Fighting the Right

Ben Carson: Congress Should Oust Judges Who Rule For Marriage Equality

Ben Carson, the likely Republican presidential candidate who believes that the gay rights movement is part of a communist conspiracy to bring about the New World Order, wants Congress to intervene in court cases involving marriage equality, including the upcoming cases before the Supreme Court.

Speaking last night with Iowa talk radio host Steve Deace, Carson said that Congress should “reprimand or remove” federal judges who issue “unconstitutional” rulings striking down state bans on same-sex marriage.

What the president and what the Supreme Court need to reiterate is that the states have a mechanism whereby they can determine the will of the people, it’s called ballot referendum. It has been done multiple times already, 32 states have indicated that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a few judges have come and overturned that. That, as far as I’m concerned, is unconstitutional, and Congress actually has oversight of all what they call the inferior courts, everything below the Supreme Court, and that’s where those overturns have come. And when judges do not carry out their duties in an appropriate way, our Congress actually has the right to reprimand or remove them.

After Deace alleged that a Supreme Court victory for marriage equality advocates would undermine freedom and lead to the “persecution of the church” and “open season on Christians,” Carson said Congress should intercede if the Supreme Court deems same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

“We certainly cannot give up if, in fact, that turns out to be the case because we do still have the Congressional mechanism,” Carson said. “And the key here in our country, values and principles cannot be drummed out of us. They’re going to try and the only way we maintain a country with values and principles is we have to be brave enough to stand up for what we believe.”

Tim Wildmon Insists There Is Nothing In The Bible Calling For Infidels To Be Put To Death

On yesterday's broadcast of the "Today's Issues" radio program, American Family Association president Tim Wildmon voiced his displeasure with those "ignorant people" who claim that Islam and Christianity are both "peaceful religions."

As Wildmon sees it, Christianity is very obviously a peaceful religion while Islam very obviously is not and so anyone who attempts to equate the two does so either out of ignorance or intentional deceit because, unlike the Quran, there is nothing in the Bible that calls for non-believers to be put to death.

"The Quran has explicit admonitions or instructions for followers of Allah to do violence and harm against the infidel," Wildmon fumed. "There's nothing like that in the Bible, that tells the Christian to go out and decapitate the infidel":

This makes us wonder if Wildmon has ever read the Bible, especially Deuteronomy 13:

6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

The Personhood Movement: Where It Comes From And What It Means For The Future Of Choice: Part 1

This is the first post in a RWW series on the reemergence of the anti-choice “personhood” movement and what it means for the future of abortion rights in the U.S.

Part 2: The Personhood Movement: Internal Battles Go Public
Part 3: The Personhood Movement: Undermining Roe In The Courts
Part 4: The Personhood Movement: Regrouping After Defeat

“Welcome to the future of the pro-life movement.”

As a few dozen activists walked into a conference hall in an Atlanta suburb in October 2014, they were met with an optimistic greeting from an impromptu welcoming committee.

It was the founding convention of the Personhood Alliance, an association of anti-abortion groups from 15 states who are determined to wrest back an anti-choice movement that they fear has gone dangerously astray.

The members of the Personhood Alliance felt betrayed.

The largest and best-funded groups opposing abortion rights have, over the past several years, achieved astounding success in chipping away at women’s access to legal abortion in the United States. But these successes, Personhood Alliance’s founders maintain, are too small and have come at a grave cost.

In seeking mainstream approval for anti-choice politics, personhood advocates believe, groups like the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and Americans United for Life (AUL) have adopted a secular tone and downplayed their Christian origins. In focusing on drawing attention to issues like late-term abortion, they may have won some support for the cause but have done little to end the procedures they targeted. In seeking incremental successes, personhood advocates argue, the movement has given up on making a moral argument for the humanity of fertilized eggs and fetuses and lost sight of its larger goal of eliminating legal abortion entirely.

But the greatest betrayal in the eyes of these personhood advocates is the willingness of major anti-choice groups to endorse legislation that includes exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. The personhood movement’s leaders contend that these political concessions are not only immoral and intellectually inconsistent, but also threaten to undermine the movement’s goals in the long term. In fact, the Personhood Alliance grew out of a feud between Georgia Right to Life leader Daniel Becker and NRLC centered around a rape exception inserted into a national 20-week abortion ban. Becker and his allies believe that they have a better plan, one that does not require compromise.

Joining the activists at the founding conference was Ben DuPré, the chief of staff for Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who, along with his colleague Justice Tom Parker, has outlined an alternate strategy for eliminating legal protections for abortions in the United States: building a body of laws that define fertilized zygotes and fetuses as citizens with full rights under the law.

On the first night of the Personhood Alliance’s founding convention in October, Paul Broun, then a Republican congressman from Georgia, captured the activists’ anger at the leaders of the anti-choice movement, charging that they had betrayed the movement's core principles to such a degree that it had provoked the wrath of God — and implied that they were doing so for personal gain.

Broun told the activists of a meeting he had had with two leaders of NRLC when he was running for U.S. Congress in 1996. He told them that were he elected, the first bill he would introduce would be a Sanctity of Human Life Act giving personhood rights to fertilized eggs, because [that’s] "how we’re going to overturn Roe v. Wade is by giving the right of personhood to that one-celled human being.” The NRLC leaders, Broun said, told him they wouldn’t support it and he “walked away very disillusioned.”

When an audience member asked Broun why he thought NRLC and other major anti-choice groups weren’t putting their energy behind personhood bills, including one that he helped write, Broun responded that he wasn’t “making any accusations here,” but implied that “pro-life” leaders have a financial incentive to never achieve their declared goal.

Harkening back to that 1996 meeting, he drew a historical parallel:

They never told me [why they wouldn’t back the Sanctity of Human Life Act]. I asked them, and they just said, well, we won’t. And I walked away from that meeting in 1996 very, very disappointed, very disillusioned. And shortly after, actually as I was riding away in a taxi cab, it came to mind, back when I was a kid – looking around the room, I’m not sure anybody’s old enough to remember polio – but when I was a kid I had classmates who got polio who were in iron lungs, and I had patients as a doctor, people who when I was in medical school, were people who had polio.

The biggest charity in this country was an organization called March of Dimes. And they were, their executives were, I guess, I’m not sure, but they were making lots of money, March of Dimes was probably the biggest charity in the country. And a doctor by the name of Jonas Salk developed a vaccine. And suddenly, March of Dimes went broke.

And I went away from that meeting with National Right to Life and I was wondering, I still wonder, I’m not making any accusations here: If we were to stop abortion, what would happen to the jobs of all those people who are getting paid every day to be in the pro-life movement? What would happen? I don’t know if that’s what it is or not, I’m not making any accusations, I’m just telling you what my thought was when I left that meeting.

He told the Personhood Alliance that every day that legal abortion continues, America risks God’s wrath. Discussing his 2013 refusal to vote for a 20-week ban to which the House GOP had added a rape exception at the last minute, Broun said:

If we can save some, let's do it, but let's not make exceptions and that some babies are worth killing and some are not. They're all worth saving.

And then it goes back to 'my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge,' as we hear [from] Hosea 4:6, and that's the reason education is so important. Because we've got to educate the grassroots.

...

You see, God is a holy, righteous God. He cannot continue to bless America while we’re killing over a million babies every single day. Abortion must stop.

(Broun's estimate of one million abortions taking place every day is, to say the least, wildly exaggerated.)

Broun argued that groups like the NRLC are selling the movement short by accepting political compromise bills containing rape and incest exceptions and then pressuring anti-choice lawmakers to vote for those bills.

"The reason a lot of pro-life people are willing to compromise is because of that outside pressure," he said. "Whether it's an endorsement from Concerned Women [for America] or the Family Research Council or another group, or it could be an endorsement of the U.S. Chamber [of Commerce] or it could be the endorsement of any group. Politicians, the major principle that they will not budge from is their reelection. So they will do whatever it takes to get the endorsements, the money that they need to raise.”

Barry Loudermilk, a former Georgia Republican state senator who had recently been elected to the U.S. House, also spoke to the convention, comparing the fight against abortion rights to the struggle of America’s founders, who he said also witnessed “a decline in the moral sensitivity of our nation.” Loudermilk, who while serving in the state senate introduced a personhood amendment that was backed by Georgia Right to Life and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, said, “When you look at our movement, we have the exact same things against us that they had against them,” he said. “They had the government against them, the laws, the judges. We don’t have the people who are totally with us, it’s growing. But we have the truth with us. We have Providence with us.”

The congressmen echoed a founding tenet of the Personhood Alliance: that in a movement that was increasingly struggling to appear secular, the organization would be unabashedly “Christ-centered” and “biblically informed.”

As personhood's proponents like to remind their fellow activists, both sides of the movement share the same goal: to completely criminalize abortion. The question is just how to do it.

The largest and best-funded anti-choice groups, deploying a strategy of chipping away at abortion access in the name of “women’s health,” have pushed state legislatures to pass over 200 new restrictions on abortion rights since 2011, many based on model legislation from AUL and NRLC. This strategy has managed to shut down abortion providers (especially in rural areas), make it harder for low-income women to pay for abortion, and erect unnecessary logistical hurdles for even those women who could access and afford abortion care.

The movement also won a pivotal court case with the Supreme Court's ruled that private corporations could deny their employees legally mandated health insurance coverage for contraceptives that the corporations’ owners believe cause abortion. And they did this all while stemming the loss in public opinion that had hindered other “culture war” issues, in part by lifting up female leaders and adopting woman-centered empowerment rhetoric.

But at the same time, another side of the anti-choice movement, those eschewing compromise and incrementalism and pursuing the goal of establishing legal “personhood” from the moment of conception, have suffered a series of embarrassing electoral blows. In 2014, Colorado voters overwhelmingly rejected a ballot measure that would have defined zygotes and fetuses as persons in the state’s criminal code. It was the third time in six years that voters in the state had rejected a “personhood” measure, although its proponents noted that their margin of defeat got smaller each time. Perhaps even more galling for the movement, voters in reliably conservative North Dakota rejected an amendment to provide constitutional protections for “every being at every stage of development” by a whopping 28-point margin. And this all came three years after a personhood initiative was soundly defeated in deep-red Mississippi.

These personhood measures, while sharing the same ultimate goal as the incremental strategy, have become widely seen as politically toxic, in large part because they could threaten access to common forms of birth control. The no-compromise strategy has also become tied to a series of ham-handed comments made by male politicians, most infamously former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, which further hurt the personhood movement, while providing political cover to those pursuing a more incremental approach.

But despite its spectacular losses at the ballot box, personhood movement strategists maintain that not only is their strategy the morally sound and intellectually consistent one — they believe their strategy is the one that will ultimately swing public opinion and overturn Roe v. Wade.

This series, marking the anniversary of Roe, will explore the recent resurgence of the personhood movement and what it means for the future of abortion rights. Upcoming posts will examine the history of the split in the anti-choice movement and its debates over legal strategy, and the organizations that are currently leading the movement.

Todd Starnes Lies Again About Obama's Work To Free Imprisoned Pastor

Fox News pundit Todd Starnes was riled up during President Obama’s State of the Union, taking to Twitter to call the address “verbal water boarding” and joke that Obama will probably offer “free marijuana” to college students.

Starnes was also very displeased that Obama didn’t mention an Iranian-American pastor, Saeed Abedini, who is in Iranian jail, which Starnes wrote was evidence that Iran’s leaders are Obama’s “Muslim BFFs”:

Starnes may have missed his own network’s reporting that Obama will be meeting today with Abedini’s wife and children in Boise, Idaho, to discuss the pastor’s imprisonment.

This isn’t the first time Starnes has used the Abedini case to claim that Obama doesn’t care about imprisoned Christians.

The Fox News commentator falsely claimed during a 2013 Values Voter Summit speech that the president had refused to make a phone call to Iran’s president to urge the pastor’s release. “He cannot utter the words ‘Saeed Abedini’ from his lips,” he said of the president.

Just days beforehand, however, Fox News reported that Obama had in fact addressed the jailing of Abedini and other U.S. citizens in the country in a rare phone call with the Iranian president.

Secretary of State John Kerry has also repeatedly demanded that Iran free Abedini.

UPDATE: It seems Starnes has caught up on the news.

 

 

Alex Jones: One Billion People Will Die If Pope Francis Gets His Way

Alex Jones fears that while Pope Francis “goes out and hugs old people and people with diseases,” he is actually bent on creating a one-world government.

Jones took issue with the Pope’s recent message on the environment, which the “InfoWars” host thought could potentially lead to the deaths of at least one billion people.

“Carbon taxes will kill one billion people over a decade,” Jones said“Obama’s told them, you can’t’ have cars, you can’t have air conditioning, you can’t have medicine, you can’t have anything.”

Jim Bakker Tells Mike Huckabee That Christians In America Are Like Jews Under Nazi Dictatorship

In an episode of disgraced televangelist Jim Bakker’s television show that was posted online today, Mike Huckabee chatted with Bakker about his potential presidential campaign and his new book “Gods, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” which, among other things, discusses the supposed persecution of Christians in the U.S.

Huckabee pointed to Phil Robertson’s temporary suspension from “Duck Dynasty” following his notorious comments about homosexuality and Jim Crow as proof that Christians are now victims of intolerance. Bakker is so worried about anti-Christian animus that he even tied the plight of Christians in America to Nazi Germany’s anti-Jewish persecution: “If we all took a stand just like the Robertson family did, they can’t put us all in jail at the same time, unless they did something like they did to the Jews.” 

Mike Huckabee Talks 2016 Plans With Jim Bakker To Shouts Of 'Hallelujah'

Disgraced-televangelist-turned-survivalist-preacher Jim Bakker had a very special guest on his television show this week: Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor stopped by “The Jim Bakker Show” to promote his new book, “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” which seems to be little more than a compilation of populist, right-wing talking points about how coastal elitists like Beyoncé are trying to destroy real America.

Bakker was so impressed by the book that he claimed to have studied it like the Bible and practically begged Huckabee to run for president. Bakker led the audience in cheers while shouting “hallelujah” after Huckabee said that he ended his Fox News program in order to explore a possible presidential candidacy, which prompted Huckabee to declare that he ought to “launch the entire campaign” on Bakker’s show.

“I cannot believe how God blessed me so much to introduce this book,” Bakker said, gushing that Huckabee’s book will “save this country.”

According to Huckabee, real America is just like Morningside, the survivalist town that Bakker founded in rural Missouri: “This is America!”

Bakker, for his part, put “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy” right up there with the Bible in his list of recommended books: “If I was dying, this, besides the Bible, is the book I would give and I would say, honey, make sure every one of our children read this book.”

How The 'No-Go Zones' Myth Traveled From The Anti-Muslim Fringe To The Mouths Of GOP Politicians

Shortly after terrorist gunmen killed 12 people in an attack on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris earlier this month, conservative commentator Steve Emerson went on Fox News and claimed that Europe was being taken over by “no-go zones” controlled by Islamic law to such an extent that non-Muslims were not allowed to enter Birmingham, England’s second-largest city.

Emerson’s claim was met with ridicule, including by British Prime Minister David Cameron, and Emerson and Fox quickly retracted the claim.

But at the same time, the “no-go zone” myth gained traction among conservative activists and Republican leaders, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who mentioned it in a speech in London despite refusing to offer the names or locations of the purported no-go zones, and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who claimed last week that France has “like 700 no-go zones where authorities have allowed Sharia law to be imposed,” something that he claimed is also beginning to happen in the United States.

The “no-go zone” myth didn’t spring out of nowhere two weeks ago. Instead, it has been percolating for years in fringe media, perpetuated by anti-Muslim activists warning that Europe was being overtaken by Sharia law, soon to be followed by the United States.

Bloomberg pinpoints the beginning of the myth at a 2006 article by conservative pundit Daniel Pipes, who gave the name “no-go zones” to a list of French “sensitive urban zones,” some with large populations of Muslim immigrants, that were, in reality, nothing more than areas hit by high crime and poverty that were actually targeted by the government for urban renewal projects. A few years later, Pipes had the opportunity to visit a few of these “no-go zones” and reported that they were “very mild, even dull” compared to high-crime neighborhoods in the U.S. and that “immigrant areas are hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails.” He wrote, “Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones.”

But Pipes’ retraction came too late to stop the “no-go zone” story from becoming an established fact in fringe right-wing media.

The far-right outlet WorldNetDaily mentionsno-go zones” frequently, often warning that the United States will soon face the same fate. Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller told WND last year:

The Muslim population, for example, in France is over 10 percent,” she said. “You see outside of Paris … it can be very frightening. The no-go zones, the Shariah zones, where firefighters and police cannot go. They are many times lured by particular criminal activity into these zones, only to be ambushed. We see it in the U.K., increasingly, the imposition of Shariah law. And people think it can’t happen here, but it is happening here.

A search for the term “no-go zones” in Geller’s blog before the Charlie Hebdo attack produces 10 pages of results. Prominent anti-Muslim activist Frank Gaffney has also perpetuated the myth, warning repeatedly on his website and radio program of such zones “where authorities dare not enter” and “Shariah rules instead of the laws of the host government.”

Last year, the Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro similarly warned in a FrontPageMag article that European “no-go zones” would provide “precedent” for such “Muslim enclaves” in the U.S. The publication has been another prominent generator of the myth, frequently citing Pipes since-rejected claim about French “no-go” neighborhood.

The myth percolated to the top of the news cycle briefly in 2010 when Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle claimed that Dearborn, Michigan, and the made-up town of Frankford, Texas, were ruled by “Sharia law.” She didn’t use the term “no-go zone,” but was clearly influenced by the myth that had by then become established fact in fringe media.

As recently as last month, Gun Owners of America’s Larry Pratt was citing the myth to warn that U.S. protests against police brutality would create “no-go zones.”

“It’s like in England and Scandinavia and I guess in Paris and a lot of Europe, perhaps in a lot of their metropolitan areas, the Muslims have come to a preponderant population in those areas that the police do not dare go into the urban areas controlled by Muslims,” he said.

The myth, propagated by a few voices in fringe media, is too wild for Fox News. But it is now apparently perfectly acceptable in the Republican Party.

Fischer: You Can't Support Gay Rights 'And Call Yourself A Follower Of Christ'

On Friday's radio broadcast, Bryan Fischer took a call from a listener who demanded to know why nobody on the American Family Radio network will declare that President Obama is not a Christian. We have no idea what programs this caller is listening to if he thinks that nobody on AFR is willing to say that Obama is not a Christian, because we hear the various hosts saying this exact thing all the time.

Fischer, of course, was more than happy to acquiesce to the caller's demand and declare that Obama "is not a sincerely devoted follower of Jesus Christ so, in my mind, that means he's not a Christian."

And Fischer knows this, he said, because "nobody can support and promote and celebrate homosexual behavior who is a sincerely devoted follower of Christ. It's impossible, because Christ and his apostles made it very clear that that's a sin. You can't celebrate that, can't promote that and call yourself a follower of Christ."

While Fischer was, for some reason, unwilling to declare that Obama is actually a Muslim, he nonetheless insisted that everyone in Washington, D.C. knows that he is.

"He walks like a Muslim. He talks like a Muslim. He sounds like a Muslim. He acts like a Muslim," Fischer said. "Jesus said 'by your fruits, you shall know them' and at some point people are going to start connecting those dots":

Rewriting King: Right-Wing Activist Claims MLK Opposed Government Aid, Church-State Separation

Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council marked Martin Luther King Jr. Day yesterday by claiming that King — who supported guaranteed employment and minimum income, public works projects and policies advancing “democratic socialism” — was actually a big opponent of government involvement in the economy.

Blackwell told “Washington Watch” host Tony Perkins that King would strongly rebuke “the growth of the welfare state” and the separation of church and state, even though King actually spoke out against endeavors such as state-sponsored prayer in public schools.

Blackwell, a former Republican politician from Ohio, also used the occasion to criticize the advance of marriage equality in the courts and President Obama for supposedly dividing Americans on the basis of race.

Mike Huckabee Reiterates Opposition To Marriage Equality: God Has Already Ruled

In a conversation on “Washington Watch” Friday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee expressed disbelief over media reports that Huckabee had somehow toned down his opposition to marriage equality in his new book, “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy.” In fact, Huckabee did no such thing, something that he himself was eager to point out, reiterating to Perkins his view that same-sex marriage is wrong because God has already spoken on the issue.

“I don’t know how anyone could actually read the chapter and come to the conclusion that I have sort of changed my view on same-sex marriage,” Huckabee said. “When people read the chapter, I think they’re going to get a clear understanding that the reason that I hold to the view that I do is it’s not just stubbornness, it’s because I haven’t been given permission from God to change what he said.”

Of course, that was the exact same argument used by many pastors who supported laws banning interracial marriage.

Huckabee also criticized governors who “surrendered” to courts that have struck down state bans on marriage equality, arguing that they should ignore such rulings and simply refuse to enforce them.

“This, to me, is so fundamental in civics and I’m watching attorneys general, governors and judges pretend that the court can just make law. I don’t know where we came up with this,” Huckabee said. “I’ve heard several governors when their state supreme court says that they’re going to allow same-sex marriage and the governor just folds and surrenders and says, ‘well, it’s the law of the land.’ No, it isn’t.”

Tony Perkins: Dearborn And Neighborhoods In Minneapolis Are Muslim No-Go Zones

While Fox News has apologized for its discredited and widely mocked reports about European “no-go zones” that are run according to Sharia law, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins is standing by the false claims that there are around “700 no-go zones” in France alone and that Dearborn, Michigan, has fallen to Sharia law.

When a “Washington Watch” caller on Friday told Perkins about no-go zones where Muslims are “doing military-type training in Virginia and New York,” which he “heard on Bryan Fischer[’s]” radio show, Perkins said that he had also heard rumors corroborating such allegations.

In France, Perkins said, “they have like 700 no-go zones where authorities have allowed Sharia law to be imposed. There are some areas in this country that in effect that has occurred. Dearborn, Michigan, is one of the places, there are some places in Minneapolis, I don’t think it’s as clear cut as what we’ve seen in Europe, it’s been more by the effect that that’s occurred.”

Liberty Counsel: Christians Who Discriminate Against Gays Are Living Out MLK's Legacy

Liberty Counsel issued a press release yesterday in which the anti-gay organization attempted to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. Day by declaring that conservative Christians who refuse to provide services to gay couples are the ones who are living out MLK's legacy:

As we remember today the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are inspired by his courage to combat injustice that had become imbedded in our culture and our law.

Writing from a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. King said, “I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”

“Marriage as the union of one man and one woman was not created by government or religion. It is rooted in natural law,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “Same-sex marriage is contrary to the natural created order of God Almighty. Laws deconstructing natural marriage and which compel people to affirm sinful sexual behavior or unions are unjust.”

...

Today, the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is being lived out by bakers, photographers, florists, ministers, county clerks, and owners of wedding venues who have lost their businesses, been forced to pay exorbitant fines, been threatened with jail, and made to choose between the natural created order of marriage between one man and one woman and judges who side with same-sex couples.

Mike Huckabee: Support The Fair Tax Because 'Giving Proportionately Is Biblical'

Mike Huckabee was the guest on James Robison's "Life Today" television program this morning, promoting his new book "God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy," which seems to be focused on defending "real America" from all those phonies and snobby elitists who live in New York, Washington, D.C., and Hollywood.

After lamenting that America is no longer a place where women who use profanity are considered to be "trash," Huckabee made his case for the "fair tax," which is a proposal to scrap all federal taxes and replace them with a 30% tax on consumption, because that is what is biblical.

"I believe in the biblical understanding of stewardship," Huckabee said. "Everybody should have something invested. God doesn't say, 'Oh, you're too poor, don't give anything.' He says, 'Everyone give a tithe.' ... I'm telling you something, giving proportionately is biblical."

Huckabee added that an additional bonus of the fair tax is that "we would get rid of the I.R.S.."

"They would be gone," he said. "Done forever and forever!"

Paranoia-Rama: Obama's Secret 'Deal' With Terrorists, Beware The 'Islamization' Of America And Britain Falls To Sharia Law

Sharia law is taking over the western world, or at least it is in the fevered imaginations of right-wing commentators, who this week made wild accusations about the Obama administration and others aiding extremist groups. Naturally, they also found time to criticize gay rights too.

Ron Paul Is Just Asking The Question: Was The Charlie Hebdo Attack A False Flag Operation?

In an appearance today on the Newsmax show “Midpoint,” former congressman Ron Paul defended a conspiracy theorist’s article published on the Ron Paul Institute’s website this week suggesting that the attack at Charlie Hebdo’s offices, along with 9/11, was an American false flag operation designed “to cow France and place France back under Washington’s thumb.”

According to Paul, neither he nor the author believe that the Charlie Hebdo attack was actually a false flag.

Instead, Paul claimed, the author was just asking the question and “determined to try to get truth out” about the attacks, and since he was just asking the question, he shouldn’t be held responsible for the contents of the allegations.

“I think he suggested it, he wanted a discussion and he has some really good things in there,” Paul said. It’s a shame that the media doesn’t pick up and say ‘what about this chief investigator of the event committed suicide right in the middle of it?’ I have no idea what’s going on there but that to me is big stuff.” 

“They’re not accusations, he pointed out some shortcomings and wanted to ask questions and get to some answers,” he said.

Paul pointed to the 2012 Benghazi attack as a reason to doubt reports surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre and “of course we have Rahm Emmanuel who says don’t ever let an emergency goes to waste, and I think that is part of what is going on there, this is a design to restructure and reorient people on foreign policy.”

Personhood Advocates Come Out Against 20-Week Abortion Ban Because It Includes Rape Exception

Next week’s scheduled House vote on a national 20-week abortion ban, to be held on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, is reviving a bitter public debate within the anti-choice movement about whether to support abortion bans that include exceptions for preganancies resulting from rape or incest.

Even as major anti-choice groups line up to support the 20-week ban, activists in the “personhood” camp of the anti-abortion-rights movement are warning that the ban’s exceptions sell out the movement’s principles.

Back in 2013, when the House Judiciary Committee was debating a 20-week ban based on National Right to Life model legislation, Democrats on the committee tried to amend the bill to add rape and incest exceptions, but were rebuffed by the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks, who declared that “the instance of rape resulting in pregnancy is very low.”

The Republican-led committee eventually approved the measure without the exceptions, but Franks’ comment had caused such a political firestorm that the House GOP leadership quietly added the exceptions in at the last minute and handed the public leadership on the bill over to a Republican woman, Rep. Marsha Blackburn.

Most of the major national anti-abortion groups didn’t support the added exceptions but backed the ban anyway, and it handily passed the Republican-controlled House. But the addition of the exceptions caused a very public split in the anti-choice movement. Georgia Right to Life, the state affiliate of the National Right to Life Committee, urged its state’s representatives in Congress to oppose the bill, a direct repudiation of the national group’s strategy. In return, National Right to Life kicked its Georgia affiliate out of the organization and replaced it with a new group called Georgia Life Alliance. Georgia Right to Life continued to exist as an independent group but also started a new national group called the Personhood Alliance to rival National Right to Life and push for no-exceptions abortion bans.

Now that Blackburn has reintroduced the bill with a rape and incest exception included, the Personhood Alliance and Georgia Right to Life are coming out to oppose it. In a statement yesterday, the Personhood Alliance’s president, Daniel Becker, lambasted Republicans for introducing a “message bill” with what he believes is the wrong message: "This a message bill. The president has already vowed to veto the bill, so why, in a Republican led House and Senate, send out a message that fails to embrace the essence of the pro-life movement."

Georgia Right to Life sounded the same note, saying that abortion bans should “protect all children in the womb who feel pain, not just those conceived by consent”:

"Last Fall, voters sent a clear message that they're fed up with political gamesmanship and lack of courage," [GRTL Executive Director Genevieve] Wilson said. "There's absolutely no need to compromise principles on any bill, especially one that President Obama has already said he will veto."

GRTL supported the 2013 version until an exception for rape and incest was added - which H.R.36 also has. We should pass bills that protect all children in the womb who feel pain, not just those conceived by consent.

Sandy Rios: House Should Expel Muslim Congressman For 'Islamic Terrorist Connections'

On her radio program yesterday, the American Family Association’s Sandy Rios alleged that President Obama, whom she believes is a secret Muslim, is trying to bring more Muslim immigrants into the U.S. as part of his plan of “radically transforming the United States of America.”

According to Rios, “the president prefers, defers to the Islamic world, he defers to the Islamic extremists in the Muslim world.”

Rios then launched into a tirade against Rep. André Carson, repeating her contention that the House should ban the Indiana Democrat from serving on the House Intelligence Committee for the serious crime of being Muslim. After false claiming that two groups that donated to Carson, the Islamic Society of North America and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, are tied to terrorists, Rios said that Carson should be booted out of Congress for “his terrorist connections, his Islamic terrorist connections.”

“This man, André Carson, does not belong on the House Intelligence Committee, he doesn’t even belong in Congress, this is disgraceful,” she said. “André Carson is a dangerous person.”

An incensed Rios then returned to attacking Obama for “radically transforming the United States of America” through immigration.

Beck: Our Founding Principles Require That Christianity Receive Preferential Treatment

For the last three years, right-wing Christian groups have been distributing Bibles to students in the Orange County, Florida, public schools system every January on "National Freedom of Religion Day." This year, after atheist groups and Satanists sought to likewise distribute materials to students, the school system suspended the program and Glenn Beck is predictably furious.

On his television program last night, Beck insisted that not allowing Christianity to have a preferred place in American society is a violation of the very principles upon which this nation was founded.

"We are clearly a Judeo-Christian nation," he said while warning that society has now begun to "coddle those who disagree with Judeo-Christian values."

"We are becoming openly hostile to our own foundation," Beck said. "We have tolerated and excused and embraced the ideals that are in direct opposition to our founding principles."

After slamming the Florida school system for not even having "enough spine left to stand up to Satanists," Beck insisted that this is not an issue of equal treatment or free speech. 

"We lie to ourselves and we say it's our principles, we believe in free speech," he said. "It's not our principles of free speech. This is national suicide":

CIS Official Wonders Why Black Lives Matter Demonstrators Aren't Protesting Immigrants

In an interview with Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman yesterday, Center for Immigration Studies policy director Jessica Vaughn wondered why Black Lives Matter demonstrators protesting police brutality toward African Americans and inequities in the criminal justice system aren’t protesting against immigrants instead.

Vaughn’s comments echo the anti-immigration movement’s long-held — but so far ineffective — strategy of trying to stir up resentment against immigrants in the African American community.

Kaufman began the discussion by complaining about traffic problems resulting from the Black Lives Matter protests and bizarrely claiming that if the demonstrators really cared about black lives in America they would be protesting the recent massacre of 2,000 people by Boko Haram in Nigeria: “It’s interesting why I don’t see Black Lives Matter protesters in Nigeria, where they just killed 2,000 people, but I guess black lives only matter to George Soros and that ilk when they’re here.”

“Yeah, how about black job opportunities matter?” Vaughn said, referring to a Brietbart News report that some undocumented immigrants have been released from detention pending further court reviews of their cases, whom she claimed would take jobs from African Americans.

“It’s pure insanity and shows that the president’s executive amnesty has nothing to do with more efficient enforcement or reuniting families or righting wrongs of some kind in our immigration laws or preventing civil rights violations,” Vaughn added. “It’s all about completely dismantling immigration law and letting everyone stay, and I’m sure in the hope that these people will ultimately associate their life in the United States with the Democratic Party.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious