Gay Games Participants 'Force Themselves On People,' 'Celebrate Immoral And Dangerous Behavior'

Janet Porter is not pleased that Cleveland Republicans are “working to undermine marriage and family values” and “throwing the moral principles of the party platform under the bus,” referring to the Cuyahoga County GOP’s outreach work at the Cleveland-Akron Gay Games.

“Chairman Rob Frost released a statement about how thrilled he was to welcome the homosexual, lesbian and cross-dressing community into the Republican tent, they even paid for a booth at the Gay Games to celebrate immoral and dangerous behavior from a community that seeks to silence dissent and criminalize Christianity,” the Faith 2 Action and ReaganBook founder said today during her daily radio bulletin.

Phil Burress of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values is also worried that participating athletes will use the Gay Games to “force themselves on people”:

A pro-family activist says homosexual activists and their "Gay Games" will fail to turn Ohio into a mecca for homosexuals.

Beginning on Saturday, downtown Cleveland will host "Gay Games 9," which will run through August 16. Normally the event is held in more so-called "gay friendly" cities suchas Boston or Los Angeles.

Phil Burress, chairman of the Citizens for Community Values, notes that homosexuals are one percent of the population.

"And so there are going to be a lot of people in Cleveland who are not going to like what's happening," he says. "But this is typical of their behavior, to force themselves on people."

Burress says there have been negative reactions to the "Gay Games," including from Muslim car drivers who refused to drive with advertising that promotes the games.

Burress believes many people will keep their distance from the so-called "Gay Games."

Dave Daubenmire: 'The Most Dangerous Lifestyle In America Today Is Homosexual Behavior'

"Coach" Dave Daubenmire dedicated today's "News With Views" broadcast to explaining that liberals are the "real science deniers" because they refuse to acknowledge that "the most dangerous lifestyle in America today is homosexual behavior."

Daubenmire wanted to know why, since liberals are always urging people to live healthier lives, they refuse to take a stand against homosexuality.

"Why do the science deniers deny the medical consequences of what homosexual acts do," he asked, "not only to the person but to the amount of money it costs all of society? How many people would be alive today if the AIDS virus was identified as to what it was and what the causes were back at the very beginning?"

Right Wing Round-Up - 8/14/14

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 8/14/14

  • Bryan Fischer has a simple solution to the crisis in Iraq: just kill the leader of ISIS. Gee, why didn't anybody ever think of that before?
  • Once again, FRC prays against gay marriage: "Pray that each member of the 6th Circuit Court will uphold voters in these states, their constitutional amendments, the natural law and the Law of God when they rule. When this matter reaches them, may the U.S. Supreme Court reject the idea that a right to same-sex marriage can be found in the U.S. Constitution and that it overrides the will of the people."
  • Laurie Higgins warns against gender neutral bathrooms: "Their ultimate goal is not to have these special single-stall restrooms. Biological males who wish they were females want to use the female restroom. And they want to compel everyone to participate in a fiction."
  • James Robison says America has one choice: "We can live in freedom under God or in bondage under any other source, which amounts to a modern-day Pharaoh."
  • Mat Staver says that President Obama is now targeting churches but that "with God’s help and the faithful prayers of His people, we can turn back the destruction of our culture by anti-Christian forces. Please help advance the mobilization efforts of pastors and patriots now – in advance of the 2014 elections."

Alex McFarland: 'Psychologically Destructive' Homosexuality Creates Problems In LGBT Community, Not Homophobia

On James Dobson’s “Family Talk” radio program earlier this week, Religious Right pundit Alex McFarland disputed claims that high rates of depression, suicide, and self-abuse among gay people are connected to internalized homophobia.

“Here in America, we’re told ad infinitum that depression and psychiatric illness among professed homosexuals is due to our culture of homophobia,” he said. “It’s our fault when homosexual people have mental stress.”

Furious that anyone could possibly link anti-gay activism to anti-gay bigotry, McFarland concluded that, once again, the problems lie within gays themselves: “Along with what I believe is spiritually destructive behavior and physically destructive behavior, homosexuality is psychologically destructive behavior.”

Thankfully, ex-gay activist Anne Paulk was also on the air to supplement McFarland’s wisdom with an “unscientific survey” she conducted among gay women on the causes of their own depression and poor mental health: “They didn’t even mention homophobia, their family of origin’s point of view, none of that. It was the breakup of a same-sex relationship that precipitated this sense of, ‘Oh, my life’s not worth living anymore.’”

Paulk lamented that the media routinely points the finger at anti-gay intolerance for issues many LGBT people face, yet failed to conduct their own research proving that homophobia is actually a manufactured problem. Clearly, these four accredited studies just can’t stand up to the solidity of Paulk’s “unscientific survey.”  

WorldNetDaily Can't Get Their Obama Conspiracy Theories Straight

It has been quite amusing to watch right-wing activists label President Obama a pawn of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, even though the governments of the two countries are longtime regional rivals, while also being a sympathizer (or follower) of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is despised by the Saudis and the Iranian-aligned Assad regime of Syria.

So how could Obama somehow be a pawn of all of these groups despite their very different interests, rivalries, and goals?

Let right-wing activist Clare Lopez explain — or at least try to explain — in a WorldNetDaily interview yesterday about how it all makes sense:

But why, WND asked, would Obama have threatened to bomb Assad last summer for his alleged use of chemical weapons, if he wanted to see Iran’s influence spread?

That brought her to what she described as the biggest problem in the big picture, the influence of the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood over the U.S. government.

Lopez said Obama only threatened Assad, “because of the infiltration of his government by the Muslim Brotherhood, who are clamoring in his ear at the National Security Council, ‘Do something, do something.’”

They wanted help for their Muslim Brotherhood brothers. But the Middle East and Syria is designated for Iran, so what’s Obama gonna do? He decided on half and half. Give the Muslim Brotherhood Sunnis a little bit of aid, but not enough to overturn Assad. Make the Brotherhood happy. But don’t overturn Assad. And, at the same time, back and support Iran to be the hegemon.

Lopez said, in addition to infiltrating the administration, the Brotherhood has established influence over many branches of the federal government over the last few decades.

So there you have it: Obama wants to overthrow the Assad regime to please his anti-Assad puppet masters, but doesn’t want to try too hard in order to please Iran.

Everybody wins, or in this case, loses.

Tony Perkins: Obama Using Common Core To 'Attack Religious Values And Freedoms'

Tony Perkins today emailed members of the Family Research Council a conspiratorial message on the supposed dangers of Common Core, or as he calls it, “Obamacore.”

He warns that Common Core is pushing “attacks on religious values and freedoms” and using “propaganda” to ensure that “children are indoctrinated with a liberal ideology that celebrates sexual perversion, worships the creation rather than the Creator, all at the expense of academic achievement and our nation’s Christian heritage.”

We wonder if Mike Huckabee, a close ally of the FRC leader and a top figure in the Religious Right, is aware that Common Core is a liberal, anti-Christian plot, as Huckabee joined other GOP figures in calling on states to adopt the Common Core standards.

In just a few short weeks, millions of American students will head back to school. You should be very concerned about the spreading, hidden nightmare facing them in school today: public schools, private, religious, even home schools.

I'm not talking about bullies, playground predators, or school violence; I'm referring to . . .

The morally corrupt federal takeover of education called Common Core -- or as I prefer to call it -- OBAMACORE.

Common Core was originally an effort by the National Governors Association (NGA) to create national standards and tests to unify what children are taught in school. These standards were adopted by 45 states. Seems harmless enough, right? Wrong!

Since it's been hijacked by the Obama administration, Common Core has all the earmarks of the President's other power grabs: attacks on religious values and freedoms; central control; secrecy; skyrocketing costs; and catastrophic ineptitude.

It essentially takes away the rights of parents and local communities to direct their children's education and puts it under the control of an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. Obamacore can -- and must -- be stopped!

Yes, stopped. Family Research Council (FRC) needs your help to advance our plan to expose and derail this disaster for our children!

If Obamacore is allowed to take control of America's educational system, I foresee a nation where children are indoctrinated with a liberal ideology that celebrates sexual perversion, worships the creation rather than the Creator, all at the expense of academic achievement and our nation's Christian heritage.

All indications are that the standards imposed by Obamacore will actually hamper education rather than improve it.

Obamacore opens education to even more propaganda in class than we are experiencing today. Its "one-size-fits-all" approach not only eliminates more advanced material, but also makes it difficult for teachers to teach students individually. Typical of other liberal programs, rather than raise up underperformers, Obamacore will lower standards of higher-performing states in order to "level the playing field."

The only way to save American education is for parents to take back the reins of control. That's why FRC has made it a top priority to work state by state and in Congress to save local education from the federal control lurking behind Obamacore.

• We have started a special coalition headed by nationally recognized educational and legal expert, Sarah Perry.

• FRC is providing conservative legislators at the federal and state levels, school administrators, teachers, and parents with key research that conclusively proves that this federal takeover will do more harm than good.

FRC helps give elected officials the information they need to build a compelling case with their colleagues to dismantle Obamacore, or at the state level, opt out.

Needless to say, the time to act is short and the costs of opposing Obamacore are mounting quickly.

No one will be exempt.

The future of America's children is at stake. As Christian citizens, we must never relinquish the education of our children to the federal government, which already has an abysmal track record wherever it has inserted itself.

In the past, parents concerned about what is being taught in the public schools could always resort to private schools or home schooling. Not anymore! The Obamacore standards will impact charter schools, parochial schools, and even parents who teach their children at home. Join with FRC to stop Washington radicals from taking over American education.

Bryan Fischer Says Black Community Must Be Outraged That Obama 'Just Doesn't Seem To Care' About Them

When President Obama dared to share this thoughts and concerns following events like the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates or the murder of Trayvon Martin, the near universal response from the Right was to blast him for supposedly forcing himself into the situation and exacerbating racial tensions.

But in the case of the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, the response from the Right seems to be to blast Obama for not having spoken out sooner and more forcefully, with Bryan Fischer declaring today that Obama seems to think that his presidency is nothing more than a game of "Sim City" in which he doesn't care about the people who are hurt by his complete and utter disinterest because there is not an ounce of humanity within him.

The black community, Fischer asserted, must be especially disgusted that Obama "just doesn't seem to care" about them.

"Here's the first black president," he said, "the black community had so much hope. A post-racial president, he's going to heal all of these racial divisions. Here is a black president who seems blissfully unconcerned that a largely black community is going up in flames. He has to be dragged to the podium after three days and riots to say a word about the situation. And so it would seem to me that they would have a hard time not thinking, look, this is a president, despite his skin color, despite the fact that he may identify with us ethnically, he just doesn't seem to care":

Rick Wiles: Maybe Obama Works For The CIA… Or Great Britain… Or Russia… Or Saudi Arabia

Rick Wiles is pretty sure that President Obama is a “foreign plant” who was put in office by Saudi Arabia in order to destroy America. But maybe it wasn’t Saudi Arabia after all, as yesterday on “Trunews,” Wiles and right-wing documentary filmmaker Joel Gilbert wondered if President Obama — along with his entire family — secretly works for the CIA, Great Britain, or Russia, or maybe all three, who knows!

“This guy, he works for somebody,” Wiles insisted.

Wiles and Gilbert did agree that progressives view President Obama as God.

“When the leader of Heaven on Earth is God on Earth, anything he says is automatically true so that’s why he’s not questioned by most of the media and most people and you just accept whatever he says and report on it. It’s the same as the times of the Soviet Union or Mao, anything they say is simply reported without question, and that was the phenomenon with Obama,” Gilbert explained.

Later in the broadcast, Wiles returned to his original conspiracy theory that Obama is a secret Islamist: “He’s clearly been placed here by some mysterious power, I personally have come to the conclusion that he is a covert jihadist, I believe that what this man is practicing is jihad.”

Dinesh D'Souza's 'America' - The Book Is Not Better Than The Movie

This week Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine the World Without Her” is sitting at the top of the New York Times “nonfiction” bestseller list. Earlier this month, the movie version crossed the $14 million dollar mark, which moved it into six place overall for earnings by a political “documentary.”

But D’Souza is not just out to make money, of course. At a June screening of “America,” right-wing strategist Ralph Reed called D’Souza “a national treasure for our cause.” D’Souza’s last movie, “2016: Obama’s America,” was designed to keep Barack Obama from being elected.  “America” is an attempt to prevent Hillary Clinton from being elected in 2016, wrapped in an attack on the progressive movement.

At a time when corporate power and profits are at record highs, “America” the movie argues that America the country is being led down the road to national “suicide” and socialist tyranny in a plan that was conceived by organizer Saul Alinsky and is being carried out by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Central to this long-term leftist scheme to bring about American decline has been an effort to convince Americans to be ashamed of the country’s history so that they will support a reduced role for America in the world.

In the movie, D’Souza sets out to refute progressive “indictments against America: We stole the country from the Native Americans, we stole the labor of the African Americans, we took half of Mexico in the Mexican War. Today our foreign policy and free market system are forms of theft.” D’Souza says this “new story of American shame” is “not just an attack on the one percent. It’s an attack on all of us. We are a nation of immigrants and settlers and we are the ones accused of these crimes.” 

D’Souza interviews some leftists and liberals as foils, including Noam Chomsky, Ward Churchill, and Michael Eric Dyson, and turns to Alexis de Tocqueville, writing more than 150 years ago, as a “more reliable” source. De Tocqueville understood, D’Souza says, that slavery and the treatment of Native Americans were nothing unique to America, but reflected a universal “conquest ethic.” Throughout history, he says, wealth was built by conquest and theft. But America is uniquely based on a different idea – the idea of acquiring wealth not by taking it from someone else but through innovation, entrepreneurship and trade.

In the process of taking on these progressive “indictments” of American history, D’Souza essentially tells Native Americans, African Americans, and Mexican Americans that in the big picture they really have nothing to complain about, and could be successful if they were just willing to work rather than spending all their time complaining.

D’Souza is proud of himself for being willing to take on racial taboos, which he calls “the enemies of history and truth.” His point seems to be that African Americans were not uniquely abused by slavery and so they should stop thinking the country owes them something. Yes, he says, enslavement was theft of life and labor. But Irish people were also sold into indentured servitude. And some free blacks also owned slaves. Slave-owning founders should not be viewed as hypocrites but as pragmatists who had to accept slavery as the price of creating the U.S. And besides, slavery is part of the “universal conquest ethic” but “what’s uniquely American is the fighting of a great war to end it.”

The movie ignores Jim Crow, but tells the story of Madam C.J. Walker, an African American woman who was born just after the Civil War and who became wealthy by building a successful business in the early 20th Century. In the movie, an actress playing Walker lectures workers about freedom and opportunity and hard work. Of course, the movie does not mention her support for the NAACP or her active involvement in its anti-lynching campaigns. D’Souza claims she is left out of history because her success “confounds the shaming narrative.”

D’Souza also interviews Star Parker, a familiar figure at right-wing conferences, whose I-used-to-be-lazy-and-on-welfare shtick suggests that it is only an unwillingness to work hard that keeps people from being successful. In remarks made after the screening, D’Souza said nonwhite immigrants are doing better than African Americans because the latter have adopted a strategy of “agitate, agitate, agitate” rather than “work, work, work.”

In the movie, D’Souza portrays American foreign policy and global capitalism as fundamentally noble. So why are progressives out to destroy America and its place in the world?

The answer is Saul Alinsky. “America” portrays Alinsky as the ruthless mastermind of a plot to bring socialism to America, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as his equally ruthless acolytes. Hillary Clinton turned down a job offer from Alinsky after she graduated from college because she had more nefarious plans. “While Alinsky wanted the radicals to pressure the government, Hillary wanted the radicals to become the government,” D’Souza says. Why shame people from the outside when you can intimidate them from the inside? “Hillary figured it out,” says D’Souza, “Obama is now carrying it out.”

D’Souza wraps up the movie with a disjointed section on the surveillance state. D’Souza says the government is gathering information on all Americans so that it can target political opponents, the way he says the Obama administration has targeted conservatives through the IRS and other agencies. Not very convincingly, he portrays his recent prosecution for violating campaign finance laws – he has pleaded to a felony and faces sentencing in September – as part of this ideological warfare.

All of which is a long way of saying the movie is a jumbled, self-indulgent, right-wing mess, aside from the slanted take on American history. Critics have not been kind to “America,” which has a 9% rating from movie review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. Rolling Stone’s Peter Travers put the movie in the “Scum Bucket,” calling D’Souza a “lunatic.”

But plenty of good books have been made into mediocre movies, right? At the screening, D’Souza described the book as the “intellectual spine” of the movie, and said it had been hard to fully communicate all of the book’s ideas and make the movie entertaining.

So, if the book any better? Sadly, no. If anything, D’Souza’s polemics are even more ridiculous and incendiary when he has the space to spell them out. For example, “Today’s progressivism is less indebted to Marx than it is to Lenin.”

D’Souza’s take on race and civil rights is particularly noteworthy given events in Missouri that have focused national attention on the unequal treatment of people of color by police and the justice system.

D’Souza says the Civil Rights movement was hardly revolutionary because racism was already on the decline after World War II.  Government-enforced segregation was bad, he acknowledges, because it represented “a triumph of government regulation over the free market.” But private discrimination is not theft and should not have been banned, he says, writing, “Private employers should no more be forced to hire employees than employees should be forced to work for employers against their will.”

“Somewhat weirdly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not merely outlaw discrimination by the government; it also outlawed most forms of private discrimination. While I consider these restrictions on the private sphere to be unwise and unnecessary, they are also understandable.”

D’Souza says the election of Barack Obama, the existence of affirmative action programs, and changing attitudes toward racial intermarriage are all evidence of the continuing decline in racism in America.

“Blacks know it too: ask blacks today to recall when they personally experienced racism—when for example someone called them ‘nigger’—and many are hard pressed to give a single example.”

So there’s no reason for whining about racism, or God forbid, reparations. “Racism today is not strong enough to prevent blacks or any other group from achieving its aspirations,” he says, adding a couple pages later,

“Progressives are still chasing the windmills of old-style racism, whipping the nation into a frenzy every time there is some obscure incident. The reason blacks remain so far behind whites, however, has very little to do with racism. It has to do with African American cultural backwardness.”

Here are some other highlights:

·         Obama: “Obama is simply part of a fifty-year scheme for the undoing and remaking of America,” he writes. So how did Obama get elected? “There is a one-word answer: slavery.”

·         Clinton: “If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016, the baton will have passed from one Alinskyite to another. In this case, Alinsky’s influence will have taken on a massive, almost unimaginable, importance. Obama will have had eight years to remake America, and Hillary will have another four or perhaps eight to complete the job. Together these two have the opportunity to largely undo the nation’s founding ideals.”

·         Native Americans: “The Indians were here first, but they were only sparsely and sporadically occupying the land. Consequently, many settlers regarded America as largely unoccupied, although the Indians surely disagreed with that perspective. Too bad the two groups could not amicably work out a way to share and benefit from this vast country.” Too bad? “They couldn’t, I believe, because both groups continued to espouse at least elements of the conquest ethic. Neither wished to be taken from, but both were willing to take when they had the power and the inclination to do so.” D’Souza has little sympathy for those “forlorn” Indians who “seem to prefer the joy of victimhood – and the exertions of claiming reparations of one sort or another –to the joy of entrepreneurial striving” – unlike those who are making money with casinos.

·         Immigration: “Immigration—legal and illegal—is the mechanism that today’s progressive organizers are counting on to undo the consequences of the Mexican War, and make the dream of Aztlan a reality.”

D’Souza asserts that “in no circumstance over the past hundred years” has America “stolen the wealth of any other country.” It’s not foreigners, but Americans, who are victimized by the federal government, “the biggest thief of all,” he writes. “In fact, progressives have turned a large body of Americans—basically, Democratic voters—into accessories of theft by convincing them that they are doing something just and moral by picking their fellow citizens’ pockets.”

With this line of reasoning, D’Souza aligns himself with the proponents of biblical economics, who argue that the government has no right to tax someone in order to alleviate someone else’s poverty.  “It does not promote the common good for the state to insist that successful people pay other people’s medical bills,” he says, describing Obamacare and progressive taxation as forms of theft. Transfer payments, unlike roads, do not constitute “general welfare.” Rather, “It constitutes a forcible extortion from one group and an unearned benefit to another.” The federal government is therefore not an instrument of justice but “an instrument of plunder.”

As in the movie, D’Souza takes time in the book to complain about his own prosecution (even though he admits having broken the law) and to suggest that the current surveillance state is part of the progressive movement’s strategy to impose totalitarianism: “Surveillance is simply the means to ensure that no one is safe.” He writes, “If progressives enforce their agenda through total control and compliance, America will truly be an evil empire, and it will be the right and duty of American citizens to organize once again, as in 1776, to overthrow it.” (Of course, aggressive surveillance began well before the Obama presidency, and progressives have been among those opposing government overreach.)

D’Souza denounces what he says is the progressive plan to diminish America’s influence globally, and closes the book with a warning about what the world might look like when its dominant force is not America but China, whose growing economic power is translating into greater military force and geopolitical influence. Similar concerns may be shared across the political spectrum, but having celebrated China’s adoption of market economics and economic growth, and having defended the export of American manufacturing jobs to cheap-labor China – trends that cannot be blamed on the Obama presidency –D’Souza does not make it clear what he would have American leaders do to forestall China’s rising influence. If he has a solution, he’s keeping it to himself.

The same can be said for the plight of unemployed and underemployed American workers. It doesn’t matter that you’re willing to work hard if there are no jobs to be had. And while D’Souza describes inequality as an essential element of the free market economy, he does not address the fact that in recent decades American workers have received almost none of the benefits of increasing productivity. His lectures to African Americans that their unwillingness to work hard is the only obstacle to their success ignore both evidence of continuing impacts of structural racism – reflected for example in exploitive mortgage underwriting – and the brutal consequences of the recent economic downturn on the already huge disparities of wealth between white and African American (and Latino) households.

The facile ideology of “America: Imagine the World Without Her” – both book and movie – should be no surprise. D’Souza’s entire career, beginning with his work at the right-wing Dartmouth Review and continuing through stints at the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, has been nurtured by far-right funders. His claim to being a “scholar” is grounded in his authorship of a series of polemical books, including “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” an exercise in ideological excess that even some conservative commentators found embarrassing. He champions traditional values, but in 2012 he resigned as president of the Christian King’s College after news that he had traveled with, and become engaged to, a woman who was separated from but still married to her husband.  Like his old friend Ann Coulter, D’Souza has learned that there is seemingly no end to the money to be made, and fame to be enjoyed, by repackaging and peddling ideological diatribes to the country’s right-wing activists.

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious