Fighting the Right

Sandy Rios: Children are 'Sexually Abused' by 'Homosexual Advocacy' in Schools

Sandy Rios of the American Family Association on Friday said that she isn’t surprised that a large majority of young people support marriage equality because “our children, for the most part, have heard nothing but positive things about homosexuality and its effects.” She blamed TV shows like TLC’s “Say Yes to the Dress” for making homosexuality seem “kind of fun,” saying they’ve “only painted [it] with a positive brush.”

However, Rios claimed that “those of us that have been involved in issues related to this know that there’s a very dark side” to the gay community and understand that homosexuality is a “destructive force.”

She maintained that gay rights advocates are “forcing little children to be educated, they call it educated, I’d say sexually abused by information their little ears are not ready to hear,” and once again warned that “homosexual advocacy” brings about “the raping of the innocence of our children.”

We hear so much first of all about young people being in favor of gay marriage and I believe that’s true, I believe those stats are probably for the most part true and I believe it makes sense because our children, for the most part, have heard nothing but positive things about homosexuality and its effects; it’s kind of fun. We see “Say Yes to the Dress,” which by the way I love, and we see the gay characters on that and the one in Atlanta and the one in New York and those guys are really, I really, it has nothing to do with ‘like,’ but it is the face of the homosexual community that is only pained with a positive brush when those of us that have been involved in issues related to this know that there’s a very dark side, that this is not a good thing for people ultimately in their lives and it is a destructive force. It’s a destructive force especially — my concern, more than that for the gay community which I am very concerned about — is for the raping of the innocence of our children, forcing it in public schools, forcing little children to be educated, they call it educated, I’d say sexually abused by information their little ears are not ready to hear. In states where homosexual advocacy is strong this is exactly what’s happening, it’s happening to some degree all over the country in all school rooms, but it’s worse in states like Massachusetts.

Later, she mocked media coverage of her latest statements where she speculated about Hillary Clinton’s sexual orientation by facetiously asking why people were offended by her remarks since schools now teach that homosexuality is “wonderful.”

Rios even said that we are telling children to “engage in experimental sex with their friends, you know encouraged to act out sexually with their girlfriends if they are girls and their boyfriends if they are boys,” and that Bill Clinton “loves all things sexual in general I think, homosexual or heterosexual.”

She must be bi, she’s got a child, if she is a lesbian she would have to be bi so what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that okay? Isn’t that wonderful, in fact? Aren’t we telling our children in public schools, aren’t we giving them books about it, aren’t we reading stories about it, aren’t we seeing this on television all the time and movie themes, isn’t this cool? Aren’t we having our kids sort of engage in experimental sex with their friends, you know encouraged to act out sexually with their girlfriends if they are girls and their boyfriends if they are boys? Doesn’t Bravo feature things like this all the time? I just watched one this week when I was working out in the gym. What’s the problem?



I mean her husband is supporting gay marriage, he loves all things sexual in general I think, homosexual or heterosexual, it could be argued. I’m not talking about his behavior, I’m talking about just that he seems to embrace all kinds of sex, doesn’t seem to mind it, and certainly he is denigrating the Defense of Marriage Act, which he signed in 1996. I really honestly don’t see what the big deal is on this.

Ex-Gay Activist: Homosexuality 'Shameful' Like Theft and Drug Abuse

Ex-gay activist Michael Brown was very excited to get a call on his “Line of Fire” radio program last week from an “ex-gay” woman named Margaret. Margaret cried as she told Brown how she had been “caught up” in “wicked” bisexuality. “This is the first time I’ve ever, ever admitted it,” she said, “because it’s a shameful thing.”

Brown responded that “it should be shameful” because “certain lifestyles are shameful. I’m ashamed of the fact I stole money from my father and shot heroin before I was saved.”

Brown: Margaret, how long were you caught up in bisexuality?

Caller: I hate to say it because it makes me want to cry, but it was at least since I was a little girl. I hate to say that, and it’s a horrible thing. And it’s not…

Brown: I understand, but these things can be deeply rooted in people’s lives and that’s why it takes God reaching down deep to change them.

Caller: It is.

Brown: By the way, the only reason I’ve used the term ‘gay’ is because I’m often speaking to the world and secular society and trying to reach out and build a certain bridge. But, absolutely, I’m very sympathetic to what you’re saying. And I have many of my friends doing the same thing I do who will never use the word because they feel it is a capitulation already, so I recognize that, and you make a good point with it. Margaret, thank God for his grace in your life, thank God for his transformation. And remember, you’re not who you used to be, don’t ever be plagued by that, you’re forgiven and free and a new creature in Jesus, so live that out and continue to testify strongly. Your voice is needed on the frontlines, Margaret. Thank you for calling.

Caller: Actually, this is the first time I’ve ever, ever admitted it because it’s a shameful thing.

Brown: I understand, I understand, and it should be shameful. What that means is not that if someone’s struggling they can’t come for help. The Church needs to be able to say, ‘Whoever you are, whatever your background, however your struggle, we’re all messed up in one way or another, we all need Jesus.’ We need to have an open door where people can come and say, ‘Hey, these are my issues.’ But of course, certain lifestyles are shameful. I’m ashamed of the fact I stole money from my father and shot heroin before I was saved.

Earlier in the program, Brown spoke with Arthur Goldberg of the ex-gay therapy group JONAH about suicide among LGBT teens. Goldberg asserted that claims that ex-gay therapy harms teens “are greatly, greatly, greatly exaggerated” and that, in fact, “gay activists have a much greater suicide rate.”

Brown responded that gay rights activists, when they mention suicide by gay teens, are “almost encouraging it.” He compared suicide by LGBT teens to his hazy memory of the civil rights movement, when “I don’t remember ever hearing” about “black kids killing themselves, hanging themselves because they’re rejected by society.” In the 19th and early 20th centuries, he adds, “you didn’t hear about all the Jewish youth in the ghettos who were going to kill themselves because life was tough.”

Goldberg: You mention that the activists will say, ‘Oh well, people may have committed suicide that have gone through this process or have been harmed by this process.’ Well the fact of the matter is, the person who, the gay activists have a much greater suicide rate..

Brown: Of course.

Goldberg:…than the people who have tried to go through a healing journey. And, in terms of harm caused, the fact of the matter is if you look at the NARTH study, which reviewed all the professional literature on whether harm is caused or not, the truth is that reparative therapy, gender affirmation, whatever word you want to use for it, sexual orientation change, there’s a ton of different words for it, the fact is that people, the claims of harm are greatly, greatly, greatly exaggerated.

Brown: Yeah, and Arthur, we’ve just got about a minute and a half, I appreciate you pulling away from your other responsibilities to join me. But you were involved with civil rights movement years ago. Did the leaders say, ‘Look, our kids, our black kids are killing themselves, hanging themselves because they’re being rejected by society, so you’d better accept them’? Because I don’t remember ever hearing that as I was growing up. And not only so, we understand that suicide has a lot of other complex issues, that you’re average person struggling with rejection is not going to commit suicide. It seems to me almost a self-defeating thing for gay activists to keep mentioning this, as if it’s almost encouraging it. It seems very different from the civil rights mentality to me.

Goldberg: Totally, totally. And you know, they use this term of ‘internalized homophobia’ and they use these terms of saying that, ‘Oh, we’re the poor victims.’ You know, the fact of the matter is, I’m a Jew. Okay, we were heavily discriminated against as Jews, particularly early in this century and last century. You don’t see the Jews complaining about, ‘I’m a poor victim.’ They went out and did something on their own in the true American dream, and followed the American dream by being out, get out there and do what it takes to overcome.

Brown: Absolutely, and you didn’t hear about all the Jewish youth in the ghettos who were going to kill themselves because life was tough. They were among the strongest freedom fighters. So, Arthur, I’m not criticizing these kids who are struggling, I’m saying let’s help them, that they’re really hurting.

Goldberg: Absolutely. Our compassion and our heart goes out to these people who need help.
 

Barber: Roe v Wade and Dred Scott Are 'Twin Bookends of Evil'

Last week, Mat Staver and Matt Barber hailed legislation passed in North Dakota and elsewhere aimed at dramatically curtailing the availability and legality of abortion, with Barber proclaiming that Roe v Wade was no different than the infamous Dred Scott decision, calling them "twin bookends of evil" and "shameful decisions that are a blight on America's history":

Harvey: Gays Need to 'Embrace Reality' and Stop Living 'A Sad Delusion'

On her radio bulletin today, Linda Harvey of Mission America once again argued that gay people don’t exist but are simply living a “sad delusion” and their “life could be very different if they embraced reality.” She laments that “homosexuality has become a gateway issue” for young people who “erroneously” consider gay rights “to be a civil rights issue.”

“Homosexuals are confronted every day with the plain truth of God’s design of their bodies,” Harvey said. “It’s not marriage, it’s not a positive lesson for kids and it’s not a civil right.”

Many people are now stating publicly what some have privately believed for years that, especially for our youth, homosexuality has become a gateway issue, erroneously said to be a civil rights issue, and so Republicans are being pressured to embrace the LGBT agenda. But the truth is still true. If our youth heard a clear exposition about this issue, which the major media in our country seldom allow, many would embrace the conservative and even Christian view. It’s not hateful to oppose homosexuality since no one is born this way. Even if a person swears that they’ve always been this way and could never change, that does not mean it’s true. Human history is replete with examples of folks who spent years believing something or other was their destiny and it turns out to have been a sad delusion and life could be very different if they embraced reality. Homosexuals are confronted every day with the plain truth of God’s design of their bodies. It’s not marriage, it’s not a positive lesson for kids and it’s not a civil right.

Fischer: If People Made the Connection Between Gay Rights and Sex, It Would 'Gross Them Right Out'

On Friday's radio broadcast, Bryan Fischer asserted that the success of gay rights movement is dependent upon a deliberate effort to "keep the eyes of Americans off what it is that homosexuals do when they come together" because if people actually think about it, "it's going to gross them right out" since people have a "visceral moral reaction" to that kind of "deviant behavior":

Klayman: Clinton Committing 'Fraud on the American People' by Being Secretly Gay

Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman is angry about President Obama’s trip to Israel, and somehow managed to use a column about the visit to attack Hillary Clinton for endorsing marriage equality and speculate about her sexual orientation. After arguing that Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “engaged in political sex” instead of working to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, Klayman reported that “two of Bill Clinton's extra-marital lovers” said that she “is, at a minimum, bi-sexual,” and “that the reason for his cheating was Hillary's gayness.”

Klayman, who has a tendency to claim that his political opponents are gay, even claimed to know “the names of several of Hillary's female lovers,” but that he won’t expose them “for a variety of reasons.”

While he refuses to name her supposed “lovers,” he said Clinton is a hypocrite and committing “fraud on the American people” because she “has not come out of the closet.”

This week was a "potpourri" of hypocrisy and fraud, not that this is anything unusual these days.

First, there was the dog and pony show put on by both President Barack Hussein Obama and the President and Prime Minister of Israel, Shimon Peres and Benjamin Natanyahu [sic] – a shameless display that sought to effectively defraud the Israeli people, and Jews and Christians in the United States and throughout the world.



Netanyahu, who, with his conservative Likud Party, recently took a hit during the recent elections last January, and now has a very weak hold on his prime ministership, then proceeded to roll over and himself heap praise on Obama as Israel's greatest friend – having been politically outflanked by his American and Israeli rivals. As a result, both the Israeli public and Jewry worldwide were treated to an attempted fraud – as both Obama and high Israeli officials backed away from committing to take any immediate forceful action to stop Iran's nuclear program and instead engaged in political sex. In short, all parties, Obama, Peres and Netanyahu disgraced and disserved their own people by attempting to lull them to sleep on the immediate threat of an Iranian nuclear Holocaust.

The second greatest hypocrisy and fraud committed this week was by none other than Hillary Clinton, who finally followed her "heart and sexual preference" and endorsed same sex marriage. Timing her announcement at a time that it would be less widely reported – as she and her hubby Bill had previously opposed it during their administration – Hillary positioned herself nevertheless for her near certain presidential candidacy in 2016 by going with the flow – where politicians of all stripes have thrown in the towel to this moral issue.

Before now, Hillary had steadfastly wanted to stay away from "gay marriage" as it is widely known that she is, at a minimum, bi-sexual. During my tenure at Judicial Watch I was told by Gennifer Flowers and Dolly Kyle Browning, two of Bill Clinton's extra-marital lovers, that the president had told them that the reason for his cheating was Hillary's gayness. During the course of Judicial Watch's many cases and investigations, I indeed learned the names of several of Hillary's female lovers, but we never exploited this for a variety of reasons. And, then to cap it all off the famous left wing investigative writer Seymour Hirsch once told me that it is widely known that Hillary likes women.

That Hillary has not come out of the closet, while now endorsing same sex marriage, is the height of hypocrisy and another continuing fraud on the American people, and her own gay and lesbian constituency.

How Homosexuality is like 'When Teenage Girls Start Wearing Makeup'

Yesterday, Religious Right broadcaster Janet Parshall hosted ex-gay activists Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche, actress Anne Heche’s mom, to discuss their new book “The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality.”

A caller, John, said that based on his personal experiences with gays and lesbians he doesn’t consider homosexuality to be an “emotional or choice-oriented kind of decision” as they seem “compelled to be this way.”

Heche responded that gays and lesbians might seem different from straight people because they are trying to conform to the norms of the gay community, much like “when teenage girls start wearing makeup then they all want to wear makeup and if the in-group is wearing frilly skirts and ruffle t-shirts then everybody is going to wear a ruffle t-shirt.”

Caller: Their behavior doesn’t seem to be affected, it seems to be genuine and it seems that they are compelled to be this way. I don’t know if it’s hormonal differences or whatever chemical differences in the endocrine system in the body that affect the brain and the body but there is something going on that’s more than just emotional or choice-oriented kind of decisions that these people make.

Heche: What I think is that oftentimes once one associates herself or himself with a gay community or a gay fellowship group they settle in and want to make a distinction from others — others in the heterosexual world — they want to make a distinction and a statement about who they are. I’m just saying this might be 1 percent of the people you’re talking about or 99 percent, but sometimes I think people make a point to adapt and adopt to the community that they are associating with. It’s kind of like this when teenage girls start wearing makeup then they all want to wear makeup and if the in-group is wearing frilly skirts and ruffle t-shirts then everybody is going to wear a ruffle t-shirt. That might be very oversimplifying it but I think it is maybe a tiny explanation for a small group of people that you’re talking about. Does that make sense? Do you understand what I’m saying?

Dallas, meanwhile, said that even if it becomes scientifically proven that homosexuality is not a choice, gays and lesbians should suppress their sexuality in the same way that individuals who have predispositions to violence must suppress their violent urges.

Parshall: Let’s just say for discussion sake that we come out with a peer-reviewed, vetted, highly-scrutinized study that says: Tada! Definitively there is a gene, you are predisposed. God is not the author of confusion, He tells us in His word ‘don’t frustrate your children,’ so would God then say, ‘I’ve designed you that way and then I’m going to turn around and say that if you act on that behavior I’m going to call it a sin’? This is an argument all three of us have heard many a time, so how do we respond to that?

Dallas: First of all, even if we are born with something it does not mean that God designed that something. There are many external and internal inborn realities that God never intended. So I would not presume that if something is inborn that God ordained it, whether we are talking about something as serious as a birth defect or if we’re talking about, as you said Janet, a predisposition. I do think that for that individual who has a predisposition, whether it is to violence, or addictive behavior or homosexuality, that will be an area of weakness in their life and if they want to live an obedient life they’re going to be called to deal with that area of weakness in their life. But the fact that it may even be inborn would not be an excuse to indulge it.

Ohio Anti-Gay Leader Encouraged Portman to Put Son in Ex-Gay Therapy, Vows to Fight His Reelection

Sen. Rob Portman has, unsurprisingly, been faced with a barrage of criticism from Religious Right groups since he announced that, inspired by his gay son, he had changed his mind to support marriage equality. But perhaps no one has been more upset with Portman than Ohio anti-gay leader Phil Burress of Citizens for Community Values. Last week, Burress called Portman “a very troubled man” who is  “distraught over what’s happened to his son.”

On Wednesday, Burress took to “ex-gay” activist Michael Brown’s “Line of Fire” radio program to recount a conversation he had with Portman shortly before the senator’s announcement. Portman was “dejected” and “basically sad throughout the conversation,” Burress says. And while Burress had initially thought Portman was “looking for help for his son to walk away from the lifestyle” through "ex-gay" therapy,  it eventually became “obvious that he was going to embrace his son’s behavior, which was devastating, because he just gives his son no chance whatsoever of understanding, you know, that he doesn’t have to be that way.”

Burress knows who to blame for this change of heart in father and son: Yale University, where the younger Portman is currently a freshman. At Yale, Burress says, Portman’s son was “probably associating with the other homosexual activists” and ultimately “forced his dad’s hand on this thing.”

Burress: He called me the night before he went public and told me that he was the first one that he wanted to call, and we shared ideas and thoughts. And when he first called me, I thought he was looking for help for his son to walk away from the lifestyle, because I’m pretty sure that he knows that I spent four and a half years on the board of an international organization helping people walk away. And he dropped the bomb on me by saying he was going to change his opinion, which I still today cannot believe that he did that because this is a principled issue and you just don’t turn your back on principled issues.

Brown: Phil, do you think, and you wrote a very gracious but firm editorial that’s getting a lot of national exposure, do you think that he was unaware before this that his son felt that his homosexuality was not a choice? Because he announced it as if this was a new revelation.

Burress: Well, he knew about it for two and a half years. So, apparently in thinking back, he, they learned about it while he was a freshman in high school, and now he’s a, excuse me, a junior in high school, and now he’s a freshman at Yale. And I don’t think there’s any coincidence to this whatsoever that he came home, probably associating with the other homosexual activists at Yale, and I think maybe he forced his dad’s hand on this thing because, that’s just my gut feeling, because Rob started off the conversation by saying, ‘I’ve got some really bad news,’ and he was dejected and basically sad throughout the whole conversation. And it ended up being a conversation, a dad to a dad, but it was obvious that he was going to embrace his son’s behavior, which was devastating, because he just gives his son no chance whatsoever of understanding, you know, that he doesn’t have to be that way. And I told him that it’s not innate, it’s a learned behavior.

Later in the program, Burress promised electoral defeat for Portman if he runs for reelection in 2016. Burress notes that former Ohio Republican Sen. Mike DeWine lost his bid for reelection in 2006 after opposing a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Burress neglects to mention that DeWine, who supported a federal gay marriage ban,  in fact lost to Democrat and gay-rights supporter Sherrod Brown.


Brown: What do we do now? Do we just say, ‘Another loss, throw in the towel, America’s capitulating,’ or can we bring about change?

Burress: We can bring about change alright, and what’s surfacing now is what happened to Mike DeWine, Senator Mike DeWine, when he opposed us in 2004. I chaired the marriage amendment in Ohio to change the constitution here in Ohio and Senator DeWine came out against us. And he’d been in the Senate for, I think, two or three terms, and obviously that cost him his election. When he ran again, he got beat because he switched his position. And there’s no doubt in my mind that the same thing’s going to happen, based on the emails and the calls we’re getting, is that people are not only devastated but are angry that they have somebody up there that they voted for to represent their point of view and their values and he’s turned his back on them. This is a non-negotiable issue with our organization and he will be listed on our annual, what we call Ohio Election Central, our reporting agency where we endorse candidates, as ‘unacceptable for public office.’

 

Memo to Reince Priebus: Mike Huckabee's Anti-Gay Views Are Not 'Reasonable'

Via Think Progress, we see that Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus thinks that a good way for the GOP to win support from voters who have turned away from the party is to start sounding "reasonable" ... like Mike Huckabee:

Priebus cited former governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas as an example of someone who could be “a model for a lot of people in our party” in terms of discussing issues like marriage and abortion. “I always tell people: Listen to Governor Mike Huckabee,” he said. “I don’t know anyone that talks about them any better.”

Ummm ... does Prebius really think that Huckabee has a good record of sounding "reasonable" on these issues? Does he actually even know anything about Huckabee's anti-gay views?

Huckabee was, after all, the candidate of choice for a cavalcade of rabidly anti-gay Religious Right activists for a reason and with whom he continues to associate. Heck, he even received an award from Vision America in 2010 which is run by a man who still declares that AIDS is God's punishment for immoral behavior. And just last year, he campaigned for a congressional candidate who openly supports the criminalization of homosexuality.

Huckabee has declared that, if he became president, he would reinstate Don't Ask, Don't Tell and proclaimed that he is looking for "spiritual warriors" who will not allow the nation to fall "to the hands of those who would enslave us" but will instead stand and fight against marriage equality. In fact, his opposition to gay marriage is well-known, as he has compared it to bestiality and alcholism:

"The problem with changing the definition of marriage is that once you cross that line, then there's no stopping," he explains. He tells me that when he spoke recently in Japan, there was an American student there who objected to his views on gay marriage. "This was right in the middle of what was going on in west Texas, and I thought, Okay, how can we say that what those polygamists in west Texas are doing is wrong if we allow same-sex marriage? Who are you to tell them that that man can't have fifteen wives? [The student said] 'Well, it's not the same!' And I said, 'Okay, well, here's another one: bestiality. Now I know you're going to have a problem,' and he just went berserk on that. But there was recently an actual news story where a man wanted to marry his animal. . . . I think it was a sheep."

Huckabee says he doesn't know if homosexuality is inborn, but he believes you can control the behavior. He compares homosexuality to obesity or alcoholism: "Some people have a predisposition to alcoholism. Does that mean they're not responsible for getting drunk? No."

And finally, who could ever forget his statement from 1992 calling for those infected with HIV to be quarantined, a position he refused to retract even when he ran for president:

"It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population," he said. "This deadly disease, for which there is no cure, is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents.

"If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."

If this is the sort of stuff that Priebus thinks will make the GOP seem "reasonable," then the party is in even deeper trouble than we imagined.

Barton: 'Conspiracy Mentalities Are a Bad Deal'

On the weekly "Good News Friday" episode of "WallBuilders Live" today, David Barton cited a poll supposedly showing that a majority of Americans believe that the government poses a threat to their rights and freedoms, which he suggested is a good thing because it meant that there was also a majority of citizens who would be willing to stand up and push back.

But there was also a danger, Barton warned, in that it could lead people to fear the government which, in turn, leads to conspiracy theories:

I think fear causes you to do a lot of things.  Conspiracy mentalities are a bad deal. We're told in Isaiah 8:11 not to call conspiracy everything that everybody else calls conspiracy ... The problem with conspiracy is that faith is actually fear and if you have a lot of faith, that is having fear.  Job said "that which I feared has come upon me;"  it's like having faith for bad stuff to happen.

...

A lot of times when you get a conspiratorial mentality, it causes you to act in ways that the conspiracy actually becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. So I think on the one hand, as long as we have a health skepticism of government and Washington and their ability and, actually, their efforts right now to take power, I think that that's healthy so long as it doesn't turn into fear that becomes conspiratorial and phobic which then drives us to do things that causes Washington to really come after us.

Hmmm ... maybe Barton ought to share this view with his BFF Glenn Beck the next time he appears on his program.

Robertson: Environmentalists May Cause the Deaths of 'A Couple Billion People'

Pat Robertson has been on the attack against environmentalists as of late, and yesterday the 700 Club host warned that environmentalist policies may cause billions of people to die.

Robertson maintained that the “out of control” Environmental Protection Agency “has been run by doctrinaire leftists” who are attacking “American industry, especially fossil fuels.”

After he went on a rant about new rules impacting coal power plants, Robertson said that the ultimate “goal” of the environmental movement is to create “a more pastoral, rural kind of existence and if a couple billion people around the globe die from starvation because of it that’s just tough luck.”

Watch:

Bauer: 'Only Reason that Romney Won North Carolina' was Anti-Gay Ad Campaign

Gary Bauer filled in for Family Research Council head Tony Perkins on Washington Watch yesterday where he once again blamed the Republican Party’s problems on a lack of opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights.

Bauer, who once led the FRC but now runs American Values and the Campaign for Working Families, chided President Obama for favoring marriage equality and claimed that “if Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today” he would condemn Obama’s pro-gay rights stance, which Bauer said “twisted and distorted” the legacy of the civil rights movement.

“But in spite of all we’ve done, all of our work, everything that you’ve done at the grassroots level,” Bauer lamented, “we are right on the edge of losing that issue.”

Later in the program, Bauer told a caller from North Carolina that the sole reason Romney won the state and no other swing states was because Bauer ran ads there attacking Obama’s position on marriage equality.

“We lost them all again except for one state and it was North Carolina,” Bauer said. “I believe the only reason that Gov. Romney won North Carolina was because the voters of that state were reminded of that issue, so it’s a lesson I think for the Republican Party.”

Let me give a tip of the hat to North Carolina, you know in 2008 President Obama won all of the swing states that are so important in presidential politics. In this last presidential election in 2012 there was a major effort made by conservatives to get those swing states back. Unfortunately, we lost them all again except for one state and it was North Carolina. The people of North Carolina took another look at Barack Obama and decided, ‘hey, we made a mistake four years ago,’ and this time around they voted differently. I’d like to think at least in part that happened in North Carolina because of some ads that I and other groups ran in that state on the marriage issue, reminding the voters of North Carolina who had just voted just a little over a year ago to keep marriage between a man and a woman, that President Obama had come out right after that vote and had endorsed same-sex marriage. I believe the only reason that Gov. Romney won North Carolina was because the voters of that state were reminded of that issue, so it’s a lesson I think for the Republican Party.

That’s right; Bauer thinks that this ad put Romney over the top in North Carolina.

Gaffney: Obama Administration Pursuing 'The Sharia Blasphemy Agenda of our Enemies'

During an appearance on The Janet Mefferd Show this week, Frank Gaffney of the far-right Center for Security Policy argued that the Obama administration has a “determination to pursue what amounts to the Sharia blasphemy agenda of our enemies” by “suppressing freedom of expression in this country.” Gaffney was referring to the arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man behind the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims.”

Of course, Nakoula was not arrested for his role in the film but for violating his probation stemming from a 2010 bank fraud conviction. Gaffney also maintained that “he is the only person who has thus far been incarcerated as a result of this [Benghazi] episode,” even though just over a week ago a suspect in the attack was arrested in Libya and late last year suspects were arrested in Egypt and Tunisia.

Mefferd: What about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the filmmaker who last we heard is still in jail, what are we to make of that, the fact that he blasphemed Islam so-called and is still in jail.

Gaffney: Well this is a critically important point, Janet; he is the only person who has thus far been incarcerated as a result of this episode. And more to the point, what we have now is growing evidence of the Obama administration’s willingness and indeed determination to pursue what amounts to the Sharia blasphemy agenda of our enemies, that is to say suppressing freedom of expression in this country which is our constitutional right, which is a scandal further.

Young Elected Officials Call for Gun Violence Prevention Reforms

Daniel Hernandez - Rep. Gabby Giffords' heroic intern, now a school board member in AZ - appeared on the Ed Show to discuss a letter from 42 members of PFAW’s Young Elected Officials Action program urging gun violence prevention reforms.
PFAW

Keyes: 'So-Called Homosexual Rights' Incompatible with the Constitution

In his latest WorldNetDaily column, Alan Keyes warns that “so-called libertarians” have a “rebellious arrogance that disdains decent self-government” because they are unable to see “the distinction between liberty and licentiousness.”

Keyes specifically pointed to gay rights as a reason to oppose libertarians: “By promoting so-called homosexual rights, they are engaged in a general offensive to disparage, subvert and ultimately deny the constitutional rights” of the “God-endowed family, the primordial institution that is the paradigm, in terms both of liberty and obligation, for natural justice and human community.”

He concludes that the “regressive elitist faction agenda” will discard “the incomparably successful American experiment in principled self-government” and “give way, first to disorder and dissolution and then, in all likelihood, to the most thoroughly totalitarian elitist despotism humankind has ever known.”

Thus, as a logical consequence of the principles of the Declaration, every valid claim of right is associated with the freedom to exercise the right. But in light of those same principles, not every exercise of freedom entails a valid claim of right. This is the essential point forgotten or willfully rejected by many so-called libertarians these days. As a result, they advocate positions that ignore what America’s founders were determined to respect, to wit, the distinction between liberty and licentiousness; and between the wholesome courage wherewith we stand upon our rights and the rebellious arrogance that disdains decent self-government.

As I point out in the essay on Ninth Amendment rights quoted above, the Declaration’s logic in this respect allows Americans to recognize and properly assert rights not mentioned in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment exists to provide them with clear constitutional grounds upon which to stand as they invoke these rights, as constraints upon government power.

At the moment, the relevance of this constitutional claim is painfully obvious. The elitist faction forces presently controlling the U.S. government and some state governments (including Republicans as well as Democrats) are moving to deny the constitutional right of individuals or states to oppose the taking of human life, as required by the first law of “nature and Nature’s God.” They are doing so in the context of an insidious, persistent assault on Second Amendment rights. They are also doing so in the context of Obamacare, as they prepare, by force of unconstitutional edicts and “laws,” to deny the constitutional right of individuals and States to refuse complicity in so-called health-care practices that disregard this same life-preserving natural law obligation. In addition, by promoting so-called homosexual rights, they are engaged in a general offensive to disparage, subvert and ultimately deny the constitutional rights – rooted in obligations antecedent to any and all humanly instituted law or government – that are inherent in the God-endowed family, the primordial institution that is the paradigm, in terms both of liberty and obligation, for natural justice and human community.

The Constitution’s Ninth Amendment provides the key to recognizing and justifying legal and other moves to oppose what amounts, on every front, to a wholesale assault on the first principle of constitutional self-government in the United States, i.e., the Declaration’s affirmation of God-endowed individual rights. Next week I plan to post an article at my blog in which I will discuss specific instances in which politicians and other public figures, who claim to be conservatives, are cooperating with this assault. By discussing these examples, I hope to awaken Americans committed to our founding principles, and to the constitutional republic based upon them, to a simple fact: No one prominently associated with, or promoted by, either of the so-called major parties appears to shares this commitment. Unless Americans who do share it rouse themselves and unite against the regressive elitist faction agenda, the incomparably successful American experiment in principled self-government will give way, first to disorder and dissolution and then, in all likelihood, to the most thoroughly totalitarian elitist despotism humankind has ever known.

Barber & Crampton: Christians Must 'Rise Up' and 'Resist' if SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA

On a recent "Faith and Freedom" radio program, Matt Barber and Steve Crampton discussed the looming Supreme Court hearing over the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act during which they declared that if the Court strikes it down, "it is high time the people rise up against the tyranny of the judiciary."

"If the judges foist this upon us, we need to resist," proclaimed Crampton, which prompted Barber to respond that Christians will have seriously consider civil disobedience, saying "in the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr, it may be the time for peaceful civil disobedience when it comes to the fundamental deconstruction of our most fundamental institutions":

Brad Dacus: 'A Compassionate Nation' Can't 'Salute' Homosexuality Because It's 'So Dangerous and So Destructive'

Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute discussed the upcoming Supreme Court cases on marriage equality yesterday with host Jim Schneider on VCY America’s Crosstalk.

After a caller on the show ranted about how homosexuality is “Satanic,” Schneider called it an “anti-God lifestyle.” Dacus agreed and added that homosexuality, along with “looseness in the heterosexual community,” are signs that society is “openly waving our fist at God.”

Dacus said increasing support for marriage equality proves that people are unaware of the dangers of homosexuality: “When you look at it statistically, the medical ramifications, the psychiatric ramifications, the suicide rate, they’re way off the charts.”

“If we’re a compassionate nation, a loving nation and we care,” Dacus explained, “then we’re not going to want to salute something that is so dangerous and so destructive statistically to so many people who decide to engage in it.”

Schneider: We’re seeing a mass exodus Brad from those who once held to the belief to capitulate to the winds that are blowing today in our society and even a poll just released this week by the Washington Post and ABC News indicating support for same-sex marriage has never been higher, they claim that 58 percent of Americans now believe gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to wed.

Dacus: It’s most unfortunate because it’s a slippery slope, number one, and number two they’re not taking into account the real meaning which is to dilute the sanctity and the definition of marriage that God has given us and that the laws of nature have given us and there’s going to be ramifications for that. When you look at it statistically, the medical ramifications, the psychiatric ramifications, the suicide rate, they’re way off the charts and so how anyone can think that it’s in the best interest of America, promoting our general welfare, to change our definition of marriage in view of the ramifications and impact, just purely from an objective and secular perspective, makes absolutely no sense and I think we need to be better communicators of that harm. If we’re a compassionate nation, a loving nation and we care, then we’re not going to want to salute something that is so dangerous and so destructive statistically to so many people who decide to engage in it.

He argued that the members of the United Methodist church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which decided not to perform marriages as long as same-sex couples are denied marriage rights, are “betrayers of the teachings of the Lord” and “have decided to no longer make the Lord the lord of their life or lord of their church.”

Schneider: Another disturbing report came out Monday from CBS News that the Green Street United Methodist Church in North Carolina is actually electing to stop performing marriage ceremonies for straight couples until same-sex marriage is legalized and asking other churches to join them. Brad, in cases like this all I see is the word Ichabod, “the glory of God has departed.”

Dacus: Yeah, when a church decides to take that position it’s discouraging to see them do that because they obviously have decided to no longer make the Lord the lord of their life or lord of their church. They decided to follow the ways of man and “what tickles the ear of the day.” You know Galatians makes it very clear that we can’t be both pleasers of man and pleasers of God which means sometimes we’re not going to be very popular, sometimes when society decides to turn a different direction we can be rejected. But when you see churches do that and people holding themselves out as followers of the Lord and yet being betrayers of the teachings of the Lord and of scripture, it’s very serious to not only the congregation but it’s also especially serious to those in leadership positions abusing their authority.

David Barton Explains Just War Theory: 'We Had to Destroy Indian Tribes' Until They Became Civilized

Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton was discussing just war theory which, in his unique interpretation, essentially boiled down to the view that whatever you need to do to end a conflict and protect the lives of your citizens and soldiers is justified.

To demonstrate his point, Barton said that Native Americans declared war on "all the white guys" because missionaries tried to convince them to stop torturing their enemies but they resisted these efforts to civilize them and "so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until" they got the message.

Barton followed that up by defending the practice of wiping out the buffalo on the western plains because it decimated the livelihoods of Native Americans and thereby brought an end to their resistance to the US government:

A lot of it is based on what you have to do to secure justice and to secure the protection of life and liberties for your citizens and you do what you have to do at times, but you play on the rules sometimes that the other guys have set up. And if they're not going to negotiate with things like the Geneva treaty or other rules of civilization, you still have to secure the life and the property and the protection of your citizens.

...

You have to deal, a lot of it, with how the enemy responds. It's got to be based on what the enemy responds [to,] you cannot reason with certain types of terrorists; and see that's why we could not get the Indians to the table to negotiate with us on treaties until after we had thoroughly whipped so many tribes ... What happened was the Indian leaders said "they're trying to change our culture" and so they declared war on all the white guys and went after the white guys and that was King Philip's War.  It was really trying to be civilized on one side and end torture and the Indians were threatened by the ending of torture and so we had to go in and we had to destroy Indian tribes all over until they said "oh, got the point, you're doing to us what we're doing to them, okay, we'll sign a treaty."

...

Take, for example, what happened in the western plains wars in the late 1800s when we were taking on the plains Indians.  I'm not talking about treaties, I'm not talking about behavior of Americans toward Indians or vice versa, there were violations on both sides of nearly every treaty.  I'm talking about what happened in ending those wars after Custer and everything that went on.

People complain about the fact that the American military and buffalo hunters went out and wiped out all the buffalo in the western plains.  Doing that was what brought the Indians to their knees because the Indians lived on those wide western plains where there were very few towns; Indians didn't go into town to buy supplies, they went to the buffalo herds, that's where they got their meat, that's where they got their coats, the hides provided coats, they provided covering for their teepees. 

If you don't have the buffalos, those Indians cannot live on the open western plains without those buffalo and so what happened was the military wiped out the supply line by wiping out the buffalo.  That's what brought those wars to an end, that's what brought the Indians to their knees and ended all the western conflict.

Rand Paul's Abortion Exceptions Are Not Really Exceptions

Sen. Rand Paul’s chief of staff Doug Stafford appears to be scrambling to explain the Senator’s recent comments during a CNN interview where he said there would be “thousands of exceptions” to his “Life at Conception Act,” a federal personhood bill that would ban all abortion by granting legal status to embryos. He added that “each individual case would have to be addressed” and that there will “be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.”

Understandably, many people interpreted his comments to mean that the government shouldn’t be intruding on the medical decisions that are unique to each woman, or the opposite of what his sweeping anti-choice law would do.

But in an interview with LifeSiteNews, Stafford stressed that Paul’s mention of “thousands of exceptions” only “meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases.”

So the “thousands of exceptions” was only really one exception.

And when Paul said that women, their doctord and their families would be free from government interference during the early stage of the pregnancy, Stafford said that Paul was only referring to emergency contraception that prevents fertilization.

Emergency contraception, of course, only works up to 120 hours after sexual intercourse.

Stafford noted that such methods won’t be covered by the law because “it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” while stressing that Paul still seeks to ban RU-486.

Some pro-life activists were left scratching their heads after a recent interview Senator Rand Paul did on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN show “The Situation Room,” in which the senator seemed to say he supported “thousands of exceptions” to his general belief that abortion should be illegal. But Paul spokesman Doug Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com in an interview on Wednesday that the senator’s remarks were misunderstood, reiterating that Paul is staunchly pro-life.



After the interview, the Atlantic Wire ran a story with the headline “Rand Paul Isn’t 100% Pro-life Anymore,” arguing that the language Paul used in his answer sounded remarkably similar to pro-choice rhetoric claiming abortion should always be a private matter between a woman and her doctor.

But Paul’s chief of staff, Doug Stafford, said the Atlantic got it wrong.

Paul “was speaking medically,” Stafford said.

By “thousands of exceptions,” Stafford told LifeSiteNews.com, Paul meant that a singular exception to save the life of the mother would likely cover thousands of individual cases – for example, ectopic pregnancies or others that directly threaten the mother’s life.

The senator is not in favor of the more nebulous “health of the mother” exception that pro-life advocates argue can be applied to any woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.

But what about Paul’s statement that the Life at Conception Act may not be able to address early abortions? That, too, was a misunderstanding, according to Stafford. He said the senator was talking about things like emergency contraception pills, which may cause very early abortions, but since they contain the exact same drugs used in standard birth control pills, the senator believes they will be nearly impossible to ban.

Senator Paul “has always said it is not practically possible to legislate things like the morning after pill or other emergency contraception,” Stafford said. “It simply isn't possible to do so. The law will likely never be able to reach that.”

“You can legislate abortifacients like RU-486, and he would,” he said. “But you can’t legislatively ban artificial estrogen and progesterone.”

Cuccinelli Removes Web Pages to Hide Record On Immigration

With Republicans in Washington looking to moderate the party’s rhetoric on immigration, Virginia Attorney General – and gubernatorial candidate – Ken Cuccinelli is attempting to airbrush his anti-immigration record by removing material from his website. Unfortunately for Cuccinelli, the Internet just doesn’t work that way.

A cached version of his site from February 25th highlights his right-wing record and views. It boasts of his votes against in-state tuition for undocumented students and his crackdowns on hiring undocumented workers. That page is now gone, as are pages opposing gun control and abortion. It seems Cuccinelli thinks he can sidestep his extreme record by simply removing it from his website, or as the Washington Post put it, "Mr. Cuccinelli hasn’t shifted his position; he’s just removed it from public view."

Of course, even the amazing vanishing web pages didn’t include some of Cuccinelli’s most extreme views on immigration, such as his support for Arizona’s SB 1070 and his comparison of immigration policy to pest control. Cuccinelli can play with his website all he likes, but he can’t hide from his extreme, far-right record.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious