Robertson: 'When You See What [Gay People] Do, It's Not Very Pretty'

Today on the 700 Club, in response to a viewer who asked him why he considers homosexuality to be a sin, Pat Robertson said that while it is not a sin to be attracted to members of the same sex, it is sinful to express those attractions.

“I don’t want to get graphic, that guy on Duck Dynasty got graphic and it got a little disgusting, but when you see what they do, it’s not very pretty,” Robertson said.

He later suggested that sex is only allowed for procreation: “Nobody can ever produce a child through homosexual sex or lesbian sex, you cannot do it, this is for procreation and God has said that those who violate it, the land will vomit them out.”

Creech: Marriage Equality Rulings Signal God's 'Impending Judgment'

Pastor Mark Creech, head of the American Family Association-affiliated Christian Action League of North Carolina, warns in a Christian Post column published yesterday that federal court decisions striking down marriage equality bans in Kentucky and Virginia are a “sign of the times” signaling God’s “impending judgment” on America.

“This is not the fresh air of new freedom that we smell; it is the smoke of Sodom,” Creech writes.
“[T]hese new legal precedents will essentially destroy the nation if not reversed,” he adds. “America must reclaim its sexual sanity or lose its life.”

In an irony of ironies, during the week of Valentine's, two federal judges overturned the marriage protection amendments of Kentucky and Virginia, single-handedly redefining romance and marriage.

Such court decisions are certainly a sign of the times – a sign that we are heading for an impending judgment. This matter burdens my heart greatly nearly every day, sometimes with tears.

John Phillips, the great preacher and Bible commentator once said concerning the story of Sodom's celebration of homosexuality and its ultimate destruction, the first sign of the imminence of God's judgment is a judicial blindness – an inability to make right moral judgment. Citing in Genesis chapter 19 how the angelic visitors struck the perverse mob pressing on Lot's door with blindness, Phillips writes:

"'Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad,' said one of the ancient philosophers Not so! Whom God would destroy, He first makes blind. There comes a point in the rising tide of human wickedness, where God acts. In preparation [for His judgment] He blinds. The process takes various forms; in Pharaoh's case, God hardened his heart; in a coming day He will send a strong delusion so that they will believe 'the lie.' It is a dangerous thing to transgress with arrogance and persistence the laws of God."

The CP notes that Judge Heyburn said in the Kentucky case that the state "cannot impose a traditional or faith-based limitation upon a public right without a sufficient justification for it." Contrary to the erroneous assertions of many, the Constitution itself was based in the law of nature's God. The Scriptures declare the homosexual relationship "unnatural" (Romans 1:26-27), not in the sense of what is allegedly natural for the heterosexual and the homosexual, but natural in function.

Not only is the Constitution based in eternal verities that come from the Judeo-Christian ethic, but neither is there any legal basis for redefining marriage as a union of two people regardless of their gender. The Constitution provides no right to same-sex marriage and even the U.S. Supreme Court has declared the states have a pre-eminent duty for determining marriage's meaning. Nevertheless, radical activist federal judges are saying that whenever the state defines the institution as one man and one woman, it's discriminatory.

Well, if it's discriminatory to circumscribe marriage traditionally, then it's just another form of discrimination to deny marriage to polygamists, polyamorists, incestuous couples, and even pedophiles. Are we to believe such couplings often practiced by pagan cultures of the past, which were either incinerated or reduced to ruins for their sexual deviance by God's own hand, are somehow now in the best interest of our great Republic? Will we legally visit and remove the ban on these too? With rulings such as these, there is nothing to prevent it.

I suggest it is both madness and blindness. And these new legal precedents will essentially destroy the nation if not reversed. America must reclaim its sexual sanity or lose its life.

This is not the kind of judicial blindness represented by Justice with the blindfold over her eyes and the scales in her hand. Instead, it makes a mockery of it. This instead is a visionless Justice, groping her way through the darkness of peril.

Phillips writes, "If there is one thing that marks perversion, it is its deep-seated character. As a cancerous cell in a healthy body grows and spreads until it destroys the health of the whole body, so perverted lust entrenches itself and takes over the life." 

If this legal trend continues, we are now seeing the beginning of a new era – an era of judicial sightlessness – the beginning of our judgment as a nation – the start of our end.

This is not the fresh air of new freedom that we smell; it is the smoke of Sodom.

God save us.

Cruz: Obama Leading 'The Most Hostile To Traditional Marriage Administration This Country Has Ever Seen'

As Brian noted, Sen. Ted Cruz has been making the rounds of Religious Right radio programs lately, promoting his State Marriage Defense Act which would prohibit the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages in states where such marriages are illegal.  Yesterday, he appeared on "WallBuilders Live" to explain that such a law is necessary because President Obama is a dictator who is leading an effort to destroy the traditional definition of marriage throughout the nation:

One of the really sad trends we've seen in recent years has been a concerted attack on traditional marriage and that attack has manifested in the courts of law as advocacy groups have used litigation to tear down the marriage laws of states across this country. But it's also manifested from the federal government, with the Obama administration; this administration is the most hostile to traditional marriage administration this country has ever seen.

...

The Obama administration came into Utah and said 'we're not going to listen to what the US Supreme Court said. We, the federal government, are going to recognize marriages in the state of Utah and Utah state law explicitly does not recognize as marriage' and that was really, in my view, an abuse of power, using the federal government to try to force what the ultimate objective is of these advocates and their objective is to see traditional marriage laws torn down in all fifty states.

...

One of the really most troubling aspects of the Obama presidency has been this president's consistent pattern of lawlessness. That over and over again, we've never seen a president who, if he disagrees with a particular federal law, simply defies it, says he will not obey it and he will not enforce it ... This ought to trouble everybody, not just conservatives, not just Republicans, this ought to trouble Democrats, independents, and Libertarians, anyone who believes that the constitutional limitations on government protects our liberty should be deeply dismayed because if you have a president who can pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to ignore, then you no longer have a president and that's dangerous.

Pat Buchanan Touts 'Timeout On All Immigration,' Lauds European Far-Right As Model For US

Conservative pundit Pat Buchanan today praised a successful anti-immigration referendum in Switzerland as a boon for the larger “patriotic, populist and nationalist right.” He hailed “patriot parties” such as the National Front of France, Freedom Party of the Netherlands, Northern League of Italy and Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) of Belgium as models for right-wing activists in the US.

So what drives the far-right parties that Buchanan sees as inspirations?

Buchanan adds that Americans, taking a page from the Swiss, should “vote on a timeout on all immigration.”

Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front, is praising the “great courage” of the Swiss and has launched a petition drive to put a referendum on the ballot in France.

“Similar calls have come from the Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders, who is ahead in several recent polls; the Austrian Freedom Party, which showed strong gains in September’s national elections; the Danish People’s Party … and Sweden’s Democratic Party,” writes the Financial Times.



Though the parties of the patriotic, populist and nationalist right have been notoriously independent of one another, three months ago, Le Pen’s National Front and Wilders’ Freedom Party joined forces for the May elections. They have invited like-minded allies, such as Belgium’s Vlaams Belang and Italy’s Northern League, to join them.



First, there is the desire in each country involved to retain its own ethnic, cultural and national identity and to halt immigration that would alter its character, especially from the Islamic world and the Third World.

Second, there is the desire for sovereignty and liberty we Americans, above all, should understand. French, Dutch, British, Italians and Germans do not want to be ruled by the European Commission in Brussels any more than Thomas Jefferson’s generation wanted to be ruled by the king across the sea whom Jefferson described in his declaration in Philadelphia.

Third, unlike transnationalists and multiculturalists, the patriot parties hold their countries to be the largest entities to which they can give love and loyalty. And they do not worship at the altar of economic efficiency or measure happiness by the gross domestic product.



What has all this to do with us?

The ethnonationalism roiling Europe is not unique to Europe. It is roiling the world. And it is not absent from the hearts of Americans.

If the May elections for the European Parliament turn into a sweeping rejection of the EU, what is happening there will find an echo here.

How would Americans vote on a timeout on all immigration? How would Americans vote, if given a chance, to repudiate our entire political elite?

Schlafly: Resist Windsor Like Dred Scott

In an interview with WorldNetDaily today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly compared the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v Windsor to the infamous Dred Scott case, arguing that the landmark marriage equality decision should not be used as legal precedent.

Attacking President Obama for his “dictatorial attitude” and “judges who think they can do anything they want,” Schlafly urged Americans to simply ignore the legal precedent set by gay rights decisions. Schlafly recalled how Republicans in the 1850s argued that the Dred Scott decision shouldn’t set a binding legal precedent. “We should reject some of these laws that try to write into the Constitution gay marriage, which is not a constitutional right,” she said.

Unfortunately for Schlafly, courts across the country are already using Windsor as precedent for striking down anti-equality laws.

Well, I’m not really a predictor, but I think the American people have got to stop this dictatorial attitude of Obama, who thinks he can do anything by executive order and the judges who think they can do anything they want by calling it a ‘living Constitution.’

Remember Abraham Lincoln, when the courts handed down probably the worst decision in history, the Dred Scott case. And Lincoln was very good, he said, well, okay, we have to accept what the court did for poor old Dred Scott but we don’t have to accept it as the law of the land, we don’t have to accept it as binding in other cases, or else we will be subservient to ‘that imperial judiciary.’ He just rejected it. And we should reject some of these laws that try to write into the Constitution gay marriage, which is not a constitutional right.

Tancredo: GOP Will Win 2014 Election By Demanding Obama's Impeachment

Former Colorado congressman and Republicans gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo says he has found a “winning issue” for the GOP in the 2014 midterm elections: impeaching President Obama.

Writing in the far-right outlet WorldNetDaily, Tancredo claims that President Obama is “addicted to dictatorial behavior” and should face impeachment over his handling of Obamacare, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive order and Egypt’s political crisis, along with the phony IRS and Benghazi scandals.

Tancredo also likens the U.S under Obama to Nazi Germany: “How often do we hear from the left that Americans must not be ‘good Germans’ and remain silent in the face of oppressive laws? What about obedience to dictatorial edicts?”

The case for impeaching and removing President Obama grows stronger each week, as the president continues to violate the constitutional limits on his executive powers. His latest move in delaying the enforcement of yet another part of Obamacare should be article 20 in a bill of indictable offenses against the Constitution.

Citizens of all persuasions and parties should take encouragement in the fact that impeachment is fast becoming a respectable topic of debate even in the mainstream media. Of course, it is usually discussed with the disclaimer that it is a practical impossibility with Democrats in control of the Senate.

That Beltway conventional wisdom will soon change as Republican control of the Senate in 2015 becomes increasingly likely. But what Republicans do not yet understand is that the call for impeachment can be a winning issue in gaining control of the Senate in the November elections.

The rising tide of public opposition to Obamacare may soon be reinforced by a rising tide of demand for Obama’s removal before he can do any more damage to our liberties and our national security. In fact, the steady decline in Obama’s approval rating – now at about 39 percent – is due as much to the growing public awareness of his arrogant disregard for the Constitution as it is to disillusionment with Obamacare.

His actions in defiance of constitutional limits have become so numerous and brazen that chronicling them has become a cottage industry. The use of executive orders to circumvent Congress can no longer be called an occasional breach of faith. His abuse of power has become so frequent and brazen that it is becoming recognized as the trademark of his presidency. And that is why it must not be tolerated. How often do we hear from the left that Americans must not be “good Germans” and remain silent in the face of oppressive laws? What about obedience to dictatorial edicts?

Allowing such unconstitutional acts to be accepted as routine, as “just part of the Obama landscape,” is tantamount to accepting the inevitability of dictatorship in America. Citizens must oppose those actions vigorously and persistently, and that begins with a call for impeachment.



What makes the “Deferred Action” program so brazen an act outside his constitutional powers is that Congress had in December of 2011 voted to reject the so-called “Dream Act.” Thus, in this case, Obama did not act in the absence of congressional action, he acted in defiance of congressional action. Obama simply declared it the law of the land by unilateral, administrative decree. Contrary to media reports, he did not sign an executive order; he merely ordered it done by a junior appointee in the Department of Homeland Security.



It is time for the Republican leadership to conduct an “intervention” for a president who has become addicted to dictatorial behavior. Let’s stop being the enablers through silence for unconstitutional acts.

Cruz: Marriage Equality Is 'Heartbreaking'And A Threat To 'Constitutional Liberties'

Sen. Ted Cruz spoke with anti-gay talk show host Janet Mefferd yesterday in his continued effort to drum up support for his State Marriage Defense Act, which would undermine the rights of legally married same-sex couples. The Texas Republican told Mefferd that gay rights advocates hope to “subvert our democratic system” since they can’t “win an argument with the American people.”

“They just want to use brute power to force the states to take down marriage laws that have been in place for centuries and that’s inconsistent with the Constitution, it’s not right and it’s heartbreaking,” Cruz added.

Cruz also said that there is a huge “awakening” among Americans in opposition to marriage equality, despite polls showing that a majority of Americans favor of legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

“We are getting a tremendous outpouring from citizens across the country who are interested in standing up and defending marriage,” he said, warning that “our liberties” are “facing a real threat right now.”

“The courts and the Obama administration are both pressing this assault and they have had real success undermining marriage,” Cruz continued. “We are seeing millions of Americans who are recognizing that our constitutional liberties are being eroded.”

Cruz added that gay rights advocates go up against “the facts” and urged listeners to pray against marriage equality: “I think the most important thing your listeners can do is simply pray because we need a great deal of prayer because marriage is really being undermined by a concerted effort and it’s causing significant harm.”

Pussy Riot's American Detractors

Two members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot, who in 2012 were sentenced to two years in a penal colony for staging a protest in a cathedral, were detained again in Sochi, Russia, today. The two were released after a few hours, during which they say that they were beaten by police .

While people across the world have held up the Pussy Riot prosecution as an example of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s human rights abuses, the group has had some strong detractors in the American right. Just as with Russia’s recent crackdown on LGBT people, the ordeal of Pussy Riot has divided the American conservative movement. While Texas senator Ted Cruz, a Tea Party hero, last month criticized the prosecution of the band (whose name he nevertheless wouldn’t say), some of his allies on the Religious Right have cheered Putin on.

Shortly after the sentencing of Pussy Riot’s members, Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America – also a board member of the Rockford, Illinois-based World Congress of Families – wrote a column arguing that the band was guilty of “religious bigotry” and should “accept responsibility for [their] actions.” At a World Congress of Families event earlier this month, Crouse repeated that she had “no problem whatsoever” with the Pussy Riot prosecution.

The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), a close ally of the World Congress of Families that works to oppose gay rights and reproductive rights advances at the United Nations, has repeatedly defended the Pussy Riot prosecution on its blog, calling them a "small group of female hooligans" and comparing them to 1960s political "terrorists."

Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan also defended Putin’s actions against Pussy Riot, praising the Russian president for “trying to re-establish the Orthodox Church as the moral compass of the nation it had been for 1,000 years before Russia fell captive to the atheistic and pagan ideology of Marxism.”

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer praised Putin’s supposed protection of “Christian values,” calling him a “lion of Christianity.”

As we discuss in our “Globalizing Homophobia” report, the anti-gay part of Putin’s agenda has caught the imagination of American social conservatives, who have rallied to support the Russian president’s defense of “Christian values.”

Putin’s targeting of Pussy Riot is closely linked to this crackdown on gay rights that has been enthusiastically embraced by American conservatives. Both are part of a broader campaign to stir up popular sentiment against minority rights: On the very same day that the Russian parliament passed its infamous “homosexual propaganda” ban, it also responded to the Pussy Riot controversy by imposing an anti-blasphemy law that imposes a three-year prison sentence for “offending religious sensibilities.”

'Tell Me How You Fix A Network After That?'

A few weeks ago, Touré did a "Carnac the Magnificent" bit on MSNBC's "The Cycle" that Glenn Beck and his radio co-hosts, Pat Gray and Stu Burguiere declared to be "the worst TV bit ever." The bit was so bad, according to Beck and crew, that it was the sort of thing that literally destroys networks and was proof that the people involved were so desperate to hold on to their jobs that they didn't even have the courage to take a stand and refuse to embarrass themselves on national television.

"Tell me how you fix a network after that," Beck said of the MSNBC bit. "That network is worth nothing afterwards because you have to completely blow it up."

That was the position Beck, Grey, and Burguiere held on January 31, 2014 ... but that was before they learned that George Soros had reportedly been attacked by his ex-girlfriend; a story which has brought nothing but delight to Beck, so much so that last night's television broadcast featured this:

That is Gray dressed as Soros and Burgiere in drag as his ex-girlfriend being interviewed by Beck in a segment that was not at all embarrassingly painful to watch:

The good news is that this is not the sort of pathetic segment that will destroy Beck's network because, heck, if ten minutes of Beck playing with Wizard of Oz dolls can't do it, nothing can.

'Pro-Gay, Pro-Immigration Reform' Mega-Donor Steers Money To Anti-Gay, Anti-Immigrant Republicans

Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, emulating the Koch brothers, is creating another right-wing fundraising outlet to back Republican politicians. Politico reports today that Singer’s fundraising network, the American Opportunity Alliance, will “bring together some of the richest pro-business GOP donors in the country, several of whom share Singer’s support for gay rights, immigration reform and the state of Israel.”

While noting that Singer, whose son is gay, is trying to aid Republican politicians who support immigration reform and LGBT equality, Politico points out that many of the candidates he supports “have not necessarily signed on to Singer’s broad agenda,” and that Singer “has been supportive of the Club for Growth, the hard-right organization of economic conservatives, giving the group more than $850,000 over the years, including a $100,000 check last cycle.”

In the 2012 election, many of Club for Growth’s top recipients were among the GOP’s most vocal opponents of gay rights and immigration legislation.

Club for Growth spent over $5.5 million on behalf of Ted Cruz in his upset victory in the Texas GOP primary, catapulting the nihilistic, Tea Party crusader into the U.S. Senate. Several House Republicans blamed Cruz for sinking immigration reform legislation, and he is now championing anti-gay legislation and spouting off harsh denunciations of gay rights.

The group is also a major supporter of Rep. Steve King (R-IA), the point man for the anti-immigrant movement, best known for his comments about how undocumented young people are drug traffickers with “calves the size of cantaloupes” and his comparison of immigration to terrorism and the Holocaust.

King also has a horrendous record on gay rights: He claimed same-sex marriage would take children away from their parents and force them to be “raised in warehouses”; likened gay people to unicorns and leprechauns; warned gay marriage would lead to socialism and called on gay people to stay in the closet.

The Club for Growth also is also a major cheerleader for Georgia congressman and Senate candidate Paul Broun, who believes that immigration reform is part of a ploy to doom America and “destroy our Constitution.” Broun also introduced a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and said “he opposes health insurance covering sex-change or hair-transplant procedures because he personally likes ‘being a boy.’”

One former Republican congressman told the conservative Washington Times that the Club’s “priority is to invariably go with any conservative, anti-gay, pro-life Republican they can find” and “endorse how the Christian coalition groups do.” The group also steered money to a leading anti-gay group.

Singer is also tied to the Koch brothers’ fundraising network, which has donated handsomely to anti-gay candidates and groups such as Concerned Women for America, which even defends the Ugandan anti-gay law.

It is hard to reconcile Singer’s personal support for gay rights and immigration reform with his sizeable financial support for candidates who oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians and reform efforts.

Singer’s strong backing of not only organizations like the Club for Growth but also the House GOP leadership — which refuses to even allow House members to vote on immigration reform measures or gay rights bills such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) — shows that Singer seems perfectly comfortable with propping up politicians who are working against the causes of LGBT equality and immigrant rights as long as they advance his “hardcore conservative” economic agenda.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious