Fighting the Right

'Religious Liberty' Panelist: Compromise is of the Devil

The Family Research Council hosted a panel discussion Wednesday on religious liberty in America.  If you have paid any attention at all to the frantic warnings from FRC’s Tony Perkins that tyranny is on the march, you could have guessed what was coming.  The overall theme of the conversation was that the HHS mandate for insurance coverage of contraception is a dire threat to religious freedom in America.  So are the advance of marriage equality and laws against anti-gay discrimination – or the “sexual liberty agenda.”

The panel featured three lawyers: Adele Keim of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Kellie Fiedorek of the Alliance Defending Freedom (formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund) and Ken Klukowski of the Family Research Council.

Keim talked about Becket’s client Hobby Lobby, which is suing the Obama administration over the contraception mandate.  Or as Keim insisted on calling it, the contraception/abortifacient mandate. Keim argued that business owners are no less deserving of religious accommodation than churches or religiously affiliated nonprofits, saying “Americans do not lose their First Amendment rights when they go to work.” Of course by the standard she was invoking, many Americans could find their own rights and access to health care dictated by the religious beliefs of their employer.

The ADF’s Fiedorek focused on the “great peril” to religious liberty posed by the “agenda to expand sexual liberty and redefine marriage.”   She said in the conflict between sexual liberty and religious liberty, "people of faith" are "the ones being marginalized." She recounted a litany of such “persecution,” including now-familiar stories of a New Mexico photographer and a Colorado baker who were penalized under state anti-discrimination laws when they declined to serve same-sex couples celebrating commitment ceremonies.  Fiedorek compared cases in which businesses are required not to discriminate against gay couples to requiring an African American photographer to take pictures at a KKK event or a Jewish baker to create a cake decorated with a swastika.  She called it “particularly atrocious” that Catholic social service agencies were being required to abide by anti-discrimination ordinances – and were being “forced” to close.  She began and closed her presentation with quotes from the movie Chariots of Fire, ending with one that includes, “Don’t compromise. Compromise is a language of the devil.”

Klukowski talked about the role of religious freedom in the settling of America and the founding of the U.S.  And he recycled ridiculous religious right charges that the Obama administration believes not in freedom of religion but in the narrower “freedom of worship,” a notion that he said would be “profoundly disturbing” to the founding fathers.

The most interesting question from the audience focused on implications of the Bob Jones University case, and on whether the racialist Christian Identity movement could make the same religious liberty claims the lawyers were defending.  Why, the questioner asked, couldn’t the “conscience” rights the lawyers wanted for business owners not be claimed by a Christian Identity-affiliated business owner to deny doing business with African American people or interracial couples?

After a moment of awkward silence, Klukowski said that in the Bob Jones case, the Supreme Court had said the university could continue its racially discriminatory policies, but that its tax exemption was a benefit conferred by the government and could therefore be removed, especially in light of the post-civil war constitutional amendments addressing racial discrimination.  Klukowski did not directly address whether and how that principle could, would, or should apply to the current conversation about anti-gay discrimination.  He gave a confusing statement about what he said was the right of a business owner to throw someone out of their store for wearing a certain T-shirt or carrying a Bible.  The First Amendment, he says, allows people to be jerks in their private lives, but it was not clear whether he meant that the relationship between a business and its customers was “purely private” or falls into the category of public accommodation.

Erik Rush Warns Conservative Leaders Secretly Support the Imminent Obama Dictatorship

Conservative columnist Erik Rush has been warning over and over again that President Obama and his Democratic (and Chinese) allies are bent on creating a one-party, anti-Christian, communist state. But as we learn in Rush’s latest column, the leaders of the Republican Party support the looming Obama dictatorship as well!

Leaving aside for the moment the likelihood that parties and party politics in America will become moot within the next few years (owing to the emergence of a single party or the country’s dissolution into civil war), conservatives and libertarians are finding themselves at an unpleasant crossroads. While some observers gave up on the leadership of the Republican Party long ago, it is now becoming apparent to rank-and-file Republicans that the GOP leadership and its prominent operatives are wholly complicit in the fundamental transformation of America.

While these might not be on board with the “fundamental transformation” as referenced by candidate Obama in 2008 (his being a dedicated Marxist and all), they are indeed working in concert with Democrats to bring about a monolithic socialist state. Worse, many said Republicans have been masquerading as staunch conservatives and are acknowledged as such, so they are accepted by committed conservative voters.



Conservatives know that the stakes are too high for these boilerplate political games, so why don’t so-called conservatives like Rove, Kasich, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, and a host of others?

The answer is clear, and the operative term is “games.” The machinations of the GOP power brokers in recent years haven’t been those of ineptitude or spinelessness, they have been those of collusion. These high-profile Republican operatives are oligarchs of the same mold as their Democrat counterparts. Personally, they may hold slightly different political views, but these are analogous to two people who prefer different varieties of cheesecake.

For decades, people have scoffed at the idea that powerful Republicans were indeed compromising American interests in favor of various global socialist agendas, even as evidence continued to mount. Charges that were leveled 30 years ago have been validated, yet the scoffing continues. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush signed the U.S. onto the United Nations’ Agenda 21. This is now widely recognized as an insidious means by which the economies of Western nations – America in particular – might be crippled under the pretext of “sustainability.” At this point it is quite clear that Agenda 21 is sinister, yet prominent faux conservatives titter right along with liberals at this notion.

This is but one example of where that which once appeared to be fringe conspiracy theory is now reality. When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were those who spoke of the dangers of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, and other agencies, even as Republicans of the day claimed membership therein. Now the agendas are out in the open rather than the ramblings of “fringe elements,” but the proponents of globalism have gained so much ground that there may be no stopping their progress in America short of civil war.

So what’s a conservative to do? If there is a chance of reversing this process at the ballot box, with whom should constitutionally-minded conservatives and libertarians align themselves, particularly considering the fact that there are still so many of their number who trust the GOP?

I tend to agree with colleagues who have concluded that the federal government is lost, and that we must concentrate our efforts – at least in the short term – on our stategovernments. Vis-à-vis Obamacare, for example, it has been rightly asserted that refusal to cooperate on the part of the states will be an effective counter to its implementation. Ruthless scrutiny with regard to who we send to the state house as well as to Congress, eschewing even thwarting the campaigns of party establishment hacks, is another way we might retain a measure of liberty within the states in which we reside. Unless and until the Federal government initiates a full-blown police state, the statists may still be neutralized via the current political infrastructure.

Kincaid: Al Gore Introducing the US to Demonic, Islamist Forces

Yesterday, we reported on how Accuracy In Media’s Cliff Kincaid and Rick Wiles of TruNews believe that President Obama is supporting a global Islamist movement and should be arrested.

But that’s not all.

According to Wiles, people are having strange dreams where people eat a “fake manna” that represents “Lucifer trying to replicate what God did and feeding his people,” leading to a new demonic “spiritual transformation.”

Kincaid linked those dreams back to… Al Jazeera’s purchase of Current TV, which he claims proves that Al Gore is pushing a demonic Islamist force into America.

One of my columns about this was titled, ‘Al Gore, the Future and the Global Jihad.’ Whatever he is doing, he is certainly opening us up to domination by this global force, whether it’s spiritual or not or whether it’s demonic, that the international Islamic movement is part of it, clearly he is working with them but it could be even worse than that.

He argued that Al Jazeera should not even be allowed to broadcast in the U.S. because it is a “terrorist entity” that “is not protected by our First Amendment.” He even urged Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) to investigate the “treasonous” acquisition.

Al Jazeera is not protected by our First Amendment because it is a terrorist entity. It is the voice of the Muslim Brotherhood, which of course spawned Al Qaeda and Hamas, among other terrorist groups. It is the voice of Al Qaeda to this day. It was the voice of Osama bin Laden who was responsible for nearly 3,000 dead on 9/11. So this is a terrorist entity and under our law you cannot engage in criminal activity involving terrorism. So we have written to Congressman Michael McCaul of Texas who is the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee saying let’s have a hearing into this, let’s stop this deal, at least get all the facts out on the table because we believe this deal is illegal.



It’s not just dirty oil money it’s blood money because this is the terror channel, this is the Al Qaeda network. I’ve told people repeatedly that this would be the equivalent during World War II of inviting the German and Japanese fascists onto American soil and giving them access to American broadcast facilities so they could undermine the war effort. Remember if you will going back in time that Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose who were American propagandists for the enemy were picked up after the war and convicted and sentenced to prison for treason. By the same token, I think this deal is treasonous and it has to be stopped but we’ve got to get the Congress of their butts.

Camenker: No Proof that Bullying Targets Gay Kids, 'If There Is Such a Thing'

MassResistance head Brian Camenker joined Sandy Rios of the American Family Association yesterday to attack the Department of Education for citing the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s School Climate Survey, which he labeled as “propaganda,” in a memorandum.

He told Rios that the survey on anti-LGBT bullying is “not scientific at all” and doubted its claims “about how transgender kids and homosexual kids — if there is such a thing — are harassed and everything.”

Rios: GLSEN is behind a lot of the thinking here, the Gay, Lesbian, Straight [Education Network] and that was founded by the Obama so-called safe schools czar Kevin Jennings.

Camenker: Right and it has a very sorted history of really radical homosexual activism regarding kids. One of the things that this directive cites is GLSEN’s so-called School Climate Survey, which is this national survey talking about how transgender kids and homosexual kids — if there is such a thing — are harassed and everything. But if you look at the way that survey is created, it’s not scientific at all, it’s self-selected by the gay clubs that are run by these gay activist people and there is nothing scientific about it. It’s basically propaganda. It’s run by this organization, GLSEN, that promotes these things in the public schools across the country and our government officials are using that as if it were real.

Camenker and Rios even talked about how they started doubting their own sanity as more and more educators use “ludicrous nonsense” when discussing LGBT issues in schools.

Rios: Brian, are there any times in the last ten years or so that you have questioned your own sanity? Have you ever just gotten confused by all that surrounds you?

Camenker: You know, it’s funny you should say that because I could remember in the beginning when I was dealing with the public schools that my kids were going to and you’d be surrounded by all of these people that believed and were talking about such ludicrous nonsense that sometimes you would, you’d say: maybe I’m crazy. You take these serious educators, at least I thought so back then, who were talking about all of this stuff very seriously, yeah, it drives you mad almost.

After the interview, Rios said she weeps for LGBT youth and warned that pro-gay rights lawmakers and advocates, including President Obama, “will in fact answer at some point and some day for the things that they’re doing.”

This is our future, just in case you were sleeping, this is our future. I think I’m like, buddy, when I think about the kids I’m talking angrily but honestly I could just weep, I could just weep. If you see the pictures in Brian’s missive for MassResistance, if you see those kids, I just can hardly bear it. I remember what Jesus said about what we did to our kids: Better than a millstone be tied around our neck and that we be thrown in the bottom of a pool of water than to hurt little, innocent children. The other part of this is I would not want to be in the feet of these legislators or the shoes of these homosexual activists, wouldn’t want to be in their shoes, or the shoes of this President, who will in fact answer at some point and some day for the things that they’re doing.

Swanson: 'Bear Trap' of Homosexuality Destroys People and Civilization

Pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio are no strangers to using harsh and inflammatory anti-gay rhetoric, and so it came as no surprise that in their latest radio show Swanson claimed that homosexuality is “destructive to the family, to sexuality, to life itself and it destroys civilizations.”

During his introduction of an ex-gay activist named Brian, Swanson claimed that homosexuality is part of “the curse of God [that] has come down upon our land” and is like a “high-tension bear trap that grabs onto young men and young women.”

The incidence of homosexuality is seven times, ten times worse than it was twenty-five years ago. There were forty homosexual clubs in high schools back in 1995; today, thousands and thousands of them, an increase of a hundred times what we saw just fifteen or twenty years ago. The breakdown of the family in the Western world means the breakdown of sexuality, it means the increase of aberrant forms of sexuality like homosexuality and it is of course a massive infringement of the laws of God. Of course, this also means the breakdown of society and the breakdown of civilization, birth implosions, etcetera. These are indications that the curse of God has come down upon our land when we give way to these grotesque forms of morality, immorality and sexuality.



The sin of homosexuality is far more rampant today than it was in 1990, 1980 and 1960. Ladies and gentlemen today what makes this sin so rough, it’s so destructive to the family, to sexuality, to life itself and it destroys civilizations, social systems eventually. But what makes the sin really, really, really tough is that it’s hard to pull away from it. Now some make it out but many, many don’t. It’s one high-tension bear trap that grabs onto young men and young women when they make their way into the lifestyle of homosexuality. The way in may be easy but the way out is tough. Now today, we’re going to interview somebody who made it out.

Swanson and his guest discussed the “pro-homosexual” bent of the culture and how homosexuality is like a bear trap that “has got its claws into these people.”

Guest: Something about it depressed me, that lifestyle, it felt very I guess almost enslaving in terms of becoming a part of it unwillingly and it becoming a controlling factor in my life. If I could I wanted to turn it off and get rid of it but I felt that I couldn’t.

Swanson: Now the educational systems, the media, the culture, the movies, I mean you name it, they are all out their waving the flags: go, go, go! They are very, very pro-homosexual; they are doing what they can to encourage young people in that lifestyle. Did you get a sense of that at all?

Guest: I think that I was involved in the arts and media in terms of working in the television industry and acting so even back then, even though this is going back ten or fifteen years, nowadays I think it is more prevalent in the mainstream even more than it was back then. Back then it was already prevalent in the arts more so, I did get the essence that it was almost kind of trendy to be in that lifestyle, almost kind of cool in some ways, not necessarily to my family but to be in the arts.

I was hanging around different celebrities and would find out that a big celebrity that everybody would recognize the name find out that they were gay or at least had those tendencies and they would hang out in certain clubs and be spotted and things and I was like, ‘oh wow that’s kind of cool, I’m hanging out in the same place that that person’s hanging out as well.’ So definitely the media and the systems were definitely glorifying that lifestyle even back then and definitely I can see much more now.

Swanson: You think it’s appropriate to liken the lifestyle as a bear trap? I mean it just really has got its claws into these people.

Guest: Oh my gosh, yes. Definitely. It just kind of encompasses you to the point of where you feel like you can’t break free.

Later, Swanson described gays and lesbians as being “up to their elbows in muck” as they “are in a stinking, stinking bog” that has put them “in the utmost bond slavery.”

They create a fantasy land but they are really in a deep, deep bog of despair and they don’t know it. It’s just a fantasy land the way it’s presented and the way it’s maintained in their minds. They try to create that fantasy, in truth they are actually up to their elbows in muck and they are in a stinking, stinking bog and they need to get out of it.



I think the irony of it all is that they sought freedom by going into this lifestyle and found out that they would be in the utmost bond slavery in the lifestyle that they chose, and what you found is freedom indeed.

Swanson also introduced Brian’s wife, who insisted that they have a very good sex life!

Guest: He’s told me in the past when you know he’s talked to somebody and he’ll admit, ‘I found that person attractive,’ he’s so open about it that I could never think that he could be keeping something from me. I totally trust him.

Swanson: And your relationship, your intimacy is good?

Guest: Oh yeah.

Swanson: Amen. Amen. That’s what it’s all about.

Guest: Is it too much detail?

Swanson: Oh no.

Scarborough: Calling Sodomites 'Gay' Is an 'Abuse of the Language'

Vision America's Rick Scarborough delivered a guest sermon at the Fairton Christian Center in New Jersey earlier this month where he declared that gays coming out of the closet was a sign that a nation has forgotten God.

But Scarborough quickly corrected himself and apologized for using the word "gay" when he really meant "sodomites" because using the word "gay" is "an abuse of the language." Scarborough went on the predict that, very soon, pedophiles will be referred to as "happy people" and they will have parades and be defended by legislators ... and those who don't think this can happen just need to remember that "twenty years ago, who called a sodomite 'gay'? We had laws in Texas 'til 2002 that we sent them to prison! That was based on the Bible, by the way":

This might be a good time to remind everyone that Scarborough introduced Ted Cruz at last year's Values Voter Summit, where Cruz hailed him as "a true champion of freedom" and a "tremendous patriot and voice for Christian values."

Common Sense Gun Solutions Struggle Against Mindless NRA and GOP Opposition

The big gun lobby and its yes men in Congress, it seems, are much more interested in protecting the loose regulations of the gun industry than they are with taking practical steps towards public safety.
PFAW

Beck: Video Games Were Responsible for Sandy Hook Massacre

On last night's television program, Glenn Beck explained that it wasn't Adam Lanza's mental health problems or access to assault weapons that were responsible for the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but rather Lanza's infatuation with video games.

"Our sons and daughters are becoming desensitized to right and wrong," Beck warned, and "video games are a gateway drug for our kids and instead of a high, they get a numbness, they get an indifferent heart and a mind that cannot tell the difference between fiction and reality. This is medical fact, this is not crazy theory."

Wilson: 'Antichrist Spirit' in Obama Administration

On his radio show Monday, the American Family Association’s Buster Wilson took a page from his colleague Bryan Fischer in warning that while President Obama is not the Antichrist, he and his administration are “part of the Antichrist spirit.” Wilson contradicted a caller who strongly suggested that the president is the Antichrist, but added that the actual Antichrist “is already in the world today” and that there is an “Antichrist spirit about both the Obama administration and a lot of what is going on in America today.”

I’m not ready to call the president the Antichrist. I still have a lot of biblical problems with assigning him that title. I do believe that there are some Antichrist spirit about both the Obama administration and a lot of what is going on in America today. John said in 1 John, ‘There are many Antichrists that are out there now in the world.’ The Antichrist, I believe, is already in the world today, I believe we are that close to his revelation. But I am one of the ones theologically who believes that we’re going to be out of here before the Antichrist is revealed. So I’m not looking for the Antichrist, I’m looking for Jesus Christ, but there are those that have clearly the Antichrist spirit about their work and decisions and there is much going on in America today that would classify being a part of the Antichrist spirit. But no, I’m not ready to call the president the Antichrist. But I appreciate your logic though.

The Perils of Teaching the Bible in Public Schools

Rob Boston at Americans United notes that the Arkansas House just voted to require the state’s Education Board to approve elective classes about the Bible if they meet appropriate standards.  The Supreme Court has said the Bible may be taught about in public schools when “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.”

But teaching about the Bible without teaching it religiously is not an easy thing to do. It requires carefully designed curricula, well-intentioned and well-trained educators, and a commitment to meaningful oversight.  People For the American Way was part of a religiously and politically diverse group of organizations that worked together to produce the 1999 publication The Bible in Public Schools, a First Amendment Guide. That guide emphasized that how any such course is taught will determine whether it passes constitutional muster:

When teaching about the Bible in a public school, teachers must understand the important distinction between advocacy, indoctrination, proselytizing, and the practice of religion – which is unconstitutional – and teaching about religion that is objective, nonjudgmental, academic, neutral, balanced, and fair – which is constitutional.

But that’s not how if often works in practice. In 2000, People For the American Way Foundation published a scathing expose, The Good Book Taught Wrong: Bible History Classes in Florida Public Schools. The PFAW Foundation investigation found that “Bible History” classes were often being taught more like Christian Sunday School classes from a sectarian, Protestant perspective. Bible stories were treated as literal history. Among lessons and exam questions asked of students:

  • "If you had a Jewish friend who wanted to know if Jesus might be the expectant [sic] Messiah, which book [of the Gospels] would you give him?"
  • "Compose an explanation of who Jesus is for someone who has never heard of Him."  
  • "Why is it hard for a non-Christian to understand things about God?"
  • "What is Jesus Christ's relationship to God, to creation, and to you?"
  • "Who, according to Jesus, is the father of the Jews? The devil."

That expose led Florida officials to yank those classes and revamp the curricula.

But more than a decade later, similar problems persist, as the Texas Freedom Network documented in a January report that found classes designed more to evangelize students to a literalist, fundamentalist view of the Bible rather than to teach about its role in literature and history. Included in the lesson plans examined by TFN were characterizations of Judaism as a flawed and incomplete religion, Christian-nation approaches to US history, and material “explaining” racial origins via the sons of Noah.

Are Arkansas legislators and education officials prepared to invest in the development of curricula, the training of educators, and meaningful oversight into how the classes are taught?

The Perils of Teaching About the Bible in Public Schools

Rob Boston at Americans United notes that the Arkansas House just voted to require the state’s Education Board to approve elective classes about the Bible if they meet appropriate standards.  The Supreme Court has said the Bible may be taught about in public schools when “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.”

But teaching about the Bible without teaching it religiously is not an easy thing to do. It requires carefully designed curricula, well-intentioned and well-trained educators, and a commitment to meaningful oversight.  People For the American Way was part of a religiously and politically diverse group of organizations that worked together to produce the 1999 publication The Bible in Public Schools, a First Amendment Guide. That guide emphasized that how any such course is taught will determine whether it passes constitutional muster:

When teaching about the Bible in a public school, teachers must understand the important distinction between advocacy, indoctrination, proselytizing, and the practice of religion – which is unconstitutional – and teaching about religion that is objective, nonjudgmental, academic, neutral, balanced, and fair – which is constitutional.

But that’s not how if often works in practice. In 2000, People For the American Way Foundation published a scathing expose, The Good Book Taught Wrong: Bible History Classes in Florida Public Schools. The PFAW Foundation investigation found that “Bible History” classes were often being taught more like Christian Sunday School classes from a sectarian, Protestant perspective. Bible stories were treated as literal history. Among lessons and exam questions asked of students:

  • "If you had a Jewish friend who wanted to know if Jesus might be the expectant [sic] Messiah, which book [of the Gospels] would you give him?"
  • "Compose an explanation of who Jesus is for someone who has never heard of Him."  
  • "Why is it hard for a non-Christian to understand things about God?"
  • "What is Jesus Christ's relationship to God, to creation, and to you?"
  • "Who, according to Jesus, is the father of the Jews? The devil."

That expose led Florida officials to yank those classes and revamp the curricula.

But more than a decade later, similar problems persist, as the Texas Freedom Network documented in a January report that found classes designed more to evangelize students to a literalist, fundamentalist view of the Bible rather than to teach about its role in literature and history. Included in the lesson plans examined by TFN were characterizations of Judaism as a flawed and incomplete religion, Christian-nation approaches to US history, and material “explaining” racial origins via the sons of Noah.

Are Arkansas legislators and education officials prepared to invest in the development of curricula, the training of educators, and meaningful oversight into how the classes are taught?

PFAW Foundation

Cliff Kincaid and Rick Wiles Agree: Obama Would Have Been Arrested if He Weren't President

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media appeared on TruNews with host Rick Wiles last week to discuss the nominations of Chuck Hagel and John Brennan. The two agreed that the U.S. would have arrested Barack Obama by now if only he weren’t the president.

Kincaid: We’ve got a President who couldn’t pass a background check, you know it’s not too surprising when we got a President like this putting into place people like Brennan, Hagel, we can go down the list, Van Jones, tick them off. It’s just that he gets away with it and the Republicans, I remember at our conference in Washington before the election, we had Congressman Lamar Smith there saying ‘well we’re not going to pursue impeachment because we hope the American people vote this guy out on November 6.’ Well, that didn’t work out so well, did it?

Wiles: No it didn’t. You know Barack Obama, if he wasn’t president, if he just worked into a government agency and said he wanted to apply for a job and he filled out an application, I think while he was sitting there and they were doing a background check on him I think agents would come out and handcuff him.

Kincaid: Yeah, yeah, you’re right. I mean, this is the guy—we don’t have to go through the whole history—this is the guy who Sarah Palin put it, ‘palled around with terrorists.’

Wiles also embraced John Guandolo’s conspiracy theory that Brennan is a Saudi secret agent while Kincaid claimed that Hagel is working for those “facilitating this global jihad against America.” Kincaid called Obama the “Marxist Muslim in the White House” and accused him of assisting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Wiles: [Guandolo] said, ‘his conversion to Islam was the culmination of a counterintelligence operation against him to recruit him.’ ‘As a Muslim,’ Mr. Guandolo, the FBI agent, said, ‘Mr. Brennan became friendly with members of Hamas.’ Last November, former CIA covert operations manager Claire Lopez was a guest on TruNews, she described the infiltration of Muslim Brotherhood members into U.S. government jobs as ‘massive.’ So is Mr. Obama quietly orchestrating an Islamic takeover of the American government? The two big appointments before the U.S. Senate, our CIA nominee John Brennan, accused by an FBI agent of secretly converting to Islam, and Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel, Cliff Kincaid has been on the trail of Chuck Hagel and he’s on the telephone from Washington to tell us wear the rabbit trail leads us…. So Cliff, when you went down the bunny trail following Chuck Hagel’s tracks, what did you discover?

Kincaid: Rick, everything leads back to the global jihad. All elements of Obama’s foreign policy involve support for the Muslim Brotherhood, including its mouthpiece, Al Jazeera. Chuck Hagel is part of the puzzle. Brennan, that you just mentioned, is another but of course ultimately, the buck so-to-speak stops with Obama, the Marxist Muslim in the White House.



Kincaid: Hagel goes before these Arab institutes and Arab audiences and basically badmouths Israel, attacks the United States, attacks the relationship with Israel and we’re just trying to get more information and evidence about what motivates this guy. Clearly, he’s in the pay of those who are part and parcel of facilitating this global jihad against America.

FRC Urges Congress to 'Pressure the Supreme Court' on Marriage Cases

The Family Research Council has launched what it is describing as “an ambitious, no-holds-barred campaign to keep marriage as between one man and one woman and preserve the American family.”  FRC is worried about two cases before the Supreme Court that will have “a lasting impact on the very soul of our nation” -- one on California’s Prop 8 and one on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 

In a direct-mail piece dated on Valentine’s Day, FRC President Tony Perkins says it is important to get members of Congress “to pressure the Supreme Court to come down on the right side of marriage.” Recipients of the letter are encouraged to sign petitions to their representative and senators to urge them to “PRESSURE THE SUPREME COURT TO RULE IN FAVOR OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE!”

The text of the petition:

[Representative/Senator], as one of your constituents, I ask that you please use your influence to urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act and state statutes banning same-sex “marriage.” The covenant marriage relationship between one man and one woman is a universally accepted social tradition that transcends all cultures and predates any religion. It is essential for procreation and the stability of society. I respectfully request that you do all in your power to urge the Court to uphold traditional marriage. Thank you for your service to our country.

The letter also recycles some of the same false claims that FRC and its allies made about federal hate crimes legislation, suggesting the advance of marriage equality will lead to the federal government dictating what pastors can preach about homosexuality or prosecuting those who preach against same-sex marriage.  Perkins also claims – falsely  – that the “vast majority of Americans do not want to see marriage redefined” and “the vast majority of voters are against the legitimization of same-sex ‘marriage.’” Actually, a majority of Americans supports marriage equality, according to recent polls by Gallup, Wall Street Journal/NBC, Washington Post/ABC, and CBS News.

But what difference do facts make to Tony Perkins? He says that if the Supreme Court were to support marriage equality, it would be “siding with an extreme minority and defying the will of the majority.” That’s why, he says, “the justices need to know up front that this majority will be anything but ‘silent.’”

FRC’s new “Marriage Preservation Initiative” is, of course, not the first effort to recognize, in Perkins’ words, that, “[d]espite the fact that Supreme Court justices have a reputation for being independent, they, too, are political and can be influenced by public pressure.” Back in 2010, after a district court ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, the late Chuck Colson launched his own campaign to convince the justices that a pro-marriage-equality ruling would lead to “cultural Armageddon.”

Fischer: 'President Obama Is Our Enemy'

Bryan Fischer dedicates the first segment of every program to a discussion of a reading from the Bible, followed by a prayer based on that reading.  In addition to his own family and friends and co-workers, Fischer regularly includes President Obama among those for whom he is praying and yesterday explained that he does so because Jesus commanded Christians to pray for their enemies and those that persecute them.

"Ladies and gentlemen," Fischer declared, "we should be under no illusions here; President Obama is not our friend, President Obama is our enemy":

Eagle Forum Explains How Feminism Ruined Dating

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly’s daughter Anne Cori guest-hosted this weekend’s edition of Eagle Forum Live, where she got to interview Schlalfy’s niece, Suzanne Venker, about her new book, How to Choose a Husband. Venker, who co-authored The Flipside of Feminism with Schlafly, is the sort who advises women not to become brain surgeons.

It was no surprise, then, that she and Cori blamed the rise of feminism for the problems women face while dating.

Venker denounces feminists for teaching women that relationships should be equal partnerships and that they should have skills for the workforce rather than tools to be a wife.

Cori: Are young women today too competitive when they look at their relationships?

Venker: I do thinks so. I don’t think they know any other way. I think they’ve been raised to have a life in the workforce and they’ve been given absolutely no tools for how to be a wife or how to even be a girlfriend. So they’ve inadvertently brought those tools that they’ve acquired for the workforce into their love lives and it’s not working. Men don’t want to be bossed around so if you’re the boss at work that’s fine but you’re going to have to shift gears at home because that doesn’t work for love.

Cori: You can’t say, ‘tonight’s your time to wash the dishes,’ because that will break a relationship, ‘I washed the dishes last night so now you’ve got to wash the dishes.’

Venker: Exactly. That’s tit-for-tat and that’s a recipe for disaster. That’s what equality demands. If everything is supposed to be fifty-fifty at all times and you’re keeping score, your marriage is going to fail.

She goes on to explain that feminists have corrupted the minds of women by making them think positively about “being single and being sexually free.”

Cori: When you go on a job interview attitude is the most important factor, and of course dating is just another form of a job interview, are single young women today victims of their own attitude when they date?

Venker: They are. You have to remember, this is the generation that was raised to ‘never depend on a man’ and not only never depend on one, really that you just don’t need a man period. So that’s a whole different life than the kind of life women were taught to inspire to in the past. What’s unfortunate about it is that it sounded I guess at some point empowering, I hate the use of that word the way feminists use it because it’s actually a very good word, but they use it to mean that being empowered is being single and being sexually free to do what you want and when you want and not being tied down to anything, but of course at some point that’s going to run its course.

Feminist moms are especially to blame:

Cori: Suzanne, women’s literature is filled with plaintive tales of bad guys or good guys who get away, do women today need happier stories or better role models in the society, or have their mothers just messed up on teaching them these rules?

Venker: Well I do believe it’s the latter. I believe that they came from a generation of baby boomer feminists who’ve taught them all kinds of negative thoughts about men and marriage. What I’m saying in this book, “How to Choose a Husband,” is you’re going to have to — as hard as it is — accept that your mother, if this was your story, doesn’t have the answers that you are looking for and you’re going to have a hard time finding them in the culture as well, which is why I wrote the book.

Washington Times Pushes Anti-Muslim John Brennan Conspiracy Theory

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons took to the Washington Times today to push the burgeoning Homeland-inspired conspiracy theory that John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to lead the CIA, is a Saudi secret agent.

The theory was first cooked up by John Guandolo, a former FBI agent who resigned from his job after he was charged with having an affair with a star witness in the corruption trial of former congressman William Jefferson, among other improprieties. He has since made a career promoting anti-Muslim conspiracies.

In the Washington Times, Lyons writes that Saudi Arabia’s “recruitment of Mr. Brennan to the ideology of Islam” makes him a security risk.

“It’s interesting that no counterintelligence alarm was triggered at the time that this alleged conversion was occurring,” Lyons writes. This could, of course, be because there is no proof it ever happened. But Lyons supposes, “Most likely, that’s because at that time the sophisticated Islamic objectives driving the global jihad movement by the Muslim Brotherhood were not understood by those who witnessed his ‘conversion.’”

Lyons goes on to claim that Brennan has a “track record of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood both domestically and abroad” and “allowed the jihadist enemy access to the highest level of government,” such as in his meetings with “terrorists like Nihad Awad.”

For the record, Awad is the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Two key national security nominations by President Obama are up for confirmation following Congress‘ recess this week: former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense, and John O. Brennan, the president’s key counterterrorism adviser, to be the director of the CIA. Both candidates have had to address issues based on their past and current activities and associations. Troublingly, a number of questions still remain unanswered.

One explosive issue is a report by John Guandolo that broke last week on Tom Trento’s “TrentoVision Show” and also was carried by Glenn Beck on Feb. 11. The report stated that Mr. Brennan was converted to Islam while CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to ‘99. Let’s be clear: In America, a man’s religion can never be a condition to his holding a government position. It is protected by both the First Amendment and Article 6 of the Constitution. Therefore, even if it is true that he converted, Mr. Brennan’s religion should not be an issue.

However, according to Mr. Guandolo — a former SWAT team leader at the FBI, counterterrorism and Muslim Brotherhood specialist and Marine platoon commander — what should be an issue was the Saudis’ targeted recruitment of Mr. Brennan to the ideology of Islam while he was serving as the CIA station chief in Riyadh. This was not just a conversion but a political act by a foreign intelligence service.

If verified, this would indicate Mr. Brennan’s susceptibility, whether witting or unwitting, to manipulation by a foreign intelligence entity. It’s interesting that no counterintelligence alarm was triggered at the time that this alleged conversion was occurring. Most likely, that’s because at that time the sophisticated Islamic objectives driving the global jihad movement by the Muslim Brotherhood were not understood by those who witnessed his “conversion.”

As Clare Lopez, from the Center for Security Policy, has pointed out, our counterintelligence defense system is broken. The Muslim Brotherhood’s core threat doctrine — the ideology of Islamic jihad and Shariah law — is seen as benign. Mr. Brennan’s activities as the president’s top counterterrorism adviser have been at the forefront in the Muslim Brotherhood effort in the United States. The Brotherhood has succeeded in convincing the U.S. government to remove from official documents and training curricula all references to Islamic doctrine, Shariah law and scriptures that relate them to terrorism. Further, scheduled lectures on the true threat from Islam have been canceled, and instructors have been barred from future presentations.

Mr. Brennan’s track record of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood both domestically and abroad allowed the jihadist enemy access to the highest level of government under the stealth guise of “nonviolent outreach partners.” For example, terrorists like Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who has been linked to Hamas; and leaders from the Islamic Society of North America, unindicted co-conspirators from the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, work with national security staff providing input to U.S. counterterrorism strategies. That is hardly comforting.

It cannot be denied that U.S. policy on Islam, Shariah law and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular has undergone a sea change during the time Mr. Brennan has had influence on our national security. Certainly, Mr. Brennan cannot be confirmed until a full vetting has taken place.

Staver: 'This Administration is Rubbing the Aborted Babies in the Face of Every Single American'

Earlier this month, the Obama administration issued updated guidelines for the health care reform legislation's contraception mandate, expanding the guidelines under which religious-based non-profit organizations could qualify for an exemption.

But it was all for naught, as the Religious Right unanimously rejected this new compromise out of hand as a continued funding of abortion.  As Mat Staver declared on "Faith and Freedom" radio, the entire concept of requiring contraception coverage just demonstrates "a radical commitment to death" on the part of the Obama administration. 

In fact, Staver asserted that "it's no different" than what Floyd Corkins, the man who attacked the Family Research Council headquarters, wanted to do, saying "this administration is rubbing the aborted babies in the face of every single American," which prompted Barber to agree that this "is sickening and it's evil":

American Life League: Excommunicate Catholic Democrats for Being Under 'Demonic Deceit'

American Life League founder Judie Brown says that the Roman Catholic Church must drive out pro-choice and pro-gay equality Catholics from the church because they are under “demonic deceit.”

She argues that Catholic Democrats such as the late Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius advocate “anti-Christian” positions such as the decriminalization of abortion and “anti-family militant homosexuality and the destruction of marriage.”

“As the faithful watch the accelerated destruction of morality in America and the Henry the VIII style tactics of the attempted destruction of Catholicism in America by Obama and his ‘Catholic’ drones, one wonders where most of America’s bishops are,” Brown laments, “Why have these high-profile destructive Catholics not been publically rebuked?”

This nation’s moral decline is astounding not only because it has been a relatively swift slide, but more importantly because Catholics have taken leading roles in bringing about the decline.

Until the time of his death, Ted Kennedy was, for years, the most influential U.S. politician advocating an anti-Christian moral culture in America. While doing so he experienced good personal relations, if not admiration, from many American Catholic prelates.

Catholic vice president Joe Biden first took public office in 1972. Since the decriminalization of abortion in 1973, Mr. Biden has supported every major effort to protect and expand abortion in America. Most recently Mr. Biden has become a proponent of the destruction of the covenant of marriage by redefining it to suit the winds of the day which favor so-called same-sex marriage.

Nancy Pelosi, Catholic congresswoman and a graduate of Catholic Trinity Washington University, has been a consistently fierce opponent of life. She has worked doggedly to expand the “right” to abortion in America and to enshrine contraception and sterilization as the force de jure on America’s employers—including the Church. She is also a staunch advocate of forcing the acceptance of anti-family militant homosexuality and the destruction of marriage as “human rights” in America.

Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, as the head of Health and Human Services, is singularly responsible for wreaking upon the American Catholic faithful her Planned Parenthood “HHS” mandate that dictates that all employers pay for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations, and contraception for their employees. Kathleen Sebelius is also a graduate of Catholic Trinity Washington University.

As the faithful watch the accelerated destruction of morality in America and the Henry the VIII style tactics of the attempted destruction of Catholicism in America by Obama and his “Catholic” drones, one wonders where most of America’s bishops are.

Why have these high-profile destructive Catholics not been publically rebuked? In fact, why did this not happen years or even decades ago? To cut right to the heart of the matter, why haven’t each of these hypocrites been publically and unequivocally excommunicated?

This near total absence of effective rebuke and call to accountability from the shepherds has created a perception that “American Catholics” are free to support intrinsic evils as “civil rights” because Catholic teachings, in their view, are subjective and arbitrary.

How many millions of people have bought into this demonic deceit and, in the process, jeopardized their souls? And where are the bishops who should risk life and limb in the defense of our Church? Why haven’t they, in a united fashion, rebuked the deceivers and championed Christ and His truth at all costs?

With only a few exceptions, they are hardly to be found.



They have far too long allowed deception and deceit without consequence and at great cost to the faithful. Now the “Catholics” who have perpetrated great public scandal and harm are looking to devour the weak shepherds and their flocks through mandates, dictates, and the total deconstruction of morality in America.

This dire situation reminds me of the biblical account in the Gospel of Mark when Christ confronts an evil spirit that has possessed a man. He commands the spirit to depart, which it does with great violence and screeching. Witnessing this, Christ’s disciples ask why they could not drive out the demon. Christ responds: “This kind can only be driven out by prayer and fasting.”

I believe the current situation in America falls into the same category. A demon of despair and compromise has afflicted a majority of our Catholic bishops, and in response faithful Catholics must pray and fast.

Therefore, I am encouraging every faithful Catholic to pray and fast for our bishops. Pray that God raises up more heroic souls who will help defend and reclaim the truth of Christ through decisive action.

Pray that each bishop will be touched by the Holy Spirit, on fire with a renewal of commitment to Christ and an active desire to abandon everything else in order to defend Christ and His Church from sacrilege—even unto death if that be God’s will.

Mefferd: Gay Rights Should Not 'Trump the Rights of Christians' to Not See Gays (UPDATED)

Conservative talk show host Janet Mefferd this week waded into the controversy about an Indiana high school where a group of students wanted to organize a separate prom that would specifically prevent gay and lesbian students from attending.

After lamenting that “public schools are morally bankrupt,” Mefferd asserted that proms which allow all students — gay or straight — to attend actually violate the rights of Christian students who disapprove of homosexuality.

What right in particular, you might ask?

According to Mefferd, apparently the right of students not to even see gay people!

She maintained that the students’ desire not to see gay students outweighs the rights of gay students to attend their own prom.

“Why should the rights of the [gay] activists trump the rights of Christians” who don’t want “to see that,” Mefferd asked.

Mefferd: Everything is so upside down in our society now and right and wrong have completely switched where what is really wrong is to say you shouldn’t have two boys allowed to go to the high school prom. Now we can get into a big issue of the public schools are morally bankrupt at this point and we all ought to exit and just let them, let them do their thing, and that may be the ultimate answer; on the other hand, I feel for these Christian kids who are in a prom or kids who are at this high school who say, ‘you know something, do we have to go down this road?’ Whether the homosexual activists like it or not, and I know this isn’t politically correct to say this, but not everybody wants to see that. I know that that’s offensive to the activist crowd, they want us all to see it, they want us all to approve of it, they want us all to call it blessed and okay and rejoice and have parties and throw confetti in the air over this whole thing. But the fact of the matter is it’s a moral issue. You will always have Christians who will disagree with this and why should the rights of the activists trump the rights of Christians?

Update 2/20: Mefferd spent a good part of the weekend tweeting at us, and a good portion of her show yesterday railing against us, claiming that we had "libeled" her with this post. Today, we received a letter [PDF] from her attorneys demanding that we remove this post and asserting that even though we had quoted her verbatim, we had misrepresented her views.

According to this letter, Mefferd claims that she was merely saying that some people object to seeing gay couples at prom, not that Christians have a right not to see gay people in general:

Ms. Mefferd’s comment, in discussing a controversy in an Indiana high school about attendance by homosexual couples at a high school prom, was that ‘not everybody wants to see that.’ (emphasis added). Ms. Mefferd was not making a statement about homosexual people, or any other people for that matter, when making that statement, as Ms. Mefferd would have said ‘not everybody wants to see them.’ Mefferd’s statement was about the inclusion of homosexual couples at a high school prom, and made a factual statement that ‘not everybody wants to see that.’

What’s the difference you ask? Good question. We stand by our original post and think that the audio clip we posted speaks for itself.

Rick Wiles: President Obama Has 'Spiritually Sodomized' the Military and the Nation

Yesterday, Harry Jackson appeared on "Trunews" with host Rick Wiles where the two discussed the burning question of whether President Obama has "spiritually sodomized the nation."

Wiles clearly believes that he has, since he is the one who stated it repeatedly, while Jackson said he might not put it that way even though Wiles' description of what Obama has done is "clear, concise, and it's true":

Wiles: Last year, Barack Obama spiritually sodomized the US armed forces by compelling American generals to accept his demand that the military alter its code of moral conduct and permit homosexuals and lesbians to openly serve in the military. 

Furthermore, he commanded the military to extend financial benefits to same-sex couples in the military.  Additionally, military chapels on US military bases were ordered to permit homosexual marriage ceremonies inside the facilities.

The Boy Scouts of America is the next target of the socialist Obamanistas.  Last week the Irving, Texas-based organization delayed a decision until May on whether the scouting organization will change its rules of conduct to allow homosexuals to serve as scout masters, troop leaders, and as Boy Scouts.

What will be the spiritual consequences of the American people allowing Barack Obama to spiritually sodomize the nation? Bishop Harry Jackson, Jr is on the telephone; I'm going to him that question.

Bishop Jackson, welcome to the program.

Jackson: Well Rick, I'm glad to be with you. You have quite a way with words.  That was an intense introduction.

Wiles: Am I being over-dramatic in saying that Barack Obama has spiritually sodomized the nation?

Jackson: In some ways.  Let me say it this way, your summary is clear, concise, and it's true but I would say it like this: his administration is, in fact, the culmination of the downward cycle, morally, that I believe our nation has been in for some time.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious