Ralph Reed: Social Issues Aren't Going Away, So GOP Needs To 'Stand And Fight' Against Gay Marriage And Abortion Rights

After delivering his remarks at CPAC, Ralph Reed sat down with the PolitiChicks to discuss the lack of attention given to social issues like gay marriage or abortion at the conference. Reed said it was unfortunate that these issues did not receive more attention not only at CPAC but from Republican candidates in general "because I think they're winning issues."

These sorts of social issues "never go away," Reed said, so any Republican running for office needs to just "plant your feet, stand and fight, and make it clear where you stand."

What is particularly upsetting to the GOP's right-wing base, Reed said, is that Democratic leaders like President Obama or Vice President Biden have no qualms about publicly declaring their support for marriage equality while "too many of our guys, they run for the tall grass even when the question comes up":

)

Kupelian: Republicans Should Impeach Obama If They Take Control Of Congress

WorldNetDaily managing editor David Kupelian yesterday urged Republicans to impeach and remove President Obama from office if they take control of the Senate and keep the House in the upcoming election.

Kupelian added that if Republicans don’t move to remove the president, then they should at least block all of Obama’s policies.

Speaking yesterday with American Family Association head Tim Wildmon — who has also called for Obama’s impeachment — Kupelian said that “we need to remove this guy or to stop what he’s doing as soon as possible. The next opportunity is in November and we’ll see what the Republicans and the Christians and the conservatives can do then.”

The best case scenario: If the Republicans were to A) take back the Senate and maintain the House, and B) really develop some real background and guts -- I’m not saying this will happen, I’m saying it is possible -- they could actually go so far as impeaching the president and removing him from office. This has happened before, this is America, it’s in the Constitution, it is legal and moral to do so. Or at the very least they could defund Obamacare, there are various things that they could do.

The media would attack them and say, ‘You are destroying the country,’ they can and will do that. They would simply have the courage to say, ‘You know what, the media, a branch of the mainstream media so-called, have become a wing of the Democrat Party [sic], they’re cheerleading section, we’re just going to have to weather all the unpopularity and do what’s right.’

Now if they don’t win that election, it’s just going to continue on for the next three years and the Obama people will do the best they can, with his pen and his phone, to bypass Congress and continue to so tie up and tangle up things that when he leaves office in 2017 that it will be too difficult to ever untangle, that’s part of what he’s doing, just tying things up. Putting judges into office when Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster, what was that for? It was so that they could get hard left, progressive judges into office so that when there are inevitable legal challenges over what Obama has done, these judges will back him up. It’s pretty sad. We need to remove this guy or to stop what he’s doing as soon as possible. The next opportunity is in November and we’ll see what the Republicans and the Christians and the conservatives can do then.

D'Souza: Obama's 'Optical Illusion' Tricked Voters Who Feared Electing 'An Angry Black Man'

Last week during CPAC, Dinesh D’Souza stopped by The Lars Larson Show and told the conservative commentator that President Obama was elected because “the American people, in a sense, fell for an optical illusion.”

He said that voters went with Obama because they didn’t want to make “an angry black man” who backed “racial reparations” the country’s first black president, not realizing that Obama is actually “more radical” than such a candidate because “he supports global reparations on a non-racial basis.”

Larson: How did we end up with a president who didn’t look out first and foremost for America’s best interests and the best interests of the people here, and somehow cast himself as, what, a president of the world?

D’Souza: What really happened Lars I think is this: the American people, in a sense, fell for an optical illusion. The American people were scared that our first black president would be, in a sense, you may say an angry black man, some sort of a radical who would be calling for racial reparations. And Obama didn’t do that and so people went ‘phew, he’s not like that, he’s going to be somebody who will look out for the country.’ What they didn’t realize was that although Obama doesn’t support racial reparations, he supports global reparations on a non-racial basis. So he is actually in a way more radical. But that was not seen by most people and is only becoming sadly apparent now.

D’Souza also warned that Hillary Clinton would fulfill Obama’s “radical” agenda if she follows him as president.

“My feeling is that Hillary is closer to Barack than she is to Bill,” D’Souza said. “Hillary was always the radical in that duo.”

“I think Obama may have intuited that if he’s going to remake America in the way that he said he was going to, he may have decided, ‘Eight years is not enough, if I had the Congress I might have been able to do it, I need sixteen years.’ So I wonder if in Obama’s mind he’s thinking, ‘If I give the baton to Hillary, will she run in the same direction that I’ve been running?’”

Reince Priebus Promises To Be 'As Strong On These Social Issues' As A Pastor 'On Sunday Morning'

In a conversation with conservative bloggers at CPAC last week, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus promised that he would be “as strong on these social issues” – including choice and marriage equality – as a pastor “on Sunday morning.”

In the wide-ranging conversation, audio of which was posted by LifeSiteNews, Priebus assured his audience that autopsy reports aside, the GOP will not moderate or shy away from its anti-choice or anti-gay stances…while at the same time saying he wasn’t going to be “walking around down the street” proclaiming his opposition to marriage equality.

He said that his attendance at the March for Life this year was a “wake-up call” that “maybe we need to start reminding people about the core positions of our party more.”

"We're a pro-life party and I'm not shying away from that at all," he added.

He also said that he tells pastors that “church can’t just be vanilla ice cream and cotton candy on Sunday morning either, and that there’s joint responsibility in talking about issues of faith.”

“I tell a lot of pastors sometimes, in groups like this, I say, ‘Listen, I got a deal for you. I’ll be as strong on these social issues as you’re willing to be on Sunday morning. How about that deal?’”

When an attendee asked him if he considers “opposition to gay marriage still to be a core party issue,” Priebus responded that it was but implied that Republicans should avoid talking about it to much.

“Yeah, I mean, we’re a party that believes that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman, that’s our party platform, it’s a position that I’ve never backed away from,” he said. “What I have said, though, is that we need to treat each other with grace and dignity and respect. And that’s not code language, it comes out of the New Testament. So there should be no confusion about where we stand.”

When the questioner asked if opposition to marriage equality was “something that you want to be reminding people of more,” Priebus answered: “Well, I mean, I’m not like walking around down the street, but if someone wants to ask me like you did, I didn’t dance for you. I mean, I answered the question head-on and very clear.”

Oliver North Thinks Obama Could Be Impeached For Benghazi Because 'Nobody Died In Iran-Contra'

Oliver North, the Reagan administration National Security Council staffer who became a conservative hero because of his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, said last week that President Obama could be impeached for his handling of issues including the Benghazi attack because unlike in Benghazi, “nobody died in Iran-Contra.”

North told Tim Constantine of the Tea Party News Network that the Reagan administration didn’t try to cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, a fact he might want to check with his own secretary from the time. He also urged House Speaker John Boehner to form a special committee on Benghazi. Right-wing activists have only increased their demands for a special committee after the House Republicans’ own reportamong othersdebunked conspiracy theories about the Obama administration’s handling of the attack.

“Tragically, this administration has gotten away with things that any other president would have been impeached for, there’s no doubt in my mind,” North said.

As Brian Powell of Media Matters notes, it is patently absurd to claim that no one died as a result of the Iran Contra scandal, “in which the Republican hero trafficked arms into the hands of a tyrannical Iranian government, negotiated with Hezbollah terrorists and funneled money and military equipment into the hands of violent revolutionaries in America’s own backyard.”

“The assertion -- that the Reagan administration’s felonious dealings with terrorists and terror-sponsoring nations didn’t lead to a single casualty -- is absurd to anyone with even the most elementary understanding of what Iran-Contra was or to anyone with access to the Internet,” Powell writes.

During Iran-Contra, top Reagan administration officials, at the behest of the president himself, funneledmoney to "contra" guerilla fighters in Nicaragua in direct violation of U.S. and international law. The contras, according to Human Rights Watch, "were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners." To claim that the U.S. funding did not lead to the deaths of innocents beggars belief.

In addition to supporting the deadly activities of the contras, Iran-Contra resulted in the deaths of three members of the Central Intelligence Agency when an American aircraft carrying equipment for the anti-government guerrillas was shot down over the Nicaraguan jungle.

On the other side of the arms deal, Reagan trafficked weapons, including hundreds of missiles, to anoppressive Iranian regime mired in a war with Iraq. No rational person could possibly believe that the delivery of so many weapons into the hands of a violent, war-torn government didn't result in numerous deaths.

Dana Rohrabacher Floats Impeaching Obama Over Immigration Reform

In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) railed against President Obama’s “unconstitutional approach” to immigration, warning that the president’s policies are undermining the Constitution and suggesting that Congress impeach him and remove him from office.

“We’ve got three years to get this guy out,” Rohrabacher said. “Hopefully he — well, let me put it this way, I think he probably has been engaged in these unconstitutional approaches that may make his own ability to stay in office a question.”

“But at the very least we need to make sure after three years we get a president who will set us back on the right path and we have a Congress, meaning a Senate and a House, that can stand unified and try to prevent the type of damage you have from an arrogant president who thinks he can enforce only the laws that he agrees with,” he added.

Rohrabacher said he was “outraged” by the president’s comments in a joint interview with Univision and Telemundo, where he said that eligible family members in “mixed status families” can participate and sign up for insurance plans through the health care reform law without the fear that it might endanger their family:

"For everybody out there who is in a mixed family, there is no sharing of the data from the health care plan into immigration services. You should feel confident that if somebody in your family is eligible you should sign up," he said.

The law bars anyone living in the U.S. illegally from purchasing health care on the exchanges or receiving tax credits. They are also not eligible for any federal programs such as Medicare or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The congressman claimed that this is evidence that Obama cares more about undocumented immigrants than US citizens: “We clearly have a president who is dedicated to the wellbeing of people who are here in our country illegally and instead of watching out for the interests of the American people. We have him watching out for the interests of foreign people who come here illegally.”

Rohrabacher also suggested that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy [PDF] that prevents the agency from using health care enrollment information to deport family members of enrollees may compromise national security much like in the lead-up to the September 11 attacks.

Concerned Women For America Drops Out Of World Congress of Families Moscow Summit

As we’ve been reporting, the American Religious Right has found itself in a tough spot following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, since many Religious Right leaders have not only praised Putin’s anti-gay, anti-choice policies but are planning to attend a World Congress of Families summit at the Kremlin later this year.

Now, one such group that previously praised Putin has announced that it will pull out of the Moscow summit. Buzzfeed reported yesterday that Concerned Women for America will no longer be participating in the World Congress of Families event because, as the group’s CEO Penny Nance said, “I don’t want to appear to be giving aid and comfort to Vladimir Putin.”

CWA’s choice is especially surprising because its senior fellow, Janice Shaw Crouse, is amember of the board of the World Congress of Families and has been a vocal defender of Putin’s social policies. Last month, Crouse even appeared at a press conference promoting the Moscow summit.

Now the question becomes whether other American groups will follow Nance’s lead. An organizing meeting for the event in October included Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family, Benjamin Bull of Alliance Defending Freedom, Justin Murff of the Christian Broadcasting Network and Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute.

A draft program for the event that was obtained by Buzzfeed includes speeches by ADF president Allan Sears, Focus president Jim Daly, Mike Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association, Brown, Ruse and Murff, among others.

In addition, the World Congress of Families receives funding from “partner organizations” including the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and Americans United for Life.

The World Congress of Families’ Larry Jacobs said at last month’s press conference that members of the U.S. Congress would also attend the event, though he would not specify which ones since he said their confirmations were not yet finalized. The draft program also accounts for speeches from unidentified members of Congress. to speak.

As we’ve noted, the planned summit is more than just a trip to Moscow. It’s being held at the Kremlin with funding from key Putin allies and will include a joint forum with Russia’s parliament. In addition, the World Congress of Families itself has been working to support Putin’s crackdown on LGBT rights in Russia, along with his push to keep Ukraine out of the European Union. Riling up hostility to gay rights, in particular, has become a powerful wedge issue for Russian-aligned, anti-EU activists in Ukraine.

Ruse articulated the apparent attitude of many American groups when he told Buzzfeed that although the Ukraine invasion “muddied the water,” he had not been concerned about working so closely with the Putin regime until now, “because the Russian government has been quite good on our issues.”

Nance is aware of the message that her group’s participation in the summit would send. Will anybody else follow her lead?

Daubenmire: 'You Cannot Separate The Sinner From His Sin'

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a phrase we have heard countless times from right-wing Christians attempting to pass off their anti-gay bigotry as an act of love. We have never quite understood how that was supposed to work and neither does "Coach" Dave Daubenmire who declared on his latest video commentary that the concept, while nice in principle, is pretty much nonsense.

"That isn't anywhere in Scripture," Daubenmire said of the trite phrase. "You cannot separate the sin from the person. The person becomes poisoned with the sin and for us to be able to say 'well, I love the sinner but I hate that sin," that just doesn't fly."

"Folks, you cannot separate those two things," he declared. "You cannot separate the sinner from his sin":

Farah: Jan Brewer Should 'Resign In Disgrace' For Vetoing Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

When Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed her state’s “right-to-discriminate” bill, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah was so upset that he said her decision would lead to the end of freedom.

Today, Farah writes that Brewer “should resign in disgrace,” warning that now “all of the freedoms we have known in the U.S. for 238 years could vanish overnight.”

Farah writes that opposition to the anti-gay segregation bill proves that “the left hates religion” and “hates God,” and is bent on eroding the “religious freedom, press freedom and free speech” by leading a “statist, socialist, anti-American political onslaught.”

Here’s the first problem: The left hates religion. It hates God. It doesn’t recognize any behavior as sinful, with the possible exception of voting Republican. To undermine all it hates, it pushes the political envelope. It divides people up into groups rather than recognizing all people as individuals made in the image of God. It then serves up special privileges for groups as a way of buying their votes.

Here’s the second problem: The left excoriates and vilifies its opponents when they take positions contrary to their own. They are labeled racists and homophobes and worse. Slowly but surely, they know some of their opponents will do almost anything to escape the ad hominem attacks and hateful labeling.

Here’s the third problem: Non-left politicians who should be counted on to do the right thing will cave on almost any issue under that kind of fire.

That’s what happened when Jan Brewer capitulated on the freedom of religion bill known as Senate Bill 1062, which offered clear protection for people who do not want to be coerced into actions or behavior that violates their moral and religious precepts.



So why was the left so threatened by this bill?

For the same reason they detest the Constitution’s protections of religious freedom, press freedom and free speech.

They don’t believe in liberty!

That’s why the First Amendment is really in danger in America today. We could lose it very quickly. That’s why the Second Amendment is constantly threatened and under siege by the left. That’s why, ultimately, all of the freedoms we have known in the U.S. for 238 years could vanish overnight unless Americans awaken quickly and completely and stop sleepwalking through life.



Jan Brewer surrendered to the lies, the insults and the deliberate distortions. She should resign in disgrace.



The Constitution is on life support because there are so few men and women with courage, principle and a sense of right and wrong in politics today in the Republican Party, which, sadly, represents the only hope of reversing the statist, socialist, anti-American political onslaught.

Right Wing Round-Up - 3/11/14

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious