David Barton: Pro-Choice Candidates Will Take Away Your Property And Guns

On his “Wallbuilders Live” program yesterday, David Barton offered a handy guide to voters who are concerned about whether their elected officials respect “natural law”: ask them if they support abortion rights, and if they do, know that they will also take away your “property” and your “self-defense.”

“One of the easiest way to tell about natural law is to ask them where they are on abortion, because if they don’t respect the inalienable right to life, they do not respect any other inalienable right,” he advised.

“If you don’t respect the right to life,” he said, “you won’t respect property, you won’t respect protecting income, you’ll think you ought to tax people more rather than protect their income, you’ll take it from them, you won’t protect their property, you won’t protect their religious liberties, you won’t protect their right of self-defense, you’ll try to take their self-defense away from them.”

He added that even if the candidate is running for an office that has nothing to do with abortion policy, such as a school board, abortion should still be the litmus test.

Chris McDaniel: Toss Out Primary Votes Because Of A Poll My Campaign Conducted

Still refusing to concede his runoff primary defeat to Sen. Thad Cochran, Mississippi state senator Chris McDaniel took his case today to “Focal Point” with Bryan Fischer, the American Family Association spokesman who campaigned with and endorsed him.

McDaniel has challenged the results of the runoff and demanded the state GOP declare him to be the nominee.

While speaking with Fischer, McDaniel cited a completely unenforceable state law stipulating that “[n]o person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in which he participates.”

McDaniel said his campaign commissioned a poll of Mississippi Democrats and found that around 71 percent of those who voted in the GOP primary for Cochran did not intend to vote for him in the general election. Therefore, McDaniel says, people’s actual votes should be “invalidated” due to what his campaign’s poll says about their imaginary, future votes.

Michele Bachmann Wants To Impeach Obama, Then Calls Impeachment A Democratic Plot

In an appearance on “The Lars Larson Show” last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann repeated GOP talking points about how President Obama is somehow behind the Republican-led effort to impeach him.

Bachmann told Larson that Obama is trying to “egg” Republicans to impeach him in order to “help his electoral chances in the fall,” and then will go ahead and “take any lawless action that he wants to because he really doesn’t think that the Republicans will impeach him. He figures it’s an open field day and now is the time to get everything he wants with his radical agenda.”

Yes, it is Obama who is behind the calls coming from congressional Republicans to impeach him,  it’s not like any Republican members of Congress, such as Michele Bachmann, would ever suggest Republicans do something like that… except for when she suggested last month that the GOP should make the case for impeachment and rally voters behind it. In fact, Bachmann backed calls to impeach Obama as far back as 2011.

What our president has done is commit impeachable offenses. He has committed them in terms of his lawless acts, he has failed to execute the laws. He said that he would not uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a constitutionally passed law, he said he would not uphold that, as did his attorney general Eric Holder. That, as well as the President changing law like Obamacare, he writes with a press conference or with a Tweet or a Facebook or an announcement of one of his underlings, and then orders the executive branch to carry out his words rather than the law. That rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

Legally, do I believe our president has committed impeachable offenses? Yes I do. And I believe that our president is subject to impeachment. However, I agree with Andy McCarthy in that not only is impeachment a legal issue, it is even more so a political issue. The American people have to agree with and be behind and call for the president’s impeachment. Why do I say that? I say that because we the people who are elected in the United States Congress, we are here to be the voice of the people and we need to reflect what it is what the people are telling us.

There is a group of people who see that this president has committed an impeachable offense and are anxious for Congress to do something, but if you look at the overwhelming number of people, they just aren’t there yet and it is up to Congress to make the case and explain to the people why we have to impeach.

Jim Garlow: Same-Sex Marriages 'Violate' California Law 'Every Single Day'

California Religious Right leader Jim Garlow helped spearhead the campaign to pass Proposition 8, and doesn’t seem to be giving up on his effort to ban same-sex marriage in the state even after the anti-gay amendment was overturned by federal courts.

While speaking to Bryan Fischer yesterday, Garlow insisted that every same-sex marriage — or as he calls it, “so-called gay marriage” — is still a violation of the law.

He said that Proposition 8 “still appears in the [state] Constitution, though it is being violated every single day” by gay couples getting legally married in the state.

Conservative Pundit: Kerry Declined Ohio Recount To Hide Rampant 'Voter Fraud In Favor Of Democrats'

Mat Staver hosted Valencia College professor Mark Logas on his “Faith and Freedom” radio program this week to hype the issue of voter fraud, the exceedingly rare crime that is being used by conservatives to push wave upon wave of voter suppression measures.

Logas was full of horror stories supposedly illustrating an epidemic of voter fraud, somehow all favoring Democrats. He even went back in history to argue that John Kerry declined to contest his narrow loss in Ohio in 2004 because a recount would have “exposed the voter fraud in favor of Democrats that goes on in Ohio alone.”

Specifically, he claimed that in 2004, in Franklin County, Ohio, which includes the city of Columbus, “there were more people who voted than lived there.”

Stunningly, this is not true! Although conservative activists raised a fuss when the number of voter registrations in the country exceeded the number of eligible voters — the result of outdated voter rolls — in the end, 533,000 people cast ballots in Franklin County in 2004 , which was decidedly less than the county’s estimated 815,000 voting-age population at the time.

And in the end, there actually was a recount of Ohio’s votes in 2004, requested by the Green and Libertarian parties, that did not uncover rampant Democratic voter fraud but in fact showed that Kerry had won a few hundred more votes than originally reported.

Staver: And you look at the presidential election in Florida in 2000 with George W. Bush and Al Gore. I mean, obviously that was a presidential election that was decided in one state, and that was very, very close. Huge possibility of having complete voter fraud the other way.

Logas: I don’t know if you remember in 2004, John Kerry barely lost Ohio and there were a lot of Democrats, liberal Democrats, that said, ‘You’ve got to challenge it, you’ve got to do a recount in Ohio!’ and he says, ‘No, no, no, I’m not going to do that.’ Why? Because in Franklin County, Ohio, in 2004, there were more people who voted than lived there. Not registered voters, than lived in the entire Franklin County.

Staver: So 100-plus percent voting.

Logas: Exactly. So for them to have challenged that exposed the voter fraud in favor of Democrats that goes on in Ohio alone.

Staver: Unbelievable.

Jim Garlow: Obama 'Honors Radical Islam'

Jim Garlow accused President Obama yesterday of having a “devious” agenda to “honor those who have been enemies of freedom, enemies of truth and enemies of justice.”

In an interview with the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, the California-based pastor and Religious Right leader went on to claim that the president “honors Islam and radical Islam” and promotes hostility to Israel. He then argued that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people etymologically, that does not exist.”

Breaking News From NARTH: Ex-Gays On The March!

The ex-gay group NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, has launched a new group called the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity to promote a “new emphasis on educational outreach.” The announcement even features a “Breaking News” video, via Warren Throckmorton:

We imagine such “Breaking News” probably would have been more relevant when, say, NARTH official George Rekers was caught traveling with a male escort.

Throckmorton writes: “In any case, there appears to be nothing new under the sun or at NARTH. The name is new but the empty promises appear to be the same.”

WND: Archie Is 'Promoting Homosexuality To Children' Since Liberals 'Do Not Wish To Run Out Of New Flesh'

WorldNetDaily columnist Marisa Martin was not pleased to hear the news that the comic book character Archie will die taking a bullet for his gay best friend. In a column today, Martin fumes that the writer and publisher of the Archie series are probably gay themselves and are “promoting homosexuality to children.”

“Well, the liberal bigotry from Archie Comics is quite clear,” she writes. “Fabricating a homosexual hero merely to propagandize certain sexual proclivities via children’s comics … they haven’t made suitable adjectives for this yet.”

Martin also reminisces about the good ole days of when she was once “blissfully unaware of the mechanics of the act, although kids have probably been calling each other ‘faggot’ for centuries. Still most of us had no idea exactly what that entailed – maybe something like weird hair – and we somehow survived.”

The column even includes a Benghazi joke and warnings about the occult.

Progressive “Archie” publisher and co-CEO John Goldwater informed the AP of this himself: “We hope by showing how something so violent can happen to Archie, that we can – in some way – learn from him.”

It’s understandable that Archie’s publishers would want him bashed, because they obviously reached way beyond the public gullibility point. How many straight guys have a “gay” best friend, anyway? Perhaps an acquaintance or even a few friends, but Kevin and Archie discussing baseball and the comparative hotness of his babes?

Goldwater is a true believer, though. Aggressively pushing a type of “gay” hero worship, he claims to have accidentally stumbled across the story idea.



It’s clearly all about the sex, or an “openly gay” character wouldn’t be intrusively inserted into the storyline in Boy Scout country of Riverdale. Merits of homosexuality are never discussed in Goldwater’s interviews or the appropriateness of forcing it on children either. Why not have Archie die for Mother Teresa or a bus load of children? No political capital.



Whether Goldwater or Parent are “gay” themselves or just in some sort of mindless thralldom, I wouldn’t claim to know. Perhaps that’s where they sniff the money and power is blowing, as so many others in corporate America and the arts have before them.

This could be merely nauseating when created for actual persons they have a crush on or something. But fabricating a homosexual hero merely to propagandize certain sexual proclivities via children’s comics … they haven’t made suitable adjectives for this yet.

Promoting homosexuality to children hasn’t been enough, though – Archie had to die for “great” causes. Why waste it? The other cause is gun control.

Writing for The Wire, Kevin O’Keefe explains the politics. The shooter “is after Kevin … a married senator-elect with big anti-gun plans after another shooter targeted gay victims in the nearby Southport Mall. But it’s unclear whether this shooter is a pro-gun nut or an anti-gay bigot – or both.”

Well, the liberal bigotry from Archie Comics is quite clear.



I’ll probably be accused of being a conspiracy theorist for this, but the timing of these social campaigns is extraordinarily coincidental. Goldwater and his cronies launch his big change-the-kids campaign about 2008, the nascent Obama years. Talking points are identical: change, diversity, gun control and promotion of “gay” and alternative lifestyles, specifically in the military – oh, and zombie invasions.

I’m sure it’s a total coincidence, though, and Goldwater and his co-workers have never even heard of Obama or the Democratic national platform, nor are they useful lackeys in any way or have they been promised an ambassador’s position in Libya.



But another memory comes to mind – my shock at first learning about homosexuality, thanks to junior high sex-ed. I was blissfully unaware of the mechanics of the act, although kids have probably been calling each other “faggot” for centuries. Still most of us had no idea exactly what that entailed – maybe something like weird hair – and we somehow survived.

Thanks to public education, the tireless campaigning of Planned Parenthood and self-interested work of LGBT groups who do not wish to run out of new flesh, your children and grandchildren will be much more sexually sophisticated and curious. And Archie Comics promises to aid in this quest per their press releases.



Characters and plots over the last decade are all headed toward any dark, slippery, violent and occult story line they can find or commission. Sadly, the art with the horror/social engineering/drama series is actually much better, its sole redemptive quality.

Staver: Same-Sex Marriage Not A Right Because Homosexuality Used To Be A Crime

On a recent episode of Liberty Counsel’s “Faith and Freedom” radio program, Mat Staver argued that marriage equality can’t be a fundamental right because it’s not “deeply rooted in our history that you have to protect it,” and in fact “homosexuality has always been considered a crime against nature” and “something that’s been criminalized in our culture.”

A fundamental right in constitutional law has to either be specifically articulated in an enumeration of the Constitution — so a fundamental right would be freedom of speech, freedom of religion, so it’s part of the First Amendment, it’s actually absolutely articulated — and if it’s not articulated, the court has said it has to be deeply rooted in our history such that if you were to not protect it, it would literally unravel the concept of ordered liberty that is so essential to who we are and it is so deeply rooted in our history that you have to protect it. Parental rights can be something that falls within a category such as that.

Now, here, obviously, the issue is, did same-sex marriage become a fundamental right? And the answer clearly is no. If they really were honest, it’s no. And to the contrary, same-sex marriage or homosexuality has always been considered a crime against nature. Instead of protection deeply rooted, it’s been something that’s been criminalized in our culture, not just in America but around the world.

Later in the program Staver discussed the recent appeals court decision striking down Virginia’s marriage equality ban with Liberty University Law School’s Rena Lindevaldsen. Lindevaldsen argued that because the court acknowledged that people in same-sex relationships sometimes raise children from opposite-sex relationships that it undermined the argument that being gay is a fundamental characteristic. “Now they’re saying, by the way, we can have relationships with whoever we want to and we still get this right to marriage,” she lamented.

WorldNetDaily: 'Obama Turned 53 — Or Did He?'

The birther website WorldNetDaily is not exactly celebrating President Obama’s birthday this week, insisting that since his birth certificate is fake, he probably is lying about how old he is, too.

In his column yesterday, “Obama Turned 53 — Or Did He?,” Jack Cashill writes that Obama is not telling the truth about not only his birth place, but also about the year he was born.

The WorldNetDaily reporter cites a 2007 speech Obama delivered in Selma, Alabama, about how his “existence might not have been possible had it not been for some of the folks here today.” Obama was born in 1961, while the Selma to Montgomery march occurred in 1965. Of course, Obama’s remarks clearly referred to the progress of the Civil Rights Movement in general, but Cashill interprets his words literally to suggest that Obama inadvertently admitted that his birth certificate is phony.

In between the two convention speeches, the story of Obama’s birth was told more often than that of anyone’s since Jesus. No one, of course, told it as convincingly as Obama himself, especially in his game-saving Philadelphia speech, immodestly titled, “A More Perfect Union.”



“My very existence might not have been possible had it not been for some of the folks here today,” Obama told the civil rights veterans gathered to mark the events of “Bloody Sunday” in 1965.

“Something happened back here in Selma, Alabama,” Obama continued. This something “sent a shout across the ocean,” which inspired the Barack Sr., “herding goats” back in Kenya, to “set his sights a little higher.”

This same something also “worried folks in the White House” to the point that the “the Kennedys decided we’re going to do an airlift.”

As the saga continued, Barack Sr. got a ticket on the airlift and met Obama’s mother, a descendant of slave owners. “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge,” preached Obama.

“So they got together, and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don’t tell me I don’t have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don’t tell me I’m not coming home to Selma, Alabama.”

He didn’t, and he wasn’t. The correct answer is b) comically unanchored to reality.



Although born in Kansas, Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was not exactly Dorothy. She spent her formative years in the state of Washington, hanging with her homies in her school’s “anarchist alley.”

If there ever were a romance between Dunham and Barack Sr., it likely started at closing time and ended when Senior sobered up. In any case, Selma had nothing to do with Obama’s birth.

According to his birth certificate, Obama was born in 1961, four years before anyone outside of Alabama ever heard of the town.

By the time of the march, Barack Sr. had long since abandoned Ann and baby Barry for Harvard where he hooked up with another white American woman.

So preposterous was Obama’s Selma math – by his calculations, he could have been born no sooner than 1966 – that it made the birth certificate seem at least relatively believable. Maybe that was the intention all along.
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious