 2012 found children of gay parents were more likely to be unemployed, depressed, unhealthy, promiscuous, and to have a negative view of their childhood. “I think we should evaluate reality as it exists, not complain about the ideal data situation that does not.”

It’s not surprising that since same-sex marriage — and the child custody rights that come with that marriage status — is a relatively new development there isn’t a huge pool of data on children raised by married same-sex couples. But that doesn’t mean, as Regnerus suggests, that sociologists should simply conflate same-sex parenting with household instability.

'Coach' Dave Daubenmire: Bar People Who Believe In Evolution From Sitting On Creationist's Jury

Kent Hovind is a right-wing folk hero known as "Dr. Dino" from his days running Dinosaur Adventure Land, a young earth creationist theme park in Florida, who has spent nearly the last decade in prison for refusing to pay federal income tax on the grounds that all of the money generated by his theme park belonged to God.

With his 10-year prison sentence set to come to an end soon, Hovind now finds himself facing even more legal troubles stemming from his alleged efforts to illegally prevent the government from selling off properties seized from him in the original tax case.

"Coach" Dave Daubenmire has long been one of Hovind's most vocal defenders and he has posted several videos in recent days claiming that the government is persecuting Hovind simply for being a Christian, including one today in which he argued that it is unconstitutional for Hovind to be judged by a jury that does not share his particular Christian worldview and belief system.

Daubenmire said that any potential juror who believes in evolution ought to be barred from sitting on Hovind's jury because that would mean that Hovind would not be judged by a "jury of his peers."

"Wouldn't a jury of Kent Hovind's peers be those who believe the same way that he does?" Daubenmire asked. "Wouldn't it be germane that if you put Kent Hovind on trial, that you would have people on the trial who think like he thinks so that they could, in fact, judge the merits of the case rather than their own biases about creationism or the Bible or Christians or whatever?"

To further demonstrate the rock-solid logic of his position, Daubenmire said "it would be like putting a drug dealer on trial [and] you find somebody on the jury who is totally, one hundred per cent against any type of drugs and thinks drug dealers should be prosecuted and thrown in jail."

"That would not be a jury of peers of that drug dealer":

David Lane: Gay People Imposing 'Reign Of Terror'

David Lane, the conservative political activist who organizes meetings and trips to connect evangelical voters with GOP presidential candidates, most recently Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal, is out with a new column attacking gay rights in the far-far-right outlet BarbWire today.

Lane writes that while what “homosexuals do in their home is none of my business,” he is worried that they now seek to “impose” their “reign of terror” on “anyone who will not celebrate their sexual lifestyle.”

What homosexuals do in their home is none of my business. What does concern me is the reign of terror, now becoming old hat, that they impose on anyone who will not celebrate their sexual lifestyle. They evidently intend their worldview to be forced upon all others. When the coming storm arrives, Christian pastors will have to make a choice. Either capitulate on the Gospel by giving approval to the homosexual lifestyle, or—go to jail.

Through His Word, God fully declared His mind regarding sexual sin—whether it is fornication, heterosexual adultery, homosexuality, or any other form proscribed in the Bible. God defines sin, not the U.S. Supreme Court, “vice stalking in virtue’s garb”.



The commodity which we Christians in America stand in need of is mercy and pardon. We have allowed spiritual calamity to come to a nation founded by Christians—men and women who were giants of the faith.

Such remarks shouldn’t come as a surprise, as Lane has previously alleged that gay rights will lead to the destruction of America and a series of car bomb attacks throughout the country.

Pamela Geller Names Jon Stewart The 'Most Disgusting Jew on the Planet'

In a WorldNetDaily column today about how the U.S. suffers from “an absence of the good” and “an abundance of poo,” conservative pundit Pamela Geller claims that modern American culture is best illustrated by “the popular emoticon found on phones today, of a happily smiling pile of excrement.”

Geller is especially angry with Jon Stewart, blaming him for the rise of America’s “poo generation.” Stewart, Geller writes, “should have given the ‘Most Disgusting Jew on the Planet Award’” at the Oscars last month.

“This vicious traitor, smug and self-righteous, has long been working for the other side under the guise of comedy” she writes. “Vile. Jon Stewart defines self-loathing Jew. But that’s not enough. He means to take us down with him.”

In every generation, there are icons that sum up its core values – not official ones, but symbols that really mean something to people: Rosie the Riveter, the American flag, Elvis Presley, the motorcycle jacket, the defeatist “peace sign” and now the tyrannical “Coexist” bumper sticker. There are symbols that sum up the zeitgeist of a time, a generation.

The popular emoticon found on phones today, of a happily smiling pile of excrement, is just that. It best exemplifies the low state of the world, of the culture, and of America itself in the age of the primitive. It signifies America’s rapid decay in the wake of the left’s decades-long war on Americanism, freedom and individual rights. The absence of morality – and by morality, I mean a code of values – has led to an absence of the good. And an abundance of poo.



The culture is ugly. Ugly as poo. The music is ugly, violent and misogynistic. Every crime drama and suspense series is rife with the most unimaginable gore. “Game of Thrones,” “Law and Order (Sex Crimes),” “American Horror Story” – they’re all devoid of humanity and morality. Devoid of goodness. It’s a cultural rout. It’s not that the line between good and evil has been blurred – it’s nonexistent. We are living in a cultural free-for-all, or more accurately, a free fall.



American traitor Edward Snowden got an Oscar; American hero Chris Kyle got the middle finger. Even the traitorous far-left journalist Glenn Greenwald got an Oscars shout-out. Of course Hollywood would reward vicious traitors. There was no way the Hollywood establishment was going to give an Oscar to Clint Eastwood after he so delightfully skewered Obama’s empty chair. And their disdain for Americanism and the military is infused in everything they churn out.

Sharing their disdain for America is Jon Stewart, to whom they should have given the “Most Disgusting Jew on the Planet Award.” No contest. After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ground-breaking speech to Congress last week, Stewart scoffed at the many standing ovations Netanyahu received as the “longest bl-wjob a Jewish man has ever received.”

This vicious traitor, smug and self-righteous, has long been working for the other side under the guise of comedy. Vile. Jon Stewart defines self-loathing Jew. But that’s not enough. He means to take us down with him.

He is leaving Comedy Central, thankfully. But don’t get too happy; they’ll turn the show over to another leftist radical. When does Dennis Miller or someone like that get an HBO or Comedy Central gig? The cultural landscape is under siege by these killers.

And what’s next for Stewart? Politics, I fear.

As if Israel didn’t have enough problems …

Ayn Rand said, “There are two aspects of man’s existence which are the special province and expression of his sense of life: love and art.” Both of which have all but been extinguished in the era of amoralism – reflected in cultural rot and the exaltation of the crank.

This is where we are now. In the poo generation.

Lively: Homosexuality Is 'Worse Than Murder And Worse Than Genocide'

Last month, rabidly anti-gay activist Scott Lively warned that if the Supreme Court strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage, it could lead to the rise of the Antichrist by the end of the year.

Naturally, Bryan Fischer decided to have Lively join him in-studio for his radio program today so that he could discuss his warning to America as well as promote the upcoming prayer vigil that he will be holding outside of the Supreme Court.

Lively told Fischer that America is about to cross "a line with God that hasn't occurred in the entire history of the world since Noah's flood," which he once again asserted was brought about by the celebration of "homosexual marriage."

"The final straw for God was when they started celebrating and engaging in homosexual and bestial marriages," he said.

Lively went on to declare that homosexuality is "the most egregious form of rebellion against God" and is a sin that is "worse than murder and worse then genocide."

"It's not just another sin," he continued. "It's really a harbinger of the judgment of God ... The celebration by the society [of homosexuality] is a harbinger of the wrath of God":

Ken Cuccinelli: 'We're Being Invaded…One Person At A Time'

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who now heads up the Senate Conservatives Fund, told talk show host Steve Deace in an interview yesterday that America is being “invaded” by immigrants “one person at a time” and that President Obama is guilty of “encouraging the invasion” with his executive actions.

Discussing the decision of Republican leaders in Congress to ally with Democrats to pass a Department of Homeland Security funding bill, Deace asked Cuccinelli: “Is there any affront to the Constitution this president could commit that would cause the current Republican leaders in Congress to really, substantively attempt to do something about it and stop it? Is there anything he could do? Anything?”

“I can’t think of one,” Cuccinelli responded. “I mean, other than surrendering to everybody — I mean, we’re being invaded. We’re being invaded, right? One person at a time, we’re being invaded. And the president isn’t protecting us from invasion, he’s encouraging the invasion, and he’s doing it unconstitutionally."

“He’s assumed power after power that’s allocated to Congress and they’ve supinely rolled over under the Republican surrendership of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner and Steve Scalise and Kevin McCarthy, and there’s no reason to expect that’s going to change," he continued.

“I mean, what’s more important that’s coming up than what we’ve seen in the last week or two months?" he asked. "Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Not to say that the other things we’re going to deal with in coming months aren’t important, Steve. It’s just that clearly what we’ve been through both constitutionally, in terms of our sovereignty and the rule of law, you’re never going to top that.”

Cuccinelli used similar rhetoric in a Facebook post last year in support of then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s questionable decision to send the Texas National Guard to the southern border to confront Central American child migrants. “The border states that are being directly invaded by illegal immigrants – Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico – may constitutionally deal with the invasion themselves, at least as it relates to attempting to stop the flow across their own borders,” Cuccinelli wrote at the time. “And there is nothing President Obama or those in Washington can do to stop any of these states, if they are determined to act.”

Republicans Stop at Nothing to Attack Immigrants

This op-ed by Michael Keegan, President, People For the American Way was originally published at The Huffington Post.

On March 3, the House of Representatives finally voted for a clean DHS funding bill. Much of the media reported that Republicans saw the irresponsibility of their threats to shut down Homeland Security and passed a clean bill. But they didn't, and no one should lose sight of that.

After trying every trick in the book to scuttle the bill, their leadership allowed the vote to happen, but Republicans never caved. Republicans voted over two to one (167-75)against the bill. It only passed because of full Democratic support.

It's clear that Republicans will stop at nothing to attack immigrants. The fact that national security was on the line was immaterial: Republicans saw an opportunity to display their animus toward all immigrants, and Latinos in particular, and they took it.

This publicity stunt gave Republicans the chance to pander yet again to the most virulent anti-immigrant members of their party. Take, for instance, William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration and his comments during the heat of the DHS fight in mid-February:

[I] wouldn't put anything past [the administration, because] the people who are supporting the organized and well-funded illegal alien invasion of our homeland have the blood of many thousands of Americans on their hands that have been killed, injured raped and robbed by illegal immigrants.

Sure, Gheen is a fringe extremist. But what he's saying is strikingly similar to what we're hearing from the Republican Party.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, the architect of Mitt Romney's "self-deportation" strategy, entertained the suggestion that Obama's executive actions could eventually result in Latinos conducting an "ethnic cleansing" of their fellow Americans. Sen. Tom Coburn, Rep. Mike Kelly, and Rep. Louie Gohmert have also warned that the president's immigration policies could lead to violence.

While some in the GOP tried to tell a different narrative -- that this was just about reining in presidential excess and not about their being anti-immigrant -- the fact is that the entire Republican Party is at fault. Not one House Republican signed the discharge petition to allow even a vote on the Senate's bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. And Senate Republicans who backed that bill, including Sen. Marco Rubio, now say they no longer support it. At this very minute, House Republicans are bringing up even more anti-immigrant legislation, including deportation-only legislation and a bill that would drastically change U.S. asylum and humanitarian protections to put domestic violence survivors and victims of human trafficking at serious risk.

Ultimately, it was Ann Coulter who summed up the Republican position on the DHS debate: Undocumented immigrants (she calls them "illegal aliens [who] have killed, raped and maimed thousands of Americans") pose a greater threat to our nation than does ISIS." While not all Republicans used language as biting as that, it was crystal-clear that Republicans believe that attacking immigrants, not funding DHS, should be the top priority.

Who would have imagined that a national party, never mind the Republican Party, would be so opposed to finding any solution for the almost 12 million undocumented people already here that they would risk our national security during the dangerous time we are in now? Yet that's the reality of the GOP today, and it's our responsibility to hold them accountable.

PFAW

Paranoia-Rama: Muslim Infiltration, Gay End Times And Liberal Killers

Now that gay people and the Muslim Brotherhood have taken over the government, conservative pundits have a lot of thoughts that they want to share — scary thoughts about anti-Christian persecution and a (non-existent) Egyptian court case that may throw two American leaders behind bars.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious