Russia 'Is A Freer Country Today Than We Are Here In America'

On yesterday's broadcast, End Times radio host Rick Wiles interviewed right-wing Christian activist Keith Davies (who is also the business partner of anti-Muslim activist Walid Shoebat) about "the ubiquitous evil which has assumed control over region and now even the highest echelons of American government."

As Davies explained, every member of Congress - every single one - has "sold out to the Devil," including even Senator Ted Cruz because he has refused to demand President Obama's imprisonment over the fact that his half-brother is supposedly a terrorist.

"This story on Malik Obama," Davies asserted, "would have any other other president in the past fifty years in chains by now."

The only reason that Obama hasn't been jailed, Wiles sighed, is because "there has been a coup d'etat in this country," but it doesn't come from Russia, as we had always been told it would, but rather it happened internally.

That prompted Davies to declare that "Russia is actually, in many ways, doing the right thing with Islam, they're doing the right thing with homosexuality, they won't tolerate homosexuals in their country," before concluding that "Russia today, in my opinion, is a freer country today than we are here in America":

Paranoia-Rama: Disney's Gay Demons, Obama's Nazi Plot & The Revenge Of The Illuminati

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.

The tired old arguments about gay recruitment seem to never die… but maybe our new Illuminati overlords will save folks like Rush Limbaugh from the gay menace.

5. Marriage Equality Makes Kids Gay

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council debated a caller on his radio show, Washington Watch, about why the FRC uses the phrase “natural marriage” since the definition of marriage has fluctuated over history and throughout different cultures.

Ultimately, Perkins tried to make the argument that marriage equality for same-sex couples will ultimately turn kids gay and make children obsessed with sex. The FRC head even worried that students will stop learning about science and reading comprehension as schools morph into sexual instruction laboratories.

That’s funny, because Education Weekly’s 2013 top three states for education — Maryland, Massachusetts and New York — have all legalized same-sex marriage.

4. The Illuminati Runs America

Newt Gingrich seems to be selling his email list to just about anybody, as sponsors seem to be out-competing each other to come up with the most bizarre and conspiratorial email to stir up fear among Gingrich fans.

Recent sponsor emails have purported to expose the “the 7 Deadly Drugs the U.S. Government can’t wait for you to swallow,” the missing gold in Fort Knox, a secret cancer cure hidden by the government and President Obama’s “secret mistress.”

One email, Media Matters points out, claims that the “Illuminati was behind every consequential wealth event of the past year,” warning that the group has “a deathgrip [sic] on America.” “Once on the brink of extinction, the secret society has powerfully re-emerged in the United States. In fact, it now wields more power than ever.”

3. Demons Run The Disney Channel

Gordon Klingenschmitt is worried that Disney is “recruiting our culture into an aberrant lifestyle” after the Disney Channell featured a same-sex couple on the show “Good Luck Charlie,” a move that incensed anti-gay activists.

According to Klingenschmitt, Disney’s attempt “to push a gay agenda upon your family” is the result of the “influence of demonic spirits who want to recruit your children into sin.”

2. Rush Limbaugh Fears Gay ‘Assault’ On Straight People

Right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh fears that “we’re fast approaching a world where it ain’t cool to be straight,” a revelation he made in response to defensive-end Michael Sam’s decision to come out of the closet.

The thrice-divorced talk show host was upset about Sam’s announcement, fearing that it will lead to a new gay tyranny where the heterosexual majority is “under assault by the 2-5 percent that are homosexual.”

1. Obama Turning America Into Nazi Germany

Right-wing darling Ben Carson is afraid that today’s “secular progressive movement” is doing “what Hitler was doing.” He even envies Vladimir Putin’s Russia for “gaining prestige and influence throughout the world” by “warming to religion,” unlike the “godless” United States.

Carson said that as a result of the work of the “extremely intolerant” left, Americans now “live in a Gestapo age.”

West: Norquist And Khan Helping 'Subvert' GOP And America 'From Within'

On Secure Freedom Radio this week, Frank Gaffney promoted a recent letter of support he received from a group of former officials including former congressman Allen West and Family Research Council vice president Jerry Boykin, backing him up in his ongoing feud with the American Conservative Union over whether or not prominent economic conservatives Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan are infiltrating the movement on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Gaffney discussed the letter with anti-Muslim activist Diana West, who agreed that Norquist and Khan represent “the successful civilization jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood,” adding that the United States and the conservative movement are being “subverted from within.”

We are undergoing civilizational change,” she warned, “And I think this letter is a very important step in our education, hopefully before it’s too late.”

Gaffney: Diana, does this underscore the concern that you’ve been expressing about what’s happening in our polity, that we’ve seen not only selective enforcement of the law taking place, but increasingly the successful civilization jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood taking advantage of it to take us down.

West: Absolutely. This is a very significant letter, and congratulations to you on receiving this endorsement, because this is so, so central to your own fight to warn America, to lay out the case that we are being suborned – that’s not the right word – subverted from within. And this becomes an extremely important marker, really a clarion call, to as Americans, as conservatives to examine these issues with a frank and logical eye.

We are being, in a sense, asked to dismantle our survival instincts, the instincts that tell us jihad, that Sharia, that material support, that all of these things that actually are connected are disconnected. And in some ways, much of what we’ve been undergoing is kind of this very notion of deconstructing our understanding of who we are, what we are, and how to stay that way, how to protect ourselves. By divorcing material support from jihad, from divorcing jihad from Sharia, from divorcing Sharia from Islam, from divorcing all of these things from any notion that we are undergoing civilizational change. And I think this letter is a very important step in our education, hopefully before it’s too late.

Glenn Beck Is Preparing For 'Success Beyond Our Wildest Imagination'

Glenn Beck has always been one for grandiose and narcissistic proclamations about the mind-blowing impact whatever he is working on at the moment will have upon humanity, such as last year when he was boldly declaring that his Independence Day show was "going to change the way we celebrate the Fourth of July" forever, even though it ended up being nothing more than a cloyingly maudlin stage show.

And he is at it again because, as he said the other day, God has big miracles planned for Beck's network; so much so that Beck has begun telling his wife to start planning for "success beyond our wild imagination" to come their way in the coming months.

"What is coming now is," Beck said today on his radio show, "I really believe, cultural changing. I think we are going to help change the culture." Hinting that the movie studios located on his property will soon be in production, Beck said he is not sure what is coming but "there's some things coming, I can feel it and it's going to be good, it's going to be really, really good":

Right-Wing 'Religious Freedom' Narrative Taken To Its Logical Extreme With Anti-Gay, Anti-Evolution Push

During the controversy over Hobby Lobby’s refusal to provide its employees with contraception insurance coverage and the outrage over Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s being denied his supposed constitutional right to appear on television, we witnessed conservative activists stretch the limits of the meaning of religious freedom.

As Justice Scalia put it in Employment Division v. Smith, such an exaggerated view of religious freedom serves “to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

The Religious Right has increasingly brought this religious freedom argument into debates over gay rights and the teaching of evolution.

In Missouri, Republican lawmakers contend that public school students should get an exemption from any class on evolution — the bedrock of modern biology — if they think learning about science amounts to an “infringement on people’s beliefs”:

Rep. Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville Republican, said forcing students to study the natural selection theories developed by Charles Darwin a century and a half ago can violate their religious faith.

“It’s an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs,” Brattin said.



“Even though what’s being taught is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion,” he said.

“The bill is one of several anti-evolution proposals that have already appeared in statehouses across the country,” TPM notes. “The proposals would allow for a range of approaches to evolution, from presenting a ‘debate’ over evolution versus creationism to requiring that local school boards allow intelligent design to be included in biology courses.”

And GOP lawmakers in at least three states are now citing religious freedom to claim that anti-gay discrimination that violates civil rights laws should not face any legal consequences.

Of course, many proponents of Jim Crow cited religious reasons to support segregation.

Now there is a push in states including Tennessee, Idaho and Kansas to allow for legally protected discrimination. Mark Joseph Stern writes of the Kansas bill:

When passed, the new law will allow any individual, group, or private business to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Private employers can continue to fire gay employees on account of their sexuality. Stores may deny gay couples goods and services because they are gay. Hotels can eject gay couples or deny them entry in the first place. Businesses that provide public accommodations—movie theaters, restaurants—can turn away gay couples at the door. And if a gay couple sues for discrimination, they won’t just lose; they’ll be forced to pay their opponent’s attorney’s fees. As I’ve noted before, anti-gay businesses might as well put out signs alerting gay people that their business isn’t welcome.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” This is nothing new, but the sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

It gets worse. The law’s advocates claim that it applies only to gay couples—but there’s no clear limiting principle in the text of the bill that would keep it from applying to gay individuals as well. A catch-all clause allows businesses and bureaucrats to discriminate against gay people so long as this discrimination is somehow “related to, orrelated to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.” (Emphases mine.) This subtle loophole is really just a blank check to discriminate: As long as an individual believes that his service is somehow linked to a gay union of any form, he can legally refuse his services. And since anyone who denies gays service is completely shielded from any charges, no one will ever have to prove that their particular form of discrimination fell within the four corners of the law.

Uganda President Reportedly To Sign Anti-Homosexuality Bill

A spokesman for Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has announced that the president will sign the country’s draconian “Anti-Homosexuality Bill.”

The legislation was crafted and passed with the help and support of US-based Religious Right activists who have increasingly focused on exporting their anti-gay views abroad.

American groups including the Family Research CouncilAmerican Family Association, Liberty Counsel have applauded Uganda’s anti-gay bill.

J. Lester Feder reports:

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has decided to sign a law imposing up to a lifetime jail sentence for homosexuality, announced government spokesman Ofwono Opondo via Twitter on Friday. NRM caucus spokeswoman Evelyn Anite confirmed Opondo’s announcement to BuzzFeed.



Museveni made his announcement during a retreat with members of his party, the National Resistance Movement, which has primarily focused on the party’s leadership as it prepares for elections in 2016. Museveni had been facing stiff pressure from his colleagues to accept the bill.

The deciding factor may have been that a panel of party members with medical backgrounds Museveni convened to study the cause of homosexuality presented a report concluding homosexuality is not an in-born trait. Museveni had told lawmakers he would sign the bill if “I have got confirmation from scientists that this condition is not genetic.”

The committee chairman told BuzzFeed on Thursday, “Speaking as a medical doctor … homosexuality is just deviant behavior. It can be learned, and it can be unlearned.”

Religious Right Leaders Rail Against Virginia Marriage Equality Decision

A federal judge’s decision to strike down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriagehas unsurprisingly stoked the ire of conservatives.

Family Research Council head Tony Perkins offered a typical rebuke of “activist judges” and the “arrogant judiciary,” and once again warned that marriage equality will in fact lead to unprecedented inequality.

It appears that we have yet another example of an arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgment of the General Assembly and 57 percent of Virginia voters. Our nation's judicial system has been infected by activist judges, which threaten the stability of our nation and the rule of law.

This ruling comes on the heels of Attorney General Mark Herring's refusal to fulfill his constitutional duty to defend the state's marriage law. His lawlessness is an insult to the voters of Virginia who rightfully expected elected officials to uphold the laws and constitution of the state, not attack them as Herring has done.

An arrogant judiciary is only one of the major consequences of the drive to redefine marriage. Increasingly, Americans are being forced to finance and celebrate unions that not only step on free speech and religious liberty but also deny children a mom and a dad. Rather than live-and-let-live, this court by redefining marriage will create a level of inequality that has never been seen in our country as people are forced to suppress or violate the basic teachings of their faith," concluded Perkins.

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel and Liberty University Law School, which is based in Virginia, said the judge must not have ever read the Constitution.

“This decision is outrageous and legally flawed. Judges would be well-served to read the U.S. Constitution and not invent or rewrite it,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The Constitution cannot be changed by the stroke of a judge’s pen, nor does it bow to a judge’s personal ideology. The overwhelming majority of Virginia voters who make up ‘we the people’ voted to affirm natural marriage. Same-sex marriage, as a policy matter, sends the message that children do not need moms and dads. There is ample evidence that children fair [sic] best when raised with a mother and a father. Same-sex marriage is not the equivalent of natural marriage. Judges should be careful to render decisions grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law. Otherwise, judges and courts will render themselves impotent when the people lose confidence in the judicial system,” Staver continued.

The Family Foundation of Virginia, meanwhile, blamed Valentine’s Day for the ruling, which the group says threatens “our entire social fabric.”

“The timing of this decision certainly calls into question Judge Wright Allen’s objectivity,” a Friday morning statement from the group stated. “This rushed release just prior to Valentine’s Day reeks of political show, making her ruling less a legal argument and more a press release. It’s disappointing that a federal judge would so blatantly expose her personal political agenda at the expense of not just marriage, but our entire social fabric.”



“Regardless of one’s stance on marriage, the people of Virginia were disenfranchised by this ruling as our voice and our vote that amended our Constitution have been rendered meaningless by a single federal judge with the assistance of our own Attorney General,” the Family Foundation statement read. “Protecting a timeless institution for the well-being of children was the will of the overwhelming majority of Virginians and this ruling denies this important state interest as it places the desires of adults over the outcomes of children.”

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown said the “terrible decision” must be reversed:

This is another example of an Obama-appointed judge twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose her own views of marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia. There is no right to same-sex 'marriage' in the United States constitution. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that states have the preeminent duty of defining marriage. The people of Virginia did just that in voting overwhelmingly to affirm marriage as the union of one man and woman. That decision should be respected by federal judges and we hope that the U.S. Supreme Court ends up reversing this terrible decision. This case also leaves a particular stench because of the unconscionable decision of Attorney General Mark Herring to not only abandon his sworn duty to defend the laws of the state, but to actually join the case against the very people he is duty-bound to represent.

Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation blasted the “imperious federal judiciary” and the “liberal state apparatus,” warning that they are trying “to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable” and “will force you to support homosexual marriage.”

The case, if it can be appealed must be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The problem is that appellate courts have to rule based on the record from the trial court. The record is the transcript of witnesses’ testimony and other evidence the trial judge heard.

With Virginia’s Attorney General refusing to defend the case, the case might not even be appealed and even if it is, the record may be very limited.

Once again, we see an imperious federal judiciary overruling the voters of a state to advance a social experiment that changes America from the nation that we know into something totally unrecognizable.

And with the striking down of this law, can the liberal state apparatus be far behind? That liberal state apparatus is the one that will force you to support homosexual marriage whether or not it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

Alan Keyes Wants Michele Bachmann To Lead Campaign To Impeach Obama

Alan Keyes claims that Rep. Michele Bachmann’s plan to sue President Obama doesn’t go far enough and may actually aid Obama’s “dictatorship.”

Instead, he wants the Tea Party darling -- who last year accused Obama of “committing impeachable offenses” -- to join his Jesus Christ-endorsed campaign to get congressional candidates to pledge to support the impeachment and removal of the president.

“Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment/removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise,” Keyes writes. “Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama's lawless, unconstitutional administration.”

One problem with his approach, however, is that Bachmann is not running for re-election.

Let's assume, for instance, that Bachmann and her colleagues succeed in passing the legislation they seek. (All right, it's unlikely given the fact that the Democrats presently control the U.S. Senate. But "for the sake of the argument," as they say, let's ignore that difficulty.) Let's further assume that their case gets to the Supreme Court, which issues an opinion supporting their view that the President's actions are unconstitutional.

What happens next? Perhaps Obama rolls over, bows to the Supreme Court, and retracts his executive orders. That might happen, or it might not. Let's say it doesn't happen. Instead, Obama rejects the Court's view. To support his stand, he argues that his actions are necessary in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare of the country.

Let's say he further argues that, by failing to pass laws essential for achieving those ends, Congress has endangered the nation, exacerbating a serious situation which, without his timely preventive measures, threatens to plunge the country into a dire state of national emergency. …

The problem is that the whole sequence of events would set a precedent for successful dictatorship that Obama (and the elitist faction he serves) would abuse for the remainder of his occupation of the White House. It would also directly confirm, for better or worse, the ultimate impotence of the judicial branch (especially when dealing with disputes between the other branches), which Hamilton's lucid thinking foreshadows.

Bachmann and her colleagues need to think this through. They need to ask themselves the key strategic question: If we succeed in getting a favorable opinion from the Supreme Court (which is no foregone conclusion) what do we do if Obama simply refuses, on constitutional grounds, to enforce it? … When you think it through, building these impeachment/removal majorities is the only constitutional way to "force" the executive to respect the Constitution. The Courts can't do it. And even the people can't do it, constitutionally, except at election time.

This is precisely the thinking that led me to propose the impeachment/removal strategy for the 2014 election. Instead of spinning their wheels in an ineffectual appeal to a judicial branch that is ultimately powerless to enforce its opinions, Bachmann and her colleagues should take the impeachment/removal pledge, and campaign as hard as they know how to get every like-minded Senator and Representative they can to do likewise. [emphasis his]

Combined with an energetic grassroots mobilization of voters demanding that candidates for either house of Congress take the pledge, their campaign would help to make the 2014 election an effective vote of no-confidence in Obama's lawless, unconstitutional administration. Instead of risking a precedent for ambitious, lawless dictatorship, it would set a precedent that restores government of, by, and for the people, through elected officials honestly pledged to represent them. Given the gravity of the present crisis, this would be nothing short of saving America's liberty, for us and our posterity. Will Bachmann and her colleagues rise to the occasion?

Kengor: People Aren't Mourning Shirley Temple's Death Because They're 'Too Obsessed With Miley Cyrus And Gay Marriage'

Paul Kengor is hoping to create a new faux-scandal surrounding Shirley Temple Black’s passing.

Writing in the perpetual-outrage-machine WorldNetDaily, Kengor asserts that Americans now ignore or actively dislike the child star-turned-ambassador because she didn’t “pole dance or ‘twerk,’” and now they refuse to mourn her appropriately.

“Our culture is too obsessed with Miley Cyrus and gay marriage to give proper recognition to [Temple Black],” Kengor writes, leaving us to wonder who exactly is criticizing the late actress.

I learned only yesterday that Shirley Temple, the iconic child actress, died earlier this week at age 85. Reports on her death were easy to miss. I went through my usual scan of various websites and saw nothing. I fortunately caught a buried “Shirley Temple, R.I.P.” by a writer at a political website.

I was dismayed by the sparse reaction to the loss of this woman who lived a great American life. Had Shirley Temple died 50 years ago, or even 30 years ago, the country would have stopped. People everywhere would have paused to give Temple her due. It would have been the lead in every newspaper.

But not today. Our culture is too obsessed with Miley Cyrus and gay marriage to give proper recognition to a woman who was one of the most acclaimed, respected, and even cherished Americans, a household name to children and adults alike.



In the 1934 classic, “Bright Eyes,” Shirley played a five-year-old who lost her father in an airplane crash and then lost her mother. She is comforted by loving people who would do anything for her, including her godfather, who is identified as just that. The godfather behaves like a true godfather. The movie includes constant, natural references to faith, never shying from words like God, Heaven, and even Jesus—verboten in Hollywood today.

Today’s sneering secular audiences would reflexively dismiss the film as Norman Rockwell-ish. To the contrary, the movie is hardly sugar-coated. Just when your heart is broken from the death of sweet Shirley’s dad, her mom is killed by a car while carrying a cake for Shirley on Christmas day.

That doesn’t remind me of any Norman Rockwell portrait I’ve seen.

What such cynics really mean is that the film isn’t sufficiently depraved for modern tastes. Shirley doesn’t pole dance or “twerk.” She doesn’t do a darling little strip tease for the boys while singing “Good Ship, Lollipop.” The references to God are not in vain or in the form of enlightening blasphemy. And the movie has a happy, not miserable, ending.

Come to think of it, maybe this isn’t a movie for modern audiences!

For 80 years, Shirley Temple’s bright eyes brightened the big screen. They reflected what was good and decent in this country. She embodied what made America great, and she brightened our lives in the process.

Cruz: 'Our Heart Weeps' Due To Marriage Equality Gains

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joined Family Research Council president Tony Perkins on Washington Watch yesterday to discuss his proposed State Marriage Defense Act, which as we explained earlier would “make it more difficult for married same-sex couples to receive legal recognition.”

Cruz said that the Obama administration’s support for LGBT equality represents an “abuse of power and lawlessness” and chided gay rights advocates for their “litigation approach.”

“Our heart weeps for the damage to traditional marriage that has been done,” Cruz said, warning that marriage is “under attack.”

“We need to stand up and defend traditional marriage and especially do everything we can to prevent the federal government from forcing a different definition of marriage that is contrary to the views to the citizens of each state.”

The Texas senator also agreed with Perkins’ assessment that and Obama administration officials want to “move quick[ly]” on marriage equality “because there will be pushback from the country when people see the consequences of this redefinition of marriage; they are trying to lock this in quickly hoping that it cannot be reversed.”

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious