Fighting the Right

PFAW: Senate Immigration Framework an Important Step in the Right Direction

WASHINGTON – People For the American Way praised the bipartisan immigration reform framework presented today in the Senate, which includes a path toward citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“This bipartisan framework is a hugely important step toward reforming our immigration system in a way that reflects our values and also bolsters our economy,” said Michael Keegan, president of People For the American Way. “For too long, extreme voices on the Right have kept us from meaningful, necessary immigration reform. The framework presented today rightly includes a path to citizenship, recognizing and enhancing the contributions of millions of American workers.”

“This framework sets the right course for meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform,” added Keegan. “We must make sure that as the details of the bill are filled in, that its original purpose and values are preserved. There will be extremist voices attempting to stop or dilute these reforms at every turn. We must remain vigilant to ensure that we achieve common-sense, constructive reform.”

###

The Dangers of Getting a PhD in History From David Barton University

Recently, Georgia state Senator Barry Loudermilk appeared on TBN's "Praise the Lord" where he made the rather familiar argument that the Founding Fathers took the concepts of the separation of powers and the three branches of government directly out of the Bible.

Claiming that John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington all directly cited the Bible as justification for these concepts, Loudermilk asserted that Jeremiah 17:9's claim that "the heart is devious above all else" made the Founder realize the need to divide power among various branches of government, which they took directly from Isaiah 33:22's declaration that "the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our ruler, the Lord is our king":

If that argument seems familiar, it is because it came directly from David Barton, who has made the baseless assertion time and time and time again:

It is untrue every time Barton says it and is equally untrue when Loudermilk mindlessly repeats it.

Joyner: Gun Control is Pushing Nation Toward a 'Second American Revolution'

On the most recent episode of "Prophetic Perspective on Current Events," Rick Joyner was discussing the shooting at Sandy Hook, which he claimed was the result of demonic possession, when he warned that the shooting was going to lead to an attempt by the government to confiscate weapons, which would in turn lead to a "second American revolution."

Joyner claimed that the modern-day prophets have received several "trustworthy revelations that were warnings from above" that "we are facing, right now, the break-up of our country and it is much closer than almost anybody is talking about": 

Erik Rush: Obama Emulating Stalin to Pursue his 'Totalitarian End Game'

Conservative writer Erik Rush writes today that President Obama’s press conference on gun violence was actually a way to distract the public so he could confiscate guns, provoke “civil unrest,” and train the military to kill U.S. citizens in order to justify “his move of declaring martial law” and to pursue his “totalitarian end game.” He claims Obama wants to copy “Mao, Lenin , Stalin and Castro – men who murdered hundreds of millions in their ascent to total dominion over their respective nations,” and establish a dictatorship.

In an earlier life – the one the press refuses to report – Obama summarily declared that he believed Americans should not own guns. That declaration seems to have been forgotten by some who are attributing to Mr. Obama scruples, morals, and decency that he does not possess – not to mention his demonstrated disregard for the Constitution of the United States in general. Reasonableness is what the American public generally displays and expects in return.

I’m sorry to burst the bubble here, but that is not what is happening on the Obama side of that ledger. Lies, obfuscation, the sweet smile, the demonization or marginalization of those who uphold the Second Amendment, assurances of faithfulness to the Constitution and a love for the children are merely diversionary precursors to his totalitarian end game. All are bogus, all staging and melodrama for the cameras.

Tyranny is coming in America, despite the fact that more than half of her citizens are too deluded, arrogant, or stupid to see it. If Obama’s policy processes continue unchecked, America will experience cataclysmic civil unrest; again, unfathomable to most Americans, this is precisely what Obama intends.



Has he ever followed through on conducting an open and honest discussion with the American people about anything? So we have our answer.

A second question might be this: Do you believe that the President will alter his long-standing belief that no American should own a gun after this discussion is over? The third and final question, assuming the answers to the first two questions are “no,” is Might the training of American military and police in guerilla warfare techniques coupled with manuals in the “How to” of gun confiscation be an indicator of where this “discussion” is really going?

If the answer to that one is “yes,” then have Americans just been convinced into thinking that the President is “open” to changing his thinking, and is “transparent” enough not to have a hidden agenda?

Obama, with the eager cooperation of the American press and the anti-gun lobby, are creating the perception of Second Amendment proponents as manifestly evil. Not misguided, not wrong – but evil. As such, he will set the stage for all “reasonable” Americans to support the wholesale dismantling of the Second Amendment, and if this means wholesale firearms confiscation and the bloodshed to which this will no doubt give rise, so much the better. This will give him legitimacy in his move of declaring martial law – in fact, he will have “no choice,” so it will appear.

This will be, as we’ve seen in so many other nations, the move across the threshold into totalitarian rule. We must never forget that this is a person who grew up studying and admiring Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro – men who murdered hundreds of millions in their ascent to total dominion over their respective nations. Just this week, it was reported that a former senior military staffer revealed Obama’s new litmus test for top military brass: Can they give the order to fire on American citizens?

Five Questions Fox News Sunday Should Ask Jerry Boykin

Fox News Sunday announced today that it will host Family Research Council vice president and anti-Muslim activist Jerry Boykin on this weekend’s program.

The last time Boykin appeared on Fox News, Megyn Kelly confronted him about his extremism, asking him about his statement that the U.S. should ban mosques. Boykin, now the vice president of the Family Research Council, tried to backtrack on the statement he made on Bryan Fischer’s radio show that there should be “no mosques in America” by arguing that he only was referring to the “Ground Zero mosque,” even though his interview with Fischer had nothing to do with it.

This weekend, we hope Chris Wallace will also take the opportunity to ask Boykin about his extremist views:

  1. Do you still believe that Islam “should not be protected under the First Amendment”?
  2. How soon will women in the U.S. “be wearing burkas” under the force of law?
  3. What evidence do you have that President Obama is a Communist who is creating a Hitler-style Brownshirt army to “control the population in America”?
  4. Do you still believe that America is under the control of a George Soros-linked “cabal” intent on creating a “global” and “Marxist government”?
  5. Can you explain your view that American Jews don’t properly understand Adolf Hitler?

If Boykin wants to be treated as a credible voice on a Sunday show, maybe he should start by explaining just a few of his radical allegations.

Klingenschmitt: Obama Pushes 'Demonic Rule' by Backing Gay Rights

Religious Right activist and gay exorcist Gordon Klingenschmitt emailed members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project this week criticizing Presidnet Obama for endorsing gay rights during his inaugural address. Klingenschmitt, who believes Obama is ruled by approximately fifty demons, said that Obama’s support for gay equality is “an open invitation to the devil” and “demonic rule.” According to Klingenschmitt, Obama is “making Satan equal to God” as “he declares the demonic to be godly.”

Every kid deserves a mom and dad. We must defend traditional marriage.

Sadly, Obama equates sin with holiness, confusing lust with love, thereby confusing the demonic with the Holy Spirit, when Satan can never be equal with God. There is one reason homosexual sodomy will never be "equal" to traditional marriage: Satan will never be equal to God.

To discern selfish lust from selfless love, and the evil spirit from the Holy Spirit is critical to discerning whether sin can ever "equal" holiness, in human morality. Because every form of sin (including heterosexual sin) is a defiant human act of rebellion to God's commands, then sin is also an invitation to allow demonic rule, always without exception.

Thus "equality" for Obama is the same as making Satan equal to God, because he declares the demonic to be godly, when in fact nobody can serve two masters. Allowing sin to rule our national policies is an open rejection of Almighty God, and an open invitation to the devil, to manifest in our hearts.

Would you pray with me, for our President to repent, and renounce evil, and invite the Holy Spirit to rule his heart? Then let's petition all 100 Senators to protect traditional marriage.

WND: Fly On Obama's Face Proves He Is Satan

Have you ever had to deal with a housefly? Maybe one even landed on you once?

Well, according to WorldNetDaily, you might just be a minion of Satan, if not Satan himself.

WND super-reporter Aaron Klein scoured the web to find people who said that the fact a fly landed on Obama’s face at a press conference means he could be “possessed by a demonic entity.” WND was so proud of Klein’s reporting that they asked members in an email, “Is Obama biblical ‘Lord of the Flies’?” in an attempt to liken Obama to Beelzebub, or Satan.

Prophecy websites are having a field day with the worldwide attention President Obama is getting for sparring with a fly yesterday.

News reports have recounted Obama’s history of attracting flies during recorded interviews and speeches.

Already, religious and other websites are using the headlines to point out that a biblical reference for Satan, the Semitic deity Beelzebub, literally translates from Hebrew into “Lord of the Flies.”



Those reaching to connect Obama’s fly troubles with the darkest biblical references won’t have much difficulty.

One name commonly used to refer to Satan is Beelzebub, which translates from Hebrew into “Lord of the Flies.”

A posting at the popular Free Republic Web forum discusses Beelzebub and asks, “Is the White House fly infestation evidence of demonic presence and influence there?”

The End Times blog named Obama the “Lord of the Flies.”

The blog connects Obama to Beelzebub, writing, “This really isn’t an academic question. The Lord of the Flies is real.

” Over at RevalationNow.net, a posting by “editorial staff” muses about whether Obama is possessed by a demonic entity.

“I feel like I am watching a horror movie and the secret evil character is revealed by the evil signs around him,” the post reads.

Beelzebub is first referenced in 2 Kings 1:2-3, 6, 16, in which Beelzebub is described as the god of the Philistine city of Ekron.

Jewish scholars have interpreted the title “Lord of Flies” as the Hebrew way of comparing followers of the Canaanite deity Baal to flies.

The name Beelzebub is found throughout the New Testament, mostly as a reference to the prince of demons.

In Mark 3:22, the Pharisees accuse Jesus of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul, prince of demons. The name also appears in the expanded version in Matthew 12:24, 27 and Luke 11:15, 18-19.

Beelzebub also makes a cameo as the prince of demons in the Testament of Solomon, a Hellenistic Jewish text.

Fischer Warns of a 'Complete Sexual Meltdown' and the 'Reinstatement of the Draft' over Women in Combat Policy

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is now recycling the exact same talking points against allowing women the opportunity to serve in combat that he used opposing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT).

While none of the dire predictions Fischer warned about regarding the end of DADT ever materialized, Fischer made similar warnings while speaking yesterday with Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Like with the DADT’s repeal, Fischer predicted that the policy will undermine readiness, cohesion, security and performance, possibly leading “to a reinstatement of the draft.”

While Donnelly avoided Fischer’s question about reinstating the draft, she claimed that women will now have to register in the selective service system and said the policy will “harm women, men, infantry battalions and the national security of the United States.”

Donnelly said that sexual assaults may increase because male soldiers will resent the easier “double standards” for women, warning that now the whole military will “fall apart.”

Fischer: There’s also the issue of sexual tension and sexual misconduct, the potential for that is going to be introduced.

Donnelly: If you want to make that even worse than what we’re seeing now, and the rates keep going up and up it’s getting worse and worse, put women into direct combat units, adjust the standards to make it work and then just sit back and watch everything fall apart because double standards are so corrosive to morale. It increases resentment, resentment leads to sexual harassment, assaults or worse, this is a poisonous kind of atmosphere.

Later, Fischer warned of a “complete sexual meltdown” occurring due to “predatory women” trying to sleep with officers, citing CIA head David Petraeus’s affair with a reporter.

But a caller insisted that maybe the Obama administration decided to end prohibitions on women and openly gay service members so they can share foxholes together, an idea Fischer loved: “Just put your predatory females in the same foxhole with a flaming homosexual and nothing is going to happen.”

Fischer: I just think having women in uniform is just a bad idea and here we are seeing one of the reasons. You have got subordinates serving powerful supervisors, you’ve got predatory women, it’s just a recipe for complete sexual meltdown and that’s why we are seeing General Petreaus being a key example of that.

Let’s go to Lee, Bluefield, Virginia.

Caller: I’m gonna have to do something I thought I would never do. I am going to have to give President Obama credit for having a long-range strategy because I just realized why he wanted soldiers to be able to serve in the military and be openly gay, because when it comes time to share a foxhole he will put the openly gay soldiers in the foxhole with the women and that way they’ll both be safe.

Fischer: So Lee’s saying this is a brilliant strategy on the part of President Obama to eliminate sexual tension in the military. Just put your predatory females in the same foxhole with a flaming homosexual and nothing is going to happen. There won’t be any sexual misconduct. That’s President Obama thinking outside the box.

When Everything Is Partisan, Just Do What's Right

I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised when Republicans started complaining that President Obama's second inaugural address was too "partisan" and lacked "outreach" across the aisle. But who was left out? What did they find "partisan"? The acknowledgement of climate science? The idea that women should receive equal pay for equal work? The nod to civil rights struggles of our past and present? The hope that no American will have to wait in hours-long lines to vote? The defense of the existence of a social safety net? The determination to offer support to the victims of a historic storm and to find real answers to the epidemic of mass shootings? In the not-too-distant past, none of these would have raised eyebrows except on the very, very far right. But I guess that's the point: what was once the radical fringe is now in control of the Grand Old Party.

In many ways, Monday's inauguration ceremony was a Tea Party Republican's nightmare-come-true. The openly gay poet. The Spanish sprinkled into the benediction. The one-two-three punch of "Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall." It was the embodiment of all that the far right has tried to wall itself off from as the country begins to include more and more of the real America in its democracy.

What would have pleased this faction, short of winning the presidential election? I imagine they would have preferred a paean to the America of their imaginations -- where the founders were flawless and prescient about the right to bear assault weapons and the Constitution was delivered, amendments included, directly from God; where there are no gay people or only silent ones, where the world is not getting warmer; where there have been no struggles in the process of forging a more perfect union. This, of course, would have been its very own kind of political statement -- and one that was just rejected by the majority of American voters.

If embracing America as it is rather than as a shimmery vision of what it never was constitutes partisanship, and if it turns off people who cling to that dishonest vision, let's have more of it.

This post originally appeared at the Huffington Post.

PFAW

Conservative Radio Hosts Parse Feminists: Some are 'Cute,' Some are 'Ugly,' All are 'Family-Destroying Whores'

Christian conservative radio hosts Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner are not exactly big fans of feminism in any of its forms. So far this month, they have opined that a woman fired for being too attractive shouldn’t have been working for a man who wasn’t her husband in the first place; that “socialist” single women are taking over America; and that Sandra Fluke isn’t “ladylike” enough to be considered for Woman of the Year.

On Tuesday’s edition of Generations Radio, Swanson and Buehner sat down in Swanson’s basement studio to discuss a report they came across that claims “rising college costs are driving a new trend called ‘Sugar Daddies.’” This led to a wide-ranging discussion of the scourge of women’s independence and a new unified theory of feminism.

There are “two forms of feminism,” Buehner argued. There are “cute” feminists like Sarah Palin who will find jobs in the “marketplace” and “get themselves a husband” but  will “never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.” Then, there are the “ugly” feminists whose “lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace.” These “attractively challenged” feminists will only find careers in academia and in government agencies, for instance, “you can run the EPA.”

What all these feminists have in common, Swanson argues, is that “all of them want to be free from the family” and together with “the homosexuals” are “destroying society.” Buehner speculates that in the future, feminism will be remembered as “a time in which women lost the love of their children” and “decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.”


Swanson: Now remember, the goal is that these women have to be independent. The goal is lots and lots of birth control. The goal is lots and lots and lots of fornication. The goal is abortion. The day-after pill will help. And it will help a lot. Remember, the goal is to get that girl a job because she needs no stinkin’ husband, she’s got the fascist corporation and government-mandated insurance programs and socialist welfare that will take care of her womb to tomb. Who needs a cotton-pickin’ husband? Who needs a family? That’s pretty much the worldview that’s dominating, my friends. That’s what the college is all about.

Buehner: Because her feminist professors have told her her husband will abuse her, she will be like a slave to him. Instead she will just go to the slave market and sell herself, at least sell her body, to the highest bidder. See, that’s much, much better!

Swanson: And Dave, you talk about the two kinds of feminists now, this is your new division, you say there’s two kinds of feminists.

Buehner: There are.

Swanson: All of them want to be free from the family. They want to be free from the husband. Who needs a stinkin’ husband? Who wants to be submitting to a husband and find security in the family when she can find security in the state or a sugar daddy for the four years that she needs to get through college?

Buehner: Right. Actually, you’re talking about perhaps even a third stream of feminism. There’s the Sarah Palin kind of feminism that wants to have a husband, just not one to submit to. And she still wants to..

Swanson: But talk about the two forms of feminism you see that are rising today.

Buehner: Right, there are two forms of feminism, and it actually has to do with a division of how attractive a woman is. So, you have the group that is very attractive, they’re in the sororities, they’re gonna be in the beauty contests. They’re actually going to get the good jobs. They’re going to leverage their attractiveness in the marketplace because it has a market value. Marketing. It helps market who you are. They’re going to proceed, now they will probably some of them become the Sarah Palin-style feminists, they’ll get themselves a husband, but they’ll never be dependent on the husband, they’ll never submit to the husband, in fact they will use their power probably to make their husband submit to them.

Swanson: Okay, so you have the cute feminists.

Buehner: Right, you have the good-looking ones.

Swanson: Well, who are the others?

Buehner: Well, the other ones are those who we should say are, um, attractive-deficient. And they have not been…

Swanson: That’s nicely put. Attractively challenged.

Buehner: Attractively challenged. Optically challenged. These are the kinds that will look for careers mostly likely in academia.

Swanson: Now, just to say, they’re ugly. They’re the feminazis that Rush Limbaugh likes to refer to.

Buehner: Right, right, and they’re generally very angry about it because their attractive…or their lack of attractiveness has not given them access to power that they wanted in the marketplace. So they can get jobs…

Swanson: And they’re certainly not going to get a lot of power sexually.

Buehner: No, but they can get jobs in the government bureaucracy, they can work as an FDA administrator, or you can actually run the EPA if you want, or academia. Academia’s actually the best place because you can be angry, ugly and you can also get tenure. It’s great, it’s the big trifecta.

Swanson: You’re gonna make some people mad about what you’ve just said. There will be some very angry feminists.

Buehner: You mean there will be angrier angry feminists.

Swanson: Angrier angry feminists are gonna come at you for what you just said, and probably from our listening audience, because if we tick anybody off we’re ticking two different folks off, the feminists and the homosexuals, they can’t stand this kind of stuff.

Buehner: Neither one of them have a high regard for the family or for the Word of God.

Swanson: That’s true, yeah, you’re right, you’re right, you’re right. And they’re the ones who are destroying society.

Buehner: The systems we are living in are coming down before our very eyes, the fiat currency won’t last, the corporate economies, they’re going to collapse. What’s going to last will be those who go back to a biblical worldview. I believe history will go back to this period of time and will look at feminism and say there was a time in which women lost the love of their children. They no longer cared about having children, they no longer loved their children, they no longer loved their husbands, where for all of history women very much cared about protecting the family. Now they only cared about themselves. They were riled up into a froth about how they were victims of society, patriarchal society, and they decided to become selfish, narcissistic, family-destroying whores.

Spero: Language Has a Liberal Bias

Rabbi Aryeh Spero is out with a column in WorldNetDaily lamenting that “we have allowed the political left to hijack and corrupt the moral language” by distorting the “religious and classic meaning” of words like equality and justice. Naturally, Spero twists President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark to build his case that liberals have warped language as part of their supposedly anti-American and socialist agenda.

Mr. Obama’s “moral” narrative during this last election was encapsulated in “You didn’t build that,” a communitarian notion that minimizes the efforts and risk inherent in entrepreneurship. Instead of making the moral case for personal responsibility and capitalism, Mr. Romney focused on the details of his tax and deductions plan and separated himself from Mr. Obama regarding X billions for Medicare Part B. Such may be appropriate when delivering the annual balance sheet to a board of directors or to members of think tanks titillated by arcana, but it falls far short of the moral and personal language that touches the hearts of individuals and makes them feel part of a grand and uplifting cause.

It has been quite a while since Republicans chose a candidate unabashedly confident in announcing the morality inherent in Americanism, to wit: the right of the individual over the group, meritocracy, personal responsibility and accountability, free markets, the need to fight evil and a moral clarity that eschews moral relativism. These attributes reflect our historic Judeo-Christian ethos – our American civic heritage. These virtues constitute what many call American exceptionalism, a value system minimized and often rejected by Mr. Obama and those on the left.



Though all men are created equal, the equality to which they are entitled is not the provision of equal material goods but, as the Bible states, equal justice under the law. The Bible, Aristotle and our Founding Fathers had a completely different moral vision than that of the French social-engineering theorists and its concomitant, socialism and the welfare state. Though touted as moral, socialism is but a political paradigm, giving control to the state and those who operate it. It curtails liberty and induces and encourages dependency under the notion of entitlement.

Worse, it spawns an ever-growing segment of the population chasing the brass ring of victimology. It weakens and infantilizes the individual and subverts the biblical aspiration that humans become strong, independent and productive. The left peddles victimhood and entitlement under “social justice.” It is, rather, the actualization of socialism and a ruling class sitting atop a dependency class looking to it for eternal support. The Almighty’s goal for us is, in contrast, not dependency but robust autonomy.



A nation drained by socialist entitlements is a nation incapable of funding its own defense and protection of citizens. Self-defense and preparedness is a biblical and moral imperative. It preserves innocent life, the foremost responsibility of government.



We have allowed the political left to hijack and corrupt the moral language, terms such as compassion, fairness, tolerance, love, social justice, greed, peace. Let 2013 be the start of an era in which we take the language back and infuse it with its original religious and classic meaning. That is my goal in “Push Back: Reclaiming our American Judeo-Christian Spirit.” We need once again to own our historic moral vocabulary. The rekindling of our conservative moral language will not only ameliorate individual character but is also good politics.

The Agenda 21-Gun Control Conspiracy You've All Been Waiting For

Former Pennsylvania GOP state lawmaker Sam Rohrer, now with Let Freedom Ring and the Pennsylvania Pastors Network, appeared on VCY America’s Crosstalk this week to argue that a literal reading of the Bible reveals that gun rights come directly from God. However, he went on to say that Jesus’ teachings on non-violence should not be taken literally.

Responding to a caller who asked if there was a connection between new gun laws and Agenda 21, a nonbinding framework for sustainable development that is the source of many conservative conspiracies, Rohrer maintained that government will use both policies to increase its control over people’s lives and to reduce the population, explaining that as a result of new gun and environmental laws there will be “people who will probably lose their lives and there will be a loss of population.”

Caller: A couple months ago you had a program on about Agenda 21 and it seems to me like there is a plan to undermine our whole society in order to accomplish the goal of reducing our population. I think this is part of it, gun control. If we can remember about the Hegelian dialectic, that is where you start out with a thesis and you want an antithesis, you do things in order to bring about a synthesis, right? I believe that this is a plan in order to bring about the things that they want to accomplish so gun control is a part of it.

Rohrer: I think without question. I have spoken a lot on Agenda 21 even years ago before it became a public manner. There are attempts out there clearly, whether it’s to diminish or lower the number of the population is one thing, but certainly control I think is the common aspect behind it. Agenda 21 is a control of our property, it’s a control of our legal system to the local level; so is the intent to take away the ability of people to defend themselves, ultimately government says I don’t want a challenge and so taking away the ability to defend oneself is effectively consolidating the control of government. At the end of the day I think the result of that is that you will have people who will probably lose their lives and there will be a loss of population, but it’s really a gaining and a garnering and centering of control.

Creationism Advocate Bobby Jindal Warns GOP Against Becoming 'the Stupid Party'

At a Republican National Committee winter summit yesterday, Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal scolded his fellow Republicans for acting like “the stupid party,” which he said damaged their credibility in the last election:

In his remarks to the gathering, he also offered some tough medicine for the GOP, including this piece of advice: “We must stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican party that talks like adults. It’s time for us to articulate our plans and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. We’ve had enough of that.” Whether or not Jindal ultimately emerges as a top presidential contender, look for him to be a major presence, not just in Louisiana, but around the country as well as a key figure in helping the party chart its course forward.

Of course, this is the same Bobby Jindal who is literally dumbing down Louisiana’s education system by advocating the teaching of creationism in taxpayer-funded schools.

Jindal signed into law and vocally supported the ironically-named Louisiana Science Education Act, which has been described as a “thinly veiled attempt to allow creationism into the science classrooms of his state.”

Last year, Jindal established a private school voucher program that will bring taxpayer dollars to schools that explicitly teach creationism:

Whatever the merits of this program might be, observers in the state were stunned when they saw some of the schools on the list of those eligible to accept the vouchers. They include a school whose students will be taught to “discern and refute the lies commonly found in textbooks,” including, of course, evolution. Another school prepares students to “defend creationism through evidence presented by the Bible,” and yet another assures students that no instruction is included in its textbooks “that would conflict with young earth creationism.”

One of the schools funded by Jindal’s program teaches that the alleged existence of the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution:

This 2012-2013 school year, thanks to a bill pushed through by governor Bobby Jindal, thousands of students in Louisiana will receive state voucher money, transferred from public school funding, to attend private religious schools, some of which teach from a Christian curriculum that suggests the Loch Ness Monster disproves evolution and states that the alleged creature, which has never been demonstrated to even exist, has been tracked by submarine and is probably a plesiosaur. The curriculum also claims that a Japanese fishing boat caught a dinosaur.

Since Jindal is trying to portray himself as the intellectual savior of the GOP – and thanks to politicians like Rick Perry and Todd Akin it’s a pretty low bar – maybe he can start by repealing the laws that encourage the teaching of pseudo-science in Louisiana’s schools.

GOP Electoral College Scheme Advances in Virginia

On Wednesday, Republican state senators in Virginia cleared the first hurdle in their push to fundamentally change how state Electoral College votes are allocated.
PFAW

Swanson Explains the 'Perfect Correlation' Between 'Faithfulness to God's Word' and National Wealth

Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio devoted part of his program today to explaining why some nations are wealthier than others. “It’s almost a perfect correlation between degree of faithfulness to God’s Word and the piece of the pie they get out of the gross world product,” Swanson explained. This, he said, is why Protestant nations are doing well and Italy, where “the faith has faded” is struggling:

The Protestants’ ratio for wealth, in terms of wealth to population, they’re at a 4.4. Catholics at 1.5, Orthodox are 1.9, communists are .5, Buddhists are at .34, the Muslims at .23, and the Hindus at .2. Friends, I mean it’s incredible. It’s almost a perfect correlation between degree of faithfulness to God’s Word and the piece of the pie they get out of the gross world product.

Turns out the meek do inherit the Earth. Evildoers shall be cut off but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the Earth. For yet a little while, the wicked shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the Earth and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. A good man leaves inheritance to his children’s children. The wealth, the sinner’s laid up for the just. You know, believe that God can pull that off in history? Believe that Jesus Christ can pull that off in history? Well, they do actually. As it turns out, God does pull this off in history.

Protestants have by far, by far, by far the largest proportion of the Gross World Product as compared to the proportion of population, at a 4.4 ratio. Catholics come in number two at 1.5, the Orthodox are at 1.0. And again, as the fate begins to fade, you know, you begin to see the faith fade and fade away and fade away into the memory of the average citizen who actually kind of goes to church but doesn’t have any idea what the Church has to say or has to do about anything, and ergo, the lowest birthrate in Europe is Italy, ok? Get it? Get it? They’re not, the Catholic faith doesn’t really sink into the warp and the woof of these people anymore, pretty much the faith has faded.

Swanson goes on to explain why he thinks certain nations have failing economies. Libya’s economic woes, he contends, exist because “they’ve driven out every Christian and every Jew they could find”:

I looked at the significant nations, with the worst nations in terms of GDP in decline even as we speak. As it turns out, Dave, the nations destroying their own economies right now, seven Islam, four Roman Catholic, two Buddhist and one Orthodox – Greece is the Orthodox nation destroying their economy right now. So, of the very, very worst nations in terms of GDP and decline, friends, it’s Islam, Roman Catholic, Orthodox. And the very, very worst state, the very, very worst is Libya. The worst in terms of GDP in decline. It turns out that between 1960 and the present day, Dave, they’ve driven out every Christian and every Jew they could find. They drove out all the Jews, all the Christians, and they finally got their own country. And the Muslims have the very, very worst nation in the world when it comes to GDP in decline.
 

 

Wisconsin Lawmaker Suggests Planned Parenthood Is Targeting Asian Americans for Abortion

In an interview yesterday, Wisconsin Republican state senator Glenn Grothman suggested that Planned Parenthood is promoting sex-selective abortions to Asian Americans. While speaking to Jim Schneider of Voice of Christian Youth America, Grothman called Planned Parenthood “the most racist organization” in the country and speculated that Planned Parenthood is “aggressively promoting this stuff [sex-selective abortion] among people with an Asian background.”

Watch:

Grothman: Given the racist background of Planned Parenthood and not liking people who are not white, I wonder if one of the reasons why Planned Parenthood likes to do these sex-selective abortions is disproportionately they are done on people of an Asian background. Let’s face it; we all know Planned Parenthood’s background, very racist, probably the most racist organization—

Schneider: They specialize in putting their centers in minority neighborhoods.

Grothman: We know the historic comments of Margaret Sanger. It’s something that concerns me a little because I wonder given their racism the degree to which Planned Parenthood is aggressively promoting this stuff among people with an Asian background and I sure hope the state legislature takes a role and puts an end to it, at least in the state of Wisconsin.

Grothman has previously claimed that single moms deliberately lie about their pregnancies and voted against a bill providing survivors of sexual assault emergency contraception. Planned Parenthood has already condemned sex-selective abortions but many anti-choice activists have argued, without much evidence, that such abortions are a “growing problem” in the U.S.

If You Could Refrigerate Homosexuality, It Wouldn't Be A Sin

Last week, Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality hosted Oklahoma pastor James Taylor (no, not the musician) to discuss a summit they attended about health care and the LGBT community. They were upset about a pamphlet handed out at the conference which compared the Old Testament’s prohibition of homosexuality to its rules against eating certain foods, both of which are categorized as “abominations” in Leviticus.

Taylor said that thanks to “refrigeration” it is no longer a sin to eat foods like pork or shellfish, while since there is no equivalent to refrigeration for homosexuality, it remains a sin. He claimed the people who are really trying to “pick and choose” biblical principles are gay-affirming Christians.

LaBarbera: The first thing on the pink sheet says, it takes Leviticus 18:22, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination,’ Leviticus 20:13, ‘If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they should be put to death.’ The analysis put forth by this Kathy McCallie of the Church of the Open Arms said that ‘these verses are part of a law code listing this that are forbidden, however, according to Leviticus it is also sinful to eat pork, shrimp, clams or oysters, these texts cannot be used to condemn homosexual behavior unless one is prepared to condemn all these behaviors.’ So they are trying to mix that in, comment on that James.

Taylor: There’s a couple problems with that. Some things are cultural and there are also some things that have happened now in terms of refrigeration and health concerns and those are some of those things that are there. But the reality is it doesn’t change the fact that God has said a man shall not lie with a male like a woman and vice versa and he uses the word abomination, which is the strongest word in the Bible for hate that you can come across. So that’s the problem, they want to pick and choose what they want to have and then to dismiss it as this isn’t what the Bible says, it’s foolishness.

LaBarbera also criticized the conference for engaging in smoking and drug abuse prevention work while also “promoting homosexuality and even gender confusion.”

LaBarbera: How ironic that a conference that’s supposed to be about substance abuse actually promoted a behavior which leads to disease.

Taylor: It promoted criminal behavior and they were given false information about the reliability of condoms.

LaBarbera: I was walking around at that conference and I remember a table, I took a picture of it, with a bunch of pamphlets about smoking. It’s just bizarre to see them all concerned about preventing smoking because that’s dangerous and yet they are promoting homosexuality and even gender confusion, promoting these awful sex changes where the body is mutilated to become something you cannot be, the other sex.

Taylor said that gays and lesbians should expect to face “resistance” over their “choice” to “live that lifestyle,” while LaBarbera commended “ex-gays” like DL Foster for showing that homosexuality is “changeable.”

Taylor: If you want to be that type of—live that lifestyle, that’s your choice. If you are going to swim upstream, you better expect there to be some resistance. If you are going against what is the norm per se, there’s going to be some type of resistance.

LaBarbera: I just find it fascinating and I know it makes homosexual activists nervous because, and a lot of them will say ‘no it’s not really analogous,’ but the underlying assumption is that we have something to be ashamed of and we don’t. Homosexual behavior is wrong, it’s changeable, we know that, there are many people, people like DL Foster, now here’s a black man who can never change his skin color but the changed his homosexual behavior.

PFAW: Filibuster Reform Provides Only Modest Relief for Ending ‘Unprecedented GOP Obstruction’

WASHINGTON – People For the American Way called the filibuster reform deal set to be announced by Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) only a modest step in addressing the extraordinary GOP abuse of Senate rules.  Among the provisions of the expected reform deal are a rule addressing filibusters of the motion to proceed to legislation and a rule reducing the maximum post-cloture debate for district court nominations to two hours from thirty.

“It’s important that we as a country acknowledge the need to address the unprecedented obstruction undermining the Senate’s ability to do its work,” said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. “Americans elect members of Congress to do their jobs and solve the pressing issues facing the country.  That’s not possible when one party is committed to mindless obstruction.”

People For the American Way has long documented the harm this obstruction causes to our judicial system. As detailed in PFAW’s recent memo, “Empty Courtrooms in Obama’s First Term: A Slow Start on Judicial Nominations Magnified Many Times Over By Republican Obstruction,” Senate Republicans have blocked the nomination and confirmation of federal judicial nominees at an unprecedented rate during President Obama’s first term, leading to record vacancy levels in the federal courts.  While there were 55 vacancies when President Obama took office, that number leapt to 90 during his first year and has rarely dropped below 90 since then. As the second term begins, there are over 100 vacancies.

“While these reforms will offer some relief against the persistent obstruction, they fall far short of what is necessary to fix the problem,” Baker continued.  “Limiting the time that votes on district court nominees can be delayed after cloture is invoked is important, but the problem extends far beyond the district court level.  We are disappointed, in particular, that the party leaders were unable to agree on reforms that would prevent needless delay of confirmation votes for critically important circuit court nominations when 60 senators have already voted to end a filibuster.  With four long-pending circuit court nominations held up for months – two since March, one since April, and one since June – and denied a vote even during the lame duck, this does not bode well for how Republicans intend to treat President Obama’s circuit court nominees during the 113th Congress.”
                                                                                      
Beyond judicial nominations, obstruction impacts the Senate’s entire legislative agenda.  During President Obama’s first term, the number of motions to prevent bills from being openly debated reached a historic high. Republicans are now abusing procedural tactics to impede even the most routine functions of government.

“It’s time for Senate Republicans to understand how impatient the American people have become with their tactics blocking progress on a variety of issues critical to our country’s wellbeing,” said Baker.  “These reforms take modest steps in that direction, but we will continue to be vigilant in fighting this needless obstruction.”

###
 

Religious Right Angry over 'Dangerous' Decision to End Ban on Women in Combat

While the Religious Right reacted with apoplectic rage following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the lifting of the ban on women in combat has brought dejected but relatively subdued responses from conservatives.

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer, who in December spoke out in favor of the ban by lying about the Israeli military’s policy on women in combat, tweeted that the decision was part of Obama’s plan to “feminize and weaken the U.S. military.”

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said that “lives could be lost unnecessarily” by the new policy, which “will harm men and the mission of the infantry as a whole.” “The administration has a pattern of irresponsible actions like this using the military to advance a social agenda,” she said, “This kind of a social experiment is a dangerous one.”

Faith and Freedom Coalition head Ralph Reed maintained that the Obama administration is “putting women in combat situations is the latest in a series of moves where political correctness and liberal social policy have trumped sound military practice.”

Richard Viguerie’s group claimed that “Obama’s plan to introduce women into frontline combat roles in the U.S. military is a dangerous and irresponsible social experiment, not an opportunity for women to serve their country and advance in their chosen profession.”

Radio talk show host Janet Mefferd on her Facebook page wrote that the move is further proof that the Obama administration is “intent upon undoing this great country” and will “stop at nothing to achieve it.”

Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin, who was reprimanded by President Bush after he made anti-Muslim and political speeches while in uniform, called the decision “another social experiment”:

The people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment, and they have never lived nor fought with an infantry or Special Forces unit. These units have the mission of closing with and destroying the enemy, sometimes in close hand-to-hand combat. They are often in sustained operations for extended periods, during which they have no base of operations nor facilities. Their living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions. Commanders are burdened with a very heavy responsibility for succeeding in their mission and for protecting their troops.

This decision to integrate the genders in these units places additional and unnecessary burdens on leaders at all levels. While their focus must remain on winning the battles and protecting their troops, they will now have the distraction of having to provide some separation of the genders during fast moving and deadly situations. Is the social experiment worth placing this burden on small unit leaders? I think not.

Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America said that the “majority of women” don’t care about the ban or want its elimination:

News of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's intent to lift the long-standing ban on women serving in direct combat is further proof that this administration simply does not care about the issues about which the majority of women care. Once again, their interest on women issues is driven by special interest groups. The point of the military is to protect our country. Anything that distracts from that is detrimental. Our military cannot continue to choose social experimentation and political correctness over combat readiness. While this decision is not unexpected from this administration, it is still disappointing. Concerned Women for America (CWA) and its more than half-a-million members around the country will continue to do all we can to see that our men and women in uniform are governed with the respect and resources needed to do the hard task of fighting for and protecting our freedoms.

“God help us,” lamented Denny Burk of the Southern Baptist Convention, who seemed to suggest that women shouldn’t be in the armed forces at all:

Are the fortunes of women in our country really enhanced by sending them to be ground up in the discipline of a combat unit and possibly to be killed or maimed in war? Is there a father in America who would under any circumstance risk having his daughter shot or killed in battle? Is there a single husband in this country who thinks it okay for his wife to risk being captured by our enemies? To risk becoming a prisoner of war? Is this the kind of people we want to be? Perhaps this is the kind of people we already are. I would sooner cut off my arm than allow such a thing with my own wife and daughters. Why would I ever support allowing someone else’s to do the same? Why would anyone?

What kind of a society puts its women on the front lines to risk what only men should be called on to risk? In countries ravaged by war, we consider it a tragedy when the battle comes to the backyards of women and children. Why would we thrust our own wives and daughters into that horror? My own instinct is to keep them as far from it as possible. Perhaps this move makes sense with an all volunteer force, but what if the draft is ever reinstituted? Are we really going to be the kind of people who press our wives and daughters to fight in combat?



Everyone in America ought to be scandalized by this news, but I’m wondering if it will even register on the radar of anyone’s conscience. To the extent that it doesn’t, we reveal just how far gone we are as a people. God help us.

Aaron Ahlert of FrontPageMag said the move is “sure to have deadly consequences” and represents the Obama administration “forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat.”

It didn’t take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military’s ban on women serving in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism has been shoved down the nation’s throat through executive fiat — and this one is sure to have deadly consequences.

...

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension, regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.

...

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America’s interests. Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome, irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless other Americans, it is anything but. “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman,” she contends.

New York Times Investigates Relationship Between American Dominionists and Uganda

Earlier this week, The New York Times posted an excerpt from a new Roger Ross Williams documentary on how the Religious Right in the U.S. is shaping anti-gay activism in African countries like Uganda. The documentary includes interviews with International House of Prayer (IHOP) leaders Lou Engle and Mike Bickle, whom we have followed closely here at Right Wing Watch, along with footage of IHOP missionaries at work in Uganda.

Engle organizes the anti-choice and anti-gay The Call rallies, which regularly feature Republican and Religious Right leaders. In 2010, he brought The Call to Uganda to help promote the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which would have made homosexuality a capital offense. (He later backpedaled after facing scrutiny.)

IHOP, including many The Call figures, helped to organize Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s 2011 The Response prayer rally, which Bickle emceed.

In the film, Episcopal priest Kapya Kaoma makes a reference to Seven Mountains Dominionism, the belief that fundamentalist Christians have a mandate to take control of the seven major spheres of society: government, business, education, media, arts and entertainment, the family and the church. As Engle explains, there are “seven mountains of influence” that right-wing Christians must “reclaim” in order to win over society.

Engle and Bickle are also key players in the New Apostolic Reformation, a movement of self-appointed prophets and apostles who believe they are spokesmen for God on Earth. Bickle has claimed that gay people are the targets of “flaming missiles” from Satan and has warned that the “gay marriage agenda” is a sign of the End Times as it is “rooted in the depths of Hell.” At one IHOP service, Bickle also claimed that Oprah Winfrey is the harbinger of the Antichrist:

In 2008, Engle held massive rallies to encourage Californians to pass Proposition 8, which banned marriage equality, arguing that legalizing same-sex marriage “will unleash a spirit more demonic than Islam, a spirit of lawlessness and anarchy, and sexual insanity will be unleashed unto the earth.” His rallies have focused on creating a “movement” of ex-gays to stop a Satanichomosexual tornado” that will “destroy America.” (He specifically targeted Ellen DeGeneres for “conversion.”) In addition, he has warned that the separation of the separation of church and state and gay rights are putting the U.S. on the path to Nazism:

While Engle and Bickle have extended their influence to nations like Uganda in order to export their anti-gay politics, they have continued to increase their clout in America’s Religious Right.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious