Anne Paulk Mocks 'Naive' Gays For Thinking God Won't Punish Them

Ex-gay activist Anne Paulk chatted today with Tim Wildmon and Ed Vitagliano of the American Family Association about her work promoting ex-gay therapy. Of course, neither Wildmon nor Vitagliano asked Paulk a single question about her ex-husband John Paulk, the one-time ex-gay leader and movement poster boy who recently recanted and said that he is still gay.

However, Paulk did hint at her former spouse’s announcement in the interview: “You’ve got an entire culture telling you that it’s not only okay to be gay, it’s okay to leave your opposite-gendered spouse and family and embrace a homosexual relationship, in fact we’ll celebrate you if you do that, you’ll be our hero. You’ve got an entire media system with Hollywood and everything else going, ‘Oh, gay people are the best.’”

Vitagliano added that “people who continually, serially have sex with other people, you lose the ability to bond with those people like— I’m not trying to be facetious — like duct tape that has been stuck and unstuck repeatedly, at some point it loses its ability to stick.”

Paulk also repeated her suggestion that sexually transmitted diseases represent divine punishment for same-sex relations.

“If you add in the commands of God and then if you violate them, there are consequences for them, natural consequences,” she said while discussing the transmission of HIV. “There are natural consequences to sin and if we hide our heads and pretend they are not there, they simply happen anyway, it’s just a matter of naivety on the part of the person who says, ‘Oh no, there’s nothing wrong with it.’ Of course there is, it bears witness in reality, which is Romans I.”

Heritage Scholar Claims Marriage Equality Bans 'Take Nothing Away From Anyone'

Heritage Foundation fellow Ryan T. Anderson, the anti-marriage-equality movement’s new young voice, claimed in an interview with the LDS Church-owned KSL TV in Salt Lake City, that banning marriage equality “take[s] nothing away from anyone” and “in no way infringes upon the liberty of any American to live and to love how they choose to.”

Anderson claims that in a “live and let live society,” LGBT people would not have marriage rights, but would receive marriage benefits from their employers if their employers chose.

In the interview, transcribed by the Deseret News, Anderson also explains that it’s easy for him to take emotion out of the marriage debate.

KSL: As you lay out your arguments, many people may be unmoved because it seems like you aren’t giving homosexuals the opportunity for true fulfillment, that society is justifying sacrificing some people’s fulfillment at the sake of others. What is your response to that?

RA: Marriage laws take nothing away from anyone. In all 50 states, two people of the same sex can live with each other and love each other. If their house of worship recognizes same-sex marriage, they can have a wedding there. If their business wants to give them marriage benefits, the business can. That’s very much a live and let live society. What’s at stake with the redefinition of marriage is: will the law redefine what marriage is and then force every community, every religious community, except for the four walls of a church, every business community, into treating the same-sex relationship as if it’s a marriage, even when it violates their beliefs about marriage? But defining marriage as between a man and a woman so that as many children as possible have a mother and a father in no way infringes upon the liberty of any American to live and to love how they choose to.

Flashback: Ben Carson Hailed Cliven Bundy And Militia Members As 'Outstanding People'

Like his fellow potential GOP presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, Ben Carson lauded Cliven Bundy and his militia movement supporters last week during their armed standoff with law enforcement in Nevada.

Speaking with Washington Times Radio on April 23 — shortly before the New York Times published Bundy’s notorious remarks about “the Negro” and slavery — Carson, who now writes for the Washington Times, said that Bundy and his supporters are “pretty outstanding people.”

Carson said he was “encouraged” by Bundy’s armed standoff, adding that military and CIA officials personally assured him that “they are not going to cooperate if there is ever any type of government takeover of the people’s rights, that to me is very encouraging and I saw that with those people there.”

“But the fact of the matter is if you look back through history, what our government is doing is not unprecedented by any stretch of the imagination, it always starts like this and freedom is not free and there may come a time when people have to actually stand up against the government,” Carson said. “I hope that doesn’t happen.”

Later, Carson was more explicit in suggesting that martial law is on the horizon in America.

When people see selective enforcement and they see favored groups, it breaks down their respect for the government and whatever the government says. This is something that we have to change soon because if we don’t, we’re going to see all kinds of anarchy.

All we have to do is go back and read about various nations who have been in this situation before and what’s happened. I think one of the key take-home points that must be emphasized, you look at some of the real tyrants in world history and how they have always wanted to restrict the rights of citizens to have weapons to defend themselves.

Look at what happens every time we have a mass murder in this country and the calls for all of these draconian ways of getting rid of weapons or what happens in New York where they expose the names of all the people that have weapons, these are draconian tactics that are against the Second Amendment right of people. Citizens should be able to own weapons, they should not have to report what weapons they own so that somebody can come and collect those weapons before they start their martial law. These things are common sense.

Eagle Forum Goes After Feminism & Diversity On Campus: 'College Is A Dangerous Place For Men'

Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly has never been a fan of the country’s institutes of higher education, which she sees as running rampant with the evils of feminism, Marxism and multiculturalism.

So it makes sense that this month’s edition of the Phyllis Schlafly Report is devoted entirely to “confronting campus radicals” including “feminist propaganda,” “multiculturalism” and “diversity.”

Most of Schlafly’s argument is summed up in a section called “Definition of ‘Politically Correct,’” which goes after multiculturalism, which she defines as “the false notion that Western Civilization is bad and every other group, whether civilized or not, is superior,” the notion that “having sex with anybody, anytime, is OK” and the practice of using B.C.E and C.E for dates, rather than B.C. and A.D.

Definition of 'Politically Correct'

The prevailing environment on most college campuses is what is called Political Correctness — in faculty bias, course content, visiting speakers, and organizations and events funded by student fees. Here are the principal tenets of the campus dogma known as Political Correctness:

1. Everything is political. All academic subjects must be seen through the prism of gender and race oppression, including history, literature, social relationships, and even private conversation. Most students encounter this immediately in their freshman English class. The writings of the DWEMs (Dead White European Males) have been censored out and replaced with Oppression Studies: writings by third-rate authors who whine about America’s oppressive society.

2. Victimology. Every group is entitled to claim minority status as victims except white males and Christians.

3. Multiculturalism. That’s a code word for the false notion that Western Civilization is bad and every other group, whether civilized or not, is superior.

4. Radical feminism. The entire world must be seen as one big conspiracy against women, and all men are guilty, both individually and as a group. Joking about this doctrine is not permitted; several colleges have even banned jokes. At Arizona State University, drama professor Jared Sakren was fired for producing Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew; Shakespeare is not Politically Correct.

5. Affirmative action. Reverse discrimination in admissions, grading, and employment for groups that proclaim their status as “victims” is not only mandatory, it is non-debatable.

6. Having sex with anybody, anytime, is OK and may not be criticized. Dating is out; “hooking up” is in. The social acceptance of pre-marital and homosexual sex and activism is non-debatable.

7. Tolerance. That’s a code word meaning tolerance for Politically Correct views, but not for the Politically Incorrect. Tolerance requires conformity to P.C. views, and hundreds of colleges have speech codes.

8. Christianity is Politically Incorrect. In some colleges, students are not permitted to turn in papers that identify historic dates as B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini), but must use B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era).

In a section titled “Feminist Propaganda In Textbooks,” Schlafly analyzes a women's and gender studies textbook she came across, which she asserts is “anti-marriage, anti-homemaker, pro-abortion, and pro-lesbian.”

The authors teach that the roles of male and female are merely learned behaviors and you can change to the other gender if you want to. Bisexuality and trans-sexuality are presented as normal. The textbook includes personal stories of adults who changed their gender. The book explains that heterosexuality exists only because of socially imposed stereotypes and homophobia, and has nothing to do with nature or morality. Students are encouraged to organize a National Coming Out Day on their campus.

A couple of articles in this textbook discuss that it is common for women to be bisexual. Of course, the book endorses abortion. The traditional model of the family is presented as only one of many forms of family. The book teaches that married women should be liberated from marriage and turn their children over to the state to be raised. This college textbook has a radical feminist political agenda: anti-marriage, anti-homemaker, pro-abortion, and pro-lesbian. College students should not waste their tuition dollars taking women’s studies courses.

In a section on diversity, Schlafly criticizes colleges for promoting the “offbeat concepts” of multiculturalism, which she insists is “just another college fad to put down Western civilization.”

It’s important for students to know before they go to college that diversity doesn’t mean allowing conservatives to speak on campus, either as visiting lecturers or professors, except for occasional tokenism. Diversity on college campuses doesn’t mean giving fair coverage to the ideas and achievements of Western civilization, but it does mean featuring a lot of offbeat concepts. It’s important for students to know that multiculturalism doesn’t mean tolerance and respect for all cultures. It’s just another college fad to put down Western civilization.

Schlafly, citing sexual assault prevention policies, concludes that “college is a dangerous place for men.”

'End Times' Show Blames UFO And Alien Sightings On Satan

On Saturday, right-wing broadcaster Jan Markell uncovered yet another purported sign of the End Times: UFO sightings.

Mark Hitchock, the author of many End Times-themed books such as Blood Moons Rising, The Late Great United States and The End, told Markell that “unexplainable” UFO sightings are “demonic forces that are passing themselves off as some kind of extraterrestrial beings to draw and distract people’s attention away from God.”

“I think it’s very possible that these kinds of things also could be setting people up for various kinds of delusion in the End Times,” Hitchock said. “Demonic materialization disguised as UFOs or extraterrestrials or whatever that may be I think is just another one of Satan’s tactics, especially as we draw nearer to the End Times to deceive and delude and frighten and confuse and mislead people. I really believe that’s going to maybe even be heightened as the End Times draw near.”

Klingenschmitt Can't Quite Bring Himself To Call For Obama's Overthrow

On Friday's "Pray In Jesus Name" program, "Dr. Chaps" Gordon Klingenschmitt responded to a report that, in 2010, President Obama had told the heads of the five military branches that they should resign if they could not support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell by seemingly almost calling for the military to overthrow Obama before apparently thinking better of it.

Saying that if he had been put in that situation, he would have resigned rather than "homosexualize the military," Klingenschmitt blasted the service chiefs "for compromising and submitting to [Obama's] tyranny."

"One of these days, the military ought to just rise up ...," Klingenschmitt said before suddenly pausing in the middle of the sentence. After thinking about what he was saying for a moment, Klingenschmitt seemed to realize where he was heading and decided to change direction, dismissively waving his hand and simply saying  "well, who knows what they ought to do":

Pat Robertson Likens Islam To Nazism, Again

Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson once again compared Islam to Nazism, telling a viewer that he shouldn’t “turn the other cheek” when it comes to the “rise of Islam.”

“What we’re looking at is a world system like the Nazis, and the Nazis thought of themselves as a religion, Communism thought of itself as a religion, but all have a concept of world domination that they’re going to put people in a bind and at the same time take them away from Jesus,” Robertson said, adding that “the greatest weapon against that kind of thing is the power of God and the spoken word.”

Glenn Grothman Tried To Remove Woman's Life Exception From Abortion Ban, Make Women Report 'Forcible Rape' Before Obtaining Care

Glenn Grothman, a Republican Wisconsin state senator who is currently running for the US House seat being vacated by Rep. Tom Petri, says he opposes equal pay measures because he thinks “money is more important for men,” believes women’s equality amounts to a “war on men,” and once tried to classify single parenting as child abuse.

It comes as no surprise, then, to learn that Grothman has some Todd-Akin-style anti-choice politics in his past. While serving as a state assemblyman in 1997, Grothman tried – and failed – to remove language from a “partial birth” abortion ban that would have granted an exception for abortions that would save the life of a pregnant woman. That is, Grothman wanted to make it a felony punishable by life in prison for a doctor to save a woman's life by performing a certain kind of abortion.

Grothman sponsored another, successful bill in 1996 that forced women seeking abortions to undergo a 24-hour waiting period, at the time among the longest in the country, and to require doctors to read an anti-choice script to women seeking abortions. When the state senate added a rape and incest exemption to the bill, Grothman arranged to limit the exemption to cases of what he called “forcible rape” and added language that forced the rape survivor to file a police report before being allowed to skip the waiting period.

David Callender of The Capital Times reported on April 25, 1997 that Wisconsin anti-choice groups were split over whether a bill making it a felony to perform a “partial birth” abortion should exempt procedures that would save a woman’s life. One anti-choice group claimed that the exception left “things wide open for the abortionists.” Grothman, then a state assemblyman, stepped in and said he would offer an amendment to remove the life-saving exception:

A bill to ban partial-birth abortions in Wisconsin is causing a major rift among many of the state's most active anti-abortion groups.

The bill would charge doctors with a Class A felony for performing the procedure, which could mean life in prison for offenders.

That's OK with both groups, but they are bitterly divided over an exemption in the bill that would allow doctors to perform the procedure in order to save the mother's life.

Groups such as Wisconsin Right to Life and the Wisconsin Catholic Conference support the exemption. They contend the exception is needed for the bill to pass constitutional muster as well as to insure political support among lawmakers who generally support abortion rights.

On Thursday, the Assembly Criminal Justice and Corrections Committee approved the bill -- with the exemption -- by a 12-2 vote, with the opposition coming from Madison Democratic Reps. Tammy Baldwin and David Travis. The bill will likely come before the Assembly during the May floor period.

But a leading anti-abortion lawmaker, Rep. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, said he will probably introduce an amendment that would delete the mother's life exception.

That deletion is being sought by Pro-Life Wisconsin, the Pro-Life Coalition, Collegians Activated to Liberate Life, and other conservative anti-abortion groups that identify themselves as ``100 percent pro-life.''

Without the change, "this bill leaves things wide open for the abortionists,'' said Dave Ostendorf, a spokesman for the Pro-Life Coalition.

True to his word, Grothman did offer an amendment that would remove the exemption that allowed a doctor to perform a “partial birth” abortion if it would save the life of the pregnant woman. Grothman’s amendment was eventually withdrawn without being put to a vote, but not before the extremism of his anti-choice positions was put on display.

In the other case, Grothman was the primary sponsor of a bill imposing a waiting period for women seeking an abortion and requiring abortion providers to read an anti-choice script to women seeking care, which at the time was one of the toughest in the nation. Grothman justified the bill by saying, “In many cases, women are looking for someone to talk them out of it,” and claiming that many women “have been badgered into [abortions] by their husbands and boyfriends,” according to the Wisconsin State Journal.

“The purpose of this bill is to be sensitive to women,'' he said, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

John Nichols of The Capital Times summarized the bill in July, 1995:

The so-called "Woman's Right to Know'' bill would, if passed, require a physician to meet in person twice with a woman seeking an abortion before performing the procedure. During those meetings, the doctor would be required to offer the woman an ultrasound reading, a fetal heartbeat report and photographs showing the development of a fetus.

The doctor would also be required to describe the abortion procedure in graphic detail and detail possible risks -- even though there is no requirement that the doctor inform the woman of the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term. The doctor would even have to provide information about risks not proven to exist.

The doctor would also have to conclude not only that the woman has been fully informed, but also that her decision to have the abortion is completely voluntary -- even though a physician would have no way of knowing whether this is so. Doctors could be punished legally for failing to do so.

The state assembly passed Grothman’s bill without excemptions for rape and incest survivors. Grothman claimed that in cases of incest, “These women above all, need this extra protection.” He added, “We're victimizing women not to provide them with information at this time," according to the La Crosse Tribune.

After the state senate added a rape and incest exemption to the bill, Grothman introduced an amendment limiting the exemption to cases of what he called “forcible rape” – excluding statutory rape of minors – and allowing rape survivors to skip the 24-hour waiting period only if they could confirm to the doctor that they had first filed a police report. The amendment added the same reporting requirement for pregnancy in the case of incest involving a minor, but added a two-hour waiting period.

The assembly approved the bill with Grothman’s changes and Gov. Tommy Thompson signed it.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted that an earlier Grothman amendment, which was initially passed, but then replaced once legislators realized what it contained, “would have required doctors to wait until a formal criminal complaint was filed before granting an abortion in cases of rape and incest” meaning that survivors would have to “wait weeks, instead of one day, to get an abortion.”

Steve King: Dreamers Joining Military Are 'Mercenaries,' Not 'Patriots'

In an interview with Iowa TV station KIMT last week, Republican Rep. Steve King implied that undocumented immigrants who wish to join the military are “mercenaries” rather than “patriots.”

King falsely stated that those who would be granted a path to citizenship for military service under the DREAM Act or two bills being considered in the House “lied to get into the military.” The proposals would grant a path to citizenship to some undocumented immigrants by allowing them to enlist openly.

“It isn’t that we have to hire mercenaries to put on a uniform,” King said. “We have always had an adequate number of American patriots to step up who are lawfully present in the United States, most of them citizens.”

King also attacked the Justice Department’s new clemency review guidelines that will consider clemency for nonviolent drug offenders serving sentences under laws that have now changed. The uneven application of draconian drug sentencing laws has disproportionately landed African Americans in jail, often for lengthy sentences, although whites and blacks use illegal drugs at roughly the same rates.

But King dismissed the reasoning for the clemency saying, “Now the administration is preparing to let out as many as 200,000 felons out of prison because he thinks that the law has been unfairly applied to certain demographic groups of people.” He also claimed that the move is unconstitutional, even though the Constitution explicitly grants the president the power to issue pardons.

“There will be crimes committed on the streets of this country in multiple ways and multiple times because of this decision,” King warned.

Christian Post Blogger: Keep Marijuana Illegal Because Pot Users Are Bound For Hell

Christian Post blogger Michael Bresciani believes lawmakers should maintain marijuana prohibition laws because he thinks the Book of Revelation condemns pot users to Hell.

Bresciani, who leads off his column by wondering if President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder “still smoke pot today,” laments that “America’s lads and lasses of lassitude can now legally suck the lingering fumes of today’s latrine of loose and licentious liberalism deeply into their lungs led on by a former ‘Choomer’ – the President of the United States.”

After citing a Bible verse that warns against excessive drinking to argue that God is “not interested in having entire nations soaked in psychotropic silliness, the munchies and long naps,” Bresciani claims that pot users are effectively “sorcerers” who “will not, cannot inherit the final kingdom of God.”

“The eternal destiny of the druggers’ and the ultimate loss of their living souls not being mentioned is more proof that the reprobation of the last days is going ahead at full steam,” Bresciani writes. “We who preach this gospel or give prophetic warnings can only reiterate that this is a day for Americans to wake up, not to go headlong into a drugged stupor. Our future depends on it.”

Barack Obama, once a proud member of the Choom Gang, is now off sucking in the last smoke of a nation in deep decline.

Obama stated that smoking pot is no better or worse than using alcohol, America’s lads and lasses of lassitude can now legally suck the lingering fumes of today’s latrine of loose and licentious liberalism deeply into their lungs led on by a former ‘Choomer’ – the President of the United States.

Do the Prez and his AG, Eric Holder, who both admitted to smoking weed, still smoke pot today? Probably not, but then — who knows? It doesn’t matter, the stage has been set, the example has been set, and the bad influence is bearing its fruit.



The comparison of pot use to alcohol use leads directly to the scriptural warning that being drunk or abusing alcohol is strictly forbidden; why would pot be any different? Using the inceptive verb “methusko” in the Greek language means the process of intoxication and can and is applied to any drug or alcoholic beverage use, not just the use of alcohol.

“And be not drunk (Methuo) with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit.” (Eph 5: 18)

Of course, trying to tell drinkers and pot heads that they should replace their habit with the infilling of God’s Holy Spirit would be about the same as asking spelunkers to become sky divers. Yet, we can safely assume that if God does not want the Christians to be abusers then he is also not interested in having entire nations soaked in psychotropic silliness, the munchies and long naps — on a daily basis.



The term drugs and drugger may not be found anywhere in scripture which emboldens the naysayers to think it has not been addressed. The mistake is that the bible uses the word sorcery in place of drug abuse.

The Greek word for drugs is “pharmakos” and it is used in the prophetic sense in the book of Revelation as a strong warning that those who use drugs will not, cannot inherit the final kingdom of God.

“But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” (Rev 21: 8)

Now, that this serious sin has been reduced to a social ‘issue’ we can watch an audience debating before an entire nation how the loss of a few brains is worth considering. The eternal destiny of the druggers’ and the ultimate loss of their living souls not being mentioned is more proof that the reprobation of the last days is going ahead at full steam.

We who preach this gospel or give prophetic warnings can only reiterate that this is a day for Americans to wake up, not to go headlong into a drugged stupor. Our future depends on it.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious