Rick Santorum Is Angry The 'Academic Progressive Elitist Left' Wants To 'Ram All This Stuff Down Our Throat And We Just Take It'

After insisting that his false predictions about the Lawrence v. Texas decision actually came true, Rick Santorum told conservative radio host Lars Larson last week that it is time the right-wing “majority” demand schools require Bible instruction in the classroom.

“We are the majority, the people who believe in the [conservative] values you were just talking about are the majority of people in this country, but we’ve allowed the elite, the academic progressive elitist left to ram all this stuff down our throat and we just take it,” Santorum said. “We need to take it back. We need to say, why is the Bible not taught in schools? They’ll say, ‘oh Lars this is terrible.’ The Bible is the basis of Western Civilization.

Larson agreed, “I would do it, I would require it, I’d love to see that.”

“Right,” Santorum responded, before discussing how “we need to give parents control of the education system in this country.”

Rick Santorum Says His Bogus Lawrence V. Texas Predictions Came True

Rick Santorum last week told a conservative talk show host that his predictions about the ramifications of Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case that knocked down laws banning gay sex, have come true.

After host Lars Larson told the former presidential candidate that “the last several years have proved that you were absolutely right” on “homosexual issues,” Santorum said that “if you go back and look at the interviews I did when the Lawrence v. Texas case was decided and I said here are the consequences of what’s going to happen here, I said it in the next ten years and it was the next eight years or nine years.”

Santorum said following the Lawrence decision that “if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.”

Despite Santorum’s self-congratulatory remarks, bigamy, polygamy, and incest have not been legalized in the US, or in any of the states that have marriage equality laws for that matter.

He also told Larson that conservatives are losing their “religious liberty” and “the ability to disagree.”

Tom Tancredo Warns Obama Is 'More Dangerous Than Any Other Threat We Face As A Nation'

Tom Tancredo, the former Colorado congressman and current GOP candidate for governor, told a local Republican group last month that President Obama has become a “dictator-in-chief” and is “the most dangerous thing — he’s more dangerous than any other threat we face as a nation.”

“Barack Obama, I believe, is dedicated to destroying the America that I love,” he said, according to the Colorado Statesman. “He should have been impeached many times.”

Tancredo also hailed Cliven Bundy in the speech and said that if he was governor, he would side with anti-government activists.

If former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo wins the governorship, he intends to put Colorado at the center of a debate over sovereignty of states in the face of “over-reaching federal power,” the Republican candidate said this week.

“We are going to have to establish the whole idea of state’s rights, of the 10th Amendment,” Tancredo said at a meeting of the Jefferson County Republican Men’s Club on Monday in Wheat Ridge. “The fight is going to have to start somewhere. Let it be here, I firmly believe, because I am willing to do it. Not only willing, I am looking forward to it.”

The standoff in Nevada between the Bureau of Land Management and cattle rancher Cliven Bundy — the feds charge he owes years of unpaid grazing fees — is “a flashpoint” in the debate over state sovereignty, Tancredo said.

Although many of Bundy’s supporters distanced themselves from the rancher after his remarks about “the Negro” and slavery became public, Tancredo said the dispute raises important questions for governors about the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers to the states unless specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

If the feds try something similar in Colorado when he’s governor, Tancredo continued, “We will have one hell of a battle about that and I will use every single lever at my disposal to stop that.”



“We have a guy in the White House that I believe, and have seen it on many occasions, is the most dangerous thing — he’s more dangerous than any other threat we face as a nation,” Tancredo said. “Barack Obama, I believe, is dedicated to destroying the America that I love.”

Contending that Obama has “methodically shredded the Constitution,” Tancredo continued, “He should have been impeached. He should have been impeached many times.”



“If you don’t do something about it, it’s a horrible precedent for the next dictator-in-chief,” Tancredo said.

Religious Right Sees Opportunity In Supreme Court Prayer Ruling

Religious Right groups are celebrating yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling upholding sectarian prayer at official public meetings – like city council sessions – and narrowly defining what would amount to unconstitutional religious coercion of people attending. The case is Town of Greece v. Galloway.

Though divided on their reasoning, the Court’s five conservative Justices upheld a practice in which, month after month, year after year, town leaders reached out to Christians and Christians only to offer opening prayers at town meetings, prayers that were often quite sectarian in nature.  The very few exceptions were in response to this lawsuit.  Although town leaders said that members of other religions could lead the opening prayer if they asked to, they had hardly let that be widely known, and they continued to reach out only to Christians.

SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston characterized the Court’s ruling as “[s]topping just short of abandoning a historic barrier to religion in government activity.” Conservative and religious groups hostile to church-state separation are gushing over the ruling and hope it is a sign of more to come.

The Becket Fund signaled that it hopes yesterday’s decision will just be the first step in further dismantling rulings upholding church-state separation.  From Deputy General Counsel Eric Rassbach:

“The Court’s landmark decision today echoes the wisdom of the Founders. Not only did the Court uphold the centuries-old practice of legislative prayer, it also started the work of bringing the entire law of church and state onto a firmer foundation in the words of the Constitution.”

David Corman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the Town of Greece:

“Opening public meetings with prayer is a cherished freedom that the authors of the Constitution themselves practiced,” he said. “Speech censors should have no power to silence volunteers who pray for their communities just as the Founders did.”

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer celebrated the ruling as a “monster win” and said it was proof that “we are fighting a winnable war,” because the “Supreme Court has ruled that you can have sectarian prayers, prayers in the name of Jesus Christ, to open any legislative session, any lawmaking body – a county commission can do it, a city council can do it, a state government can do it.”  

Fischer he went on at great length endorsing Justice Clarence Thomas’s position that the First Amendment does not limit states’ constitutional right to, for example, declare the Southern Baptist Church to be the official state church and force people to support the church with taxes.  Fischer, in fact, called Thomas “a stud on the issue of religious liberty.” (Fischer says he wouldn’t personally support coercive state establishment, but he supports Thomas’s constitutional analysis, and says it should be applied to interpret that the federal government has no right to tell public schools whether and how prayer is permitted.)  Fischer is delighted that the Supreme Court’s majority decision discussed the fact that the Continental Congress opened with “emphatically Christian” prayer.

Gordon Klingenschmitt:

Hallelujah!  Today YOU helped score a VICTORY at the U.S. Supreme Court, reaching the pinnacle of seven years of work and prayer with The Pray In Jesus Name Project.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that it's OK for pastors to pray "in Jesus' name" at city council meetings. 

Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins:

"The court today has upheld our first and most fundamental freedom. The court has rejected the idea that as citizens we must check our faith at the entrance to the public square. We applaud the majority on the court for getting that right. This is an historic victory for all Americans of faith and for the common-sense reading of the Constitution itself. The Court's affirmation of the right of Americans to practice their faith in public life and the public square is a major win for the religious liberty we have always cherished.”

Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition called it a victory that would empower Religious Right activists to push elected officials to bring sectarian prayer into more official settings:

Reed also announced that, armed with today’s Supreme Court decision, Faith & Freedom Coalition would redouble its efforts to encourage opportunities for prayers offered at meetings by town boards, city councils, and county commissions nationwide.  The organization has in the past mobilized public support for local officials who have allowed such prayers at government meetings.

“Speech honoring God and invoking His blessing on our land should be welcomed, not treated with hostility,” said Reed.  “With today’s decision, the government officials that faith-based voters help to elect can provide a forum for such expressions without fear of being reversed by future courts.”

Concerned Women for America celebrated, saying the decision “lifts up the best in our country.” CWA President Penny Nance managed to slam what she said has been “a push to establish atheism as the official religion of our land” and claim that the Supreme Court’s ruling was a win for everyone, “even the staunchest atheists.”

Those who object to these practices do not seek to exercise their religious liberty; they merely feel hostile towards other people’s religious practices and seek to silence them. They seek to silence those with whom they disagree….

The Founders of this great nation benefited and relied heavily on prayer to seek the guidance they needed to establish the foundations of our nation. When the first Congress met on September 7, 1774, it began with an amazing prayer “in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.” No religious oppression or favoritism followed from that practice, only the blessings of freedom and liberty, including the freedom of religious thought, belief, or even non-belief.

Everyone wins, including the staunchest atheists, when we allow the free exercise of religion or non-religion according to a person’s conscience.

Fox News pundit Todd Starnes, who specializes in promoting fictitious threats to religious freedom, declared that “the Obama administration has been waging a war against people of the Christian faith,” somehow neglecting to mention that the Obama administration had actually weighed in on the side of the Town of Greece and its overwhelmingly Christian prayers.  Starnes said it is “always a good day when the anti-Christian folks get smacked down by the Supreme Court” but said the fact that it was a 5-4 decision should be a “wake-up call” for Americans that elections matter.

Gary Bauer made the same point:

Here's the good news: The Supreme Court today upheld public prayers, even Christian prayers, at government meetings in 5-to-4 decision.

But that is the bad news too! The free exercise of religion depends on just one vote….

Now a win is a win. But don't miss the fact that this victory for religious liberty was won by the narrowest of margins. One more liberal appointment and the Supreme Court could easily ban prayers before town council meetings and legislative sessions. If that were to happen, our Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto would surely be next.

Your vote at the ballot box has a direct impact on our federal courts. Federal judges, including those on the Supreme Court, are appointed (by the president) and confirmed (by the Senate) by the men and women we elect to public office. 

 

Phyllis Schlafly & Mallory Factor Lament That Single Women Lack 'Cultural Beliefs' For 'A Good And Productive Life'

Right-wing pundit and Fox News contributor Mallory Factor joined Phyllis Schlafly on Eagle Forum Live this weekend to discuss his new book on the history of the conservative movement, to which Schlafly contributed a chapter.

When a listener asked whether conservatives are winning or losing “our culture,” Factor replied that “we’re losing because government has grown so big and government has built up people’s dependency” to the extent that “they put aside their values” and “they even put aside God.”

This reminded Schlafly of the Obama campaign’s Life of Julia ad, which charted the importance of a number of federal programs for an average American woman as she moves through her education and career, building a family and retirement. “This woman lived her whole life from birth to Social Security and having a baby and everything, and the government is the only factor in her life,” despaired Schlafly. “She doesn’t have a husband.”

And because of that, she probably puts aside some of the cultural beliefs that are so necessary for a good and productive life,” Factor added.

Schlafly: Here’s a question that came in over the email. Do you think that conservative ideas are getting stronger or weaker in our culture? In other words, are we winning or are we losing? Or maybe I don’t want to hear the answer to that question!

Factor: I think that we’re losing. And we’re losing because government has grown so big and government has built up people’s dependency upon it that they put aside almost everything else. They put aside their values, they even put aside God for government because they are so dependent upon it. And we do this more and more and more.

Schlafly: Well, that was really the point of Obama’s little TV spot, ‘The Life of Julia’ that he put on before the election, where this woman lived her whole life from birth to Social Security and having a baby and everything, and the government is the only factor in her life. She doesn’t have a husband.

Factor: And because of that, she probably puts aside some of the cultural beliefs that are so necessary for a good and productive life.

Gordon Klingenschmitt Says Supporting ENDA Is 'Blasphemy' And 'Full Perversion'

Gordon Klingenschmitt, the right-wing pastor and exorcist turned Colorado GOP politician, has denounced a Republican congressman from his state who recently endorsed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

In an email on Sunday to members of his Pray In Jesus Name Project, Klingenschmitt accused Rep. Mike Coffman of embracing “full perversion” and committing “blasphemy” after the congressman said ENDA is a “workplace equivalent of the Golden Rule — do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”

Klingenschmitt added that ENDA will “expose” women and girls “to naked men” and demanded that House members “filibuster this bad ENDA bill,” even though the filibuster does not exist in the House.

He quotes Jesus. Did you catch that? Coffman quotes Jesus' golden rule, love your neighbor, as a reason to punish and persecute Christian employers and force them to share women's bathrooms with cross-dressing men. He thinks Jesus would command us to do that. Are you kidding me? That's blasphemy.



Obama has now gone to full perversion as a matter of policy. When violating the privacy rights of all women and little girls, exposing them to naked men with mental disorders who pretend and deceive themselves, he now requires we believe their deception with them.



For-profit business owners have NO religious exemptions, which will force Christians to choose: either quit your business or hire gays who may directly oppose the mission of your corporation. Owners of Bible publishers, Christian bookstores, Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby will no longer be permitted to operate a business that honors God and fulfills their owner's mission to promote godliness in the marketplace.

Let's petition all 435 Congressmen to OPPOSE and FILIBUSTER this bad ENDA bill.

Beck: 'There's A War On God'

On his television program last night, Glenn Beck reacted to the news that the Supreme Court had upheld the practice of delivering sectarian prayers at government meetings by wondering how we, as a nation, had even gotten to the point where this was up for debate, warning that America is just one Supreme Court justice away from completely losing the right to pray in public.

"There's a war on God," Beck warned, telling his audience that when future generations look back on the United States and wonder where it all went wrong, they will point to the vote held during the 2012 Democratic National Convention on whether to reinsert a reference to God and to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel into the official platform as "the turning point where nobody listened."

"I know this," Beck said, "going to war with God usually doesn't work out too well":

Pamela Geller, Joseph Farah Compare Obama-Supporting Jews To Nazi Appeasers

Anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller is outraged that the USC Shoah Foundation, a genocide history project founded by Steven Spielberg, is giving an award to President Obama at its upcoming “Ambassadors for Humanity” gala.

Geller, who believes Obama is “single-handedly paving the way for the next holocaust,” told WorldNetDaily that the award “is illustrative of the willful blindness of liberal Jews” who have “traded their religion” and “traded G-d (and their morality)” for political clout.

“Shame on Steve Spielberg for rendering ‘never again’ an empty slogan, devoid of meaning,” she said.

WND editor Joseph Farah, evangelist Ray Comfort and Laurie Cardoza Moore of the Christian Zionist group Proclaiming Justice to the Nations also denounced the USC Shoah Foundation, likening the group to Nazi appeasers.

“With all the work Steven Spielberg has done in increasing awareness of the Holocaust, and not just ‘Schindler’s List’ but his Shoah project as well, he just doesn’t get it. It’s astonishing,” she told WND.



Geller said the attitude “is illustrative of the willful blindness of liberal Jews.” “They have traded their religion for their politics. They have traded G-d (and their morality) for whomever is carrying the torch for human secularism. And now it is Obama,” she said.

She warned that Obama, through his action, or inaction, regarding Iran, is “single-handedly paving the way for the next holocaust.”



Geller said for the Jewish people, it’s “the late ’30s all over again.”

“Then too, the record of the establishment American Jews was shameful,” she said. “Then, too, Jewish leadership in America went along with the delusion that keeping the Jews out of Israel was the best course – because FDR said so. The American Jews went along then and they are going along with Obama now. Shame on Steve Speilberg [sic] for rendering ‘never again’ an empty slogan, devoid of meaning.”



Farah said no U.S. president since Israel was reborn in 1948 has been less of a friend to Israel or the Jewish people than Barack Obama.

“He seeks to redraw the nation’s borders in a way that would leave Israel unable to defend itself. He has sought to freeze building by Jews in and around Israel’s capital. He seeks a so-called peace agreement that would involve ethnic cleansing of Jews in a future Palestinian state. Obama is not operating in the spirit of Oscar Schindler. On the contrary, he is operating in the spirit of those who appeased Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. He is operating in the spirit of those who looked the other way as six million Jews were exterminated.”



Moore said that only are Spielberg’s comments “an insult to Jews around the world, but they are also an affront to the thousands of Christians and Muslims in the Middle East who are being slaughtered as a result of Obama’s failed foreign policy.”

“In giving this award to Obama, Spielberg and the Shoah Foundation have been shown to be both contemptible and irrelevant,” she said.

Evangelist Ray Comfort, whose projects include “180 The Movie,” said it’s “a tragedy beyond words that a man who produced ‘Schindler’s List,’ a producer who said ‘I ‘was put on this earth to tell the story of the Holocaust,’ would now honor a president that has done more than any other president to further the American holocaust of the killing of babies in the womb.”

BarbWire Warns LGBTQ Abbreviation Will Soon Include A 'Z' For 'Zoophilia'

John Biver, the political editor of Matt Barber’s BarbWire website , warns in a column today that marriage equality will lead to legal protections for bestiality and the letter Z (for “zoophilia”) being “added to the LGBTQIA (etc.) abbreviation.”

Biver bases his argument on law review article by a Cornell student which he admits he only read four pages of and has “no idea what his argument is.” The article in question is in fact devoted to strengthening laws against bestiality by arguing that the reasoning behind current laws doesn't withstand scrutiny and offering “a potentially new rationale for justifying bestiality prohibitions.”

But according to Biver, the article is proof that there will be “a future well-funded marriage ‘equality’ effort for zoophiliacs.”

One reader brought a 2012 article to our attention written by Antonio M. Haynes, a Cornell University law student: “’ Dog on Man’: Are Bestiality Laws Justifiable?” Just to be clear, I only read the first four pages so I have no idea what his argument is. It wasn’t easy getting that far — and those four pages are mostly filled with footnotes at the bottom of each page (which I skipped completely). Download it if you dare and see how much of it you can stomach.

To our basic and important questions:

  • How will society respond when zoophiliacs start clamoring for their “rights”?
  • How will society respond to After the Ball -type efforts to normalize zoophilia and demonize those who disapprove of it?
  • How will society respond to a future well-funded marriage “equality” effort for zoophiliacs.
  • If someone were to donate to an organization that prohibits hiring of zoophiliacs, will this donor be fired?
  • Will the expression of disapproval of zoophilia be deemed bullying or hate speech?
  • How will schools respond to requests to start pro-zoophilia clubs to support students who experience unwanted zoophilia feelings and who seek to come out of the zoophiliac closet? Will the Day of Silence expand to include zoophiliacs?
  • Will therapies to help minors change their unwanted zoophilia desires be banned?
  • Will “zoophiliac orientation” be added to enumerated anti-discrimination policies and laws?
  • Will the letter Z be added to the LGBTQIA (etc.) abbreviation?
  • Will we see prime time television programs and movies with lovable zoophilia-oriented characters?
  • Will wannabe zoophiliac journalists form professional journalism associations (such as this one) to monitor and exploit the Fourth Estate in the service of breaking down barriers and normalizing zoophilia?
  • Will zoophiliacs join “pride parades”?
  • Will loud and proud zoophiliacs “out” those who prefer to remain in the zoophiliac closet?

Up next we’ll take a look at another example of the ways people experience “intense sexual arousal to atypical objects, situations, or individuals.” If America is to be truly free, shouldn’t all sexcentric-identified individuals be treated equally under the law?

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/05/14

 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious