How Glenn Beck's Conspiracy Theories Are Born

As we have noted before, one of the great ironies of Glenn Beck's The Blaze network is that it operates under the slogan "Truth Lives Here" when Beck himself is one of the most recklessly dishonest media voices in operation today.

And nothing better demonstrates this fact than his current obsession with the story, broken by the SPLC, of Ayo Kimathi, a Department of Homeland Security employee who runs a racist, anti-gay black nationalist website on the side where he openly proclaims that "we are going to have to kill a lot of whites."

That story is outrageous enough on its own, but for Beck it is just further proof of his theory that the Obama administration is seeking to foment a race war, and he is now tying this story to the on-going right-wing conspiracy claiming that the government is stockpiling weapons and ammunition for use against American citizens.

Despite the fact that both the original SPLC piece and Beck's own article report that "Kimathi is a small business specialist" with DHS, on his radio show today Beck baselessly proclaimed that Kimathi "was in charge of buying all of the bullets for the Department of Homeland Security."

"So the shortage of bullets that we have," Beck stated, "may very well be caused by this guy. The reason you don't have bullets is because this guy ... is in charge of all of the procurement of the bullets and the weapons for the Department of Homeland Security."

Kimathi's actual job, contrary to Beck's false claim, is as a "Small Business Specialist, who serves as a point of contact for private firms seeking agency-specific acquisition information" ... but Beck doesn't care about the truth at all, and instead is using this as further evidence that "our administration is in bed with very bad people":

Just keep this in mind the next time Beck starts to wonder why everyone calls him a crazed conspiracy theorist.

LaBarbera Praises Russia Gay Rights Speech Ban, Attacks Gay Refugees: 'We Have Enough As It Is'

While Peter LaBarbera insists that gay rights advocates intend to end freedom of speech, the Americans For Truth About Homosexuality leader is a big fan of Russia’s new law which criminalizes speech it considers “homosexual propaganda.” LaBarbera told VCY America’s Jim Schneider yesterday on Crosstalk that the law is simply a measure to protect Russian children from the “excesses of American homosexual activism.”

After defending the “propaganda” ban, LaBarbera said he is staunchly against any efforts to offer asylum to gay Russians who seek to leave the country, saying that there are too many gay activists in the US already:

We don’t want homosexual activists from across the world, we have enough in the United States as it is. This is just very shocking, what’s happened is America has become the decadent nation which is trying to export homosexuality across the world and some countries are saying no, we don’t want this perversion being celebrated in our country.

Don't Let The Right Wing Co-opt King

Washington, D.C. is gearing up for events commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington and Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. I will be among thousands of Americans gathering on the national mall this weekend to remember those marchers and to rededicate ourselves to their demand that the country make good on its promises of equality and opportunity for all.

The fact that politicians from across the political spectrum want to associate themselves with King is a big change. Fifty years ago, he was reviled as a Communist sympathizer trying to undermine what some said was God's design that the races live separately. March organizer Bayard Rustin was denounced by segregationist Strom Thurmond on the floor of the Senate for being a communist, draft-dodger, and homosexual. This year, Rustin will be posthumously awarded with the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

So it is a reflection of social progress that so many conservative Republican lawmakers and right-wing leaders try to wrap themselves in the moral authority of the civil rights movement. But it's also a reflection of cynical political posturing.

Right-wing leaders are fond of rhetorically embracing King's dream for an America in which children "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." Unfortunately, they often use the quote to justify their opposition to any policies that are designed to address the ongoing effects of racial discrimination.

Right-wing politicians shouldn't be allowed to get away with pretending to share King's moral high ground simply because legally mandated segregation is now unthinkable in America. There was so much more to King's - and the movement's - vision.

King was an advocate for government intervention in the economy to address poverty and economic inequality. He was a supporter of Planned Parenthood and women's right to choose.

He endorsed the 1960s Supreme Court decisions on church-state separation that Religious Right leaders denounce as attacks on faith and freedom. One of his most valued advisors, Bayard Rustin, was an openly gay man at a time when it was far more personally and politically dangerous to be so.

How many Republican leaders today will embrace that Martin Luther King?

It is true that a strong majority of congressional Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act. It is true that many of our civil rights advances were made with bipartisan support. But today many Republican leaders at the state level are pushing unfair voting laws that could keep millions of people away from the polls. And many not only cheered the Supreme Court's recent decision gutting the Voting Rights Act but moved immediately to put new voting restrictions in place.

Today's Republican leaders are also captive to the anti-government ideology fomented by the Tea Party and its right-wing backers. Let's remember that the official name of the event we are commemorating is the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Among the marchers' demands were a higher minimum wage and a "massive federal program" to provide unemployed people with decent paying jobs. Sounds like socialism!

Today's right-wing leaders say it's wrong to even pay attention to economic inequality. To Rick Santorum, just using the term "middle class" is Marxist.

We must not allow this historic anniversary to become a moment that perpetuates an ersatz, sanitized, co-opted version of King and the movement he led. Let's instead reclaim King's broadly progressive vision - for ourselves and for the history books.

Cross-posted from The Huffington Post.

Center for Marriage Policy Worries Lesbians Will Trick Gay Men Into Fathering Their Children And Become Their Slaves

David Usher of the Center for Marriage Policy is out with a new column, “Our last chance to save traditional marriage,” lamenting that the Defense of Marriage Act wasn’t properly defended at the Supreme Court because it was “never argued that gay marriage is unequal and unconstitutional.”

Usher argues that if same-sex marriage is legal then women will marry other women and have children with men “by pretending they are using birth control when they are not.” “Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages,” Usher writes, adding that women will also turn to the state for welfare benefits. Good heterosexual couples will be left “economically-disadvantaged” because they will be taxed to support the lesbian couples’ Big Government goodies.

But that’s not all: Usher then explains that gay men will have it the worst of all as they will be tricked into having sex with lesbians through “reproductive entrapment,” fathering their kids, and then paying child support to support them: “Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting ‘fathers’ by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved” to lesbian unions.

“Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been ‘redlined’ out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage,” Usher writes. “This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage.”

The ridiculous argument continues, warning that “discrimination against men” will operate “similarly to pre-civil-rights racism.”

Since gay men and lesbian women will be having a bunch of kids, “schools will be aggressively promoting lifestyles that kill or disable children and infect innocent women and babies with HIV,” not to mention an increase in violent crime.

Oh, and also gay marriage will bring about the end of America: “To dismantle marriage – the most important equal rights institution framed by the Founding Fathers – is to dismantle the Constitution, freedom, and the United States of America.”

U.S. Supreme court declared DOMA unconstitutional because defenders of heterosexual marriage never argued that gay marriage is unequal and unconstitutional. The Left screamed "equality" in every court in the nation. We never responded on the merits, were unable to state harm, and suffered an entirely preventable loss.



Why heterosexual marriage is exclusively constitutional

Heterosexual marriage is the only constitutional form of marriage because it is the only possible arrangement that automatically confers equal social, economic, and parental rights to all married men and women regardless of one's ability to naturally bear a child. Same-sex marriage immediately bifurcates these rights, destroying equality between men and women.



Class 1: Mother-mother marriages: The class of marriages having most advantageous rights is marriages between two women. When two women marry, it is a three-way contract among two women and the government. Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household. They are sexually liberated with boyfriends often cohabiting with them to provide additional undeclared income and human resources without worrying about what happens when they break up with their boyfriends.



Class 2: Heterosexual marriages. The second class of marriages is traditional marriages between men and women. Children of these marriages are almost always borne of the marriage and supported by husband and wife without governmental involvement. In these marriages, men and women have natural parental and economic rights, standing in society, and equal "gender power" before the law. Traditional marriages will be economically-disadvantaged compared to mother-mother marriages because they cannot draw large incomes from the welfare state and they will be taxed to support other marriages. They are treated in discriminatory fashion having to subsidize Class-1 and perhaps Class-3 entitlements (including ObamaCare) in their taxes.

Class 3: Male-Male marriages. Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting "fathers" by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages. The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).

Same-sex marriage is a multi-dimensional violation of 14th Amendment protections against sex discrimination. The 5th Amendment protection for life, liberty, and property without due process of law is structurally violated in cases of reproductive deception by women, regardless of marital status of the men involved.



Harm: The harm of same-sex marriage is substantial. All the problems of marriage-absence will be imported into the institution of bi-maternal marriage. Children raised in father-absence have between 400% and 1800% higher rates of problems such as illegitimacy, suicide, ADHD, incarceration and are far less likely to finish high school or succeed in the work force. When men are structurally excluded from marriage, the problem of violent de-socialized males will compound over time.



Medical science has documented the fact that homosexual behavior is a great health and social risk to everyone. There is no evidence that gay marriage reduces the extremely high rates of promiscuity commonly practiced by homosexuals and bisexuals. The Supreme Court ruling guarantees that schools will be aggressively promoting lifestyles that kill or disable children and infect innocent women and babies with HIV.



Illegitimacy and non-marriage are informal activities not warranting the constitutional protections and affirmations of marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a substitute for, or equivalent to heterosexual marriage because of the documented costs it will impose on the nation, businesses, and the taxpayers. It would be unconstitutional to broadly empower the welfare state to affirmatively "buy out" the institution of heterosexual marriage in the name of "gay equality."

If same-sex marriage is forced on America, it is an irreversible change at law. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us that illegitimacy would grow quickly and have profound adverse impact on marriage, budgets, crime, and the Nation. My prediction of harm is nothing more than a straight-line extension of Moynihan's prescient analysis, proven to be fully correct by fifty years of history. If legalized, economic advantage will still drive women's marital decisions, but many will choose to marry another woman (and the welfare state) instead of becoming a struggling single mother. Advantage alone will drive a much more aggressive and insidious welfare state that cannot be reigned in because same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected activity that by way of precedent cannot be withdrawn at a later date. This is far more dangerous than ObamaCare, abortion, capital punishment, or excessive gun regulations – which are reversible by legislatures and the courts.



Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been "redlined" out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage. This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage. This is one reason that the welfare state has been called a "plantation" by an increasingly large cohort of politicians and activists.



Progressives hope to establish an irreversible system of choice-based sex discrimination against men operating similarly to pre-civil-rights racism, when discrimination against blacks was commonplace with respect to property, political, and voting rights. Individuals cannot "choose" to red-line blacks out of the housing market. Individuals cannot "choose" an arrangement impressing blacks to support them with nothing in return. This is precisely what gay marriage will do to all men of all races.

Severability of economic rights and lack of class-action status: Many same-sex cases beyond United States v. Windsor involve unmarried same-sex cohabitants living in economic "civil unions." Windsor and these other non-class-action cases were carefully selected and framed to keep children and parental rights excised to ensure that welfare state and parental rights considerations could not poison the litigation. The recent decision in Windsor is a broadside evisceration of the economic function of the institution of marriage, and a propellant encouraging women to dump their husbands in favor of same-sex marriages. The lack of class-action scrutiny combined with the absence of review of child/parental rights and welfare-state impacts suggests these cases are too myopic and incomplete to warrant a Supreme Court finding justifying either review, much less broad application economically destroying heterosexual marriage in Supra.



The fundamental purpose of heterosexual marriage: Heterosexual marriage harnesses two very different sexes to form one human race working cooperatively to naturally build nations, economy, and raise children. It guarantees equal social, economic, parental, and political rights to all citizens regardless of sex. The Constitution does not support any idea that bifurcates and redirects the natural rights of men and women depending solely on the natural ability of a person to bear a child. To dismantle marriage – the most important equal rights institution framed by the Founding Fathers – is to dismantle the Constitution, freedom, and the United States of America.

Kobach’s Latest Plan to Keep 15,000 Kansans From Voting: Sue the Federal Government

Kansas secretary of state and national voter suppression advocate Kris Kobach has been struggling in recent months to implement a new “proof of citizenship” voter registration requirement that he pushed into law. But now he has a new plan: sue the federal government to make it harder to register to vote with a federal form in his state.

Like a similar Arizona law that was recently struck down by the Supreme Court, Kansas’ law requires those registering to vote to produce documented proof of citizenship beyond the sworn oath required on federal voter registration forms. This has produced an administrative nightmare in Kansas, throwing the voting status of at least 15,000 people who registered with the federal form into limbo.

Kobach’s first plan to fix this was to force the thousands of Kansans who had registered with the federal form to cast provisional ballots in the next election, which would then only count if they showed up later at an elections office armed with a birth certificate or other citizenship document. The state board of elections rejected the plan, which one Republican state senator called “disingenuous at best.”

Kobach then got creative, suggesting that Kansas create two classes of voters, with those who register with the federal form only allowed to vote in federal elections. Voting rights advocates balked.

Now, Kobach has a new plan. Along with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, Kobach is suing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to require the federal government to add extra “proof of citizenship” requirements to federal voter registration forms in the two states. Andy Marso at the Topeka Capital-Journal sums up the scheme:

Facing the possibility of legal action over 15,000-plus suspended voter registrations, Secretary of State Kris Kobach struck back by announcing Wednesday his own suit against a federal election commission.

Kobach said at a news conference that he and Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, both Republicans, have filed a complaint against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission asking that federal voter registration forms issued to residents of their states include state-specific proof of citizenship requirements like the ones on state forms largely responsible for putting thousands of Kansas registrations on hold.

Kobach said the court case is "the first of its kind."

Kansas voters will be best served when the EAC amends the Kansas-specific instructions on the Federal Form to include submitting concrete evidence of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote," Kobach said.

Kobach said the lawsuit would partially preempt a suit being prepared but he American Civil Liberties Union over the suspended registrations.

“It does block many of the arguments the ACLU might wish to raise,” Kobach said.

Kobach explains that he is answering the “invitation” that Justice Antonin Scalia left in his opinion in the Arizona case, in which the justice suggested that Arizona try such a move.

Kobach and the ACLU have disagreed on much when it comes to voting laws, but both he and Bonney said U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., invited a lawsuit.

"This lawsuit is pursuant to Scalia's invitation," Kobach said.

Mihet: Chris Christie May Face Divine Punishment For Having 'Declared War' On The Gospel, Helping 'Power of Darkness'

Liberty Counsel’s Harry Mihet appeared this week on VCY America’s flagship radio program Crosstalk to discuss with host Jim Schneider the New Jersey law barring the practice of ex-gay therapy on minors. Mihet’s group has filed a lawsuit to block the law, and he told Schneider that the law is really an attack on Christianity.

Mihet quoted Romans 1:32 about people who gave “hearty approval” to those who are “worthy of death,” saying that “we live in Romans 1:32 times and Gov. Chris Christie perfectly encapsulated the substance of this verse.” He argued that by signing the ban on ex-gay therapy for minors, “Chris Christie has essentially declared war” on the “message of the Gospel.”

The Liberty Counsel attorney also suggested that Chris Christie may face divine retribution for defying God: “The Bible says ‘God will not be mocked’ and I believe that and I believe there are consequences for this type of open rebellion of shaking your fist to the almighty God.”

Mihet agreed with a caller who said homosexuality is a “choice” and a “tendency that needs to be overcome,” adding that “there are thousands and thousands of people who used to be a slave to the homosexual lifestyle but who have been able to come out.” He said that he meets ex-gays “all the time” and “sees the passion with which they speak.”

“It defies all truth and logic and common sense to say that it is something that cannot be changed,” Mihet maintained.

Mihet and Schneider even agreed with a caller who alleged that gay people are possessed by demons who work as Satan minions in the Bohemian Grove.

Caller: I don’t think this is true for all homosexuals by any means but I think a lot of them have actually become demonized, especially those in high places like people in relative leadership in our government. I know a lot of them go to the Bohemian Grove where they do like a casting the care ceremony before Moloch and there’s a lot of sexual perversion there. I think a lot of these people have actually become demonized and they are working for their father who is Satan to promote the one world government.

Schneider: Thank you for your thoughts here today. We have seen situations when people rose up and doing things in opposition to Christ that we saw Jesus respond, ‘you are of your father the devil.’ Certainly we know that these are works of darkness but I so appreciate the verse you shared from Corinthians that reminds us ‘such were some of you.’

Mihet: That’s right. I think the power of the darkness in our time cannot be underestimated, I would caution to say not just with the sin of homosexuality but with any other sin that is elevated and perverted and put ahead of the word of God. We have to cling on to the word of God and the promise that it offers healing and forgiveness for every sin and every lifestyle.

Birther Washington Times Defends Cruz By Attacking Imaginary 'Liberal Birthers'

The Washington Times editorial board baselessly claims this week that “many liberals who not so long ago derided anyone who questioned President Obama’s American birth as a ‘birther’ are asking similar questions now about Mr. Cruz’s eligibility.” The paper fails to name any prominent liberals who have actually made this argument.

In yesterday’s editorial, subtitled “Now a new version of ‘birtherism’ settles on the left,” the Times echoes Sean Hannity’s attack on imaginary liberal questioners of the Canadian-born Cruz’s eligibility.

Of course, the whole story is ironic since the birther movement centers around a conspiracy theory — backed by a majority of Republicans — that Obama was born abroad, probably in Kenya, and is therefore not eligible to be president even though his mother was an American citizen. Since Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father, birthers are now quickly trying to backtrack.

The Washington Times editorial defending Cruz is especially ironic since one of the conservative newspaper’s top columnists, Jeffrey Kuhner, wrote a 2011 column arguing that Obama was not born in the US and is consequently an illegitimate president:

If Mr. Obama was not born in America, then it would serve as the final damning indictment of the establishment media’s complicity with the Democratic Party. Not only would it bring the Obama presidency down, but the entire liberal power structure as well.

Moreover, it would spark a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is absolutely clear that to be president one has to be a “natural born citizen.” Therefore, every major initiative implemented during the Obama administration - the health care overhaul, the massive stimulus package, the government takeovers of the auto companies, big banks and insurance firms, the sweeping anti-carbon regulations, allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military, the nearly unprecedented expansion of state power, the new START Treaty - would be invalid and possibly illegal. It would drive a stake through the heart of Mr. Obama’s regime, triggering impeachment and his removal from office. This is why liberals ferociously insist that the birth issue must be buried at almost any cost.



The birth issue is slowly casting a shadow over Mr. Obama’s presidency; it threatens to undermine public confidence in his legal and moral authority to govern. Several states are pushing to pass laws compelling future presidential candidates - including Mr. Obama - to fully disclose all documents proving their natural born citizenship status. This desire for greater political transparency and accountability is healthy.

It is time Mr. Obama came clean. At a minimum, if he does not reveal his birth certificate, he cannot - and should not - be allowed to run for a second term.

Fischer: 90% Of Americans Think Gay Sex Is Disgusting And Repulsive

Earlier this month, a recording was leaked in which San Antonio Councilwoman Elisa Chan could be heard railing against a proposed anti-discrimination ordinance and gays in general.  There has understandably been an outcry over her comments, such as her statement that homosexuals are "disgusting," but Chan is refusing to apologize ... and, for that, she is being praised by Bryan Fischer.

Fischer said on his radio program yesterday that Chan has nothing for which she needs to apologize because everything she said are "things that anybody who is thinking rightly and clearly about homosexuality would believe."

"I would guarantee you," Fischer said, "90% of the American people, if they would stop and think about what actually happens in homosexual sexual behavior, they would find it disgusting":

Right Wing Round-Up - 8/22/13

Right Wing Leftovers - 8/22/13

  • Liberty Counsel has officially filed suit against New Jersey's new law banning "ex-gay" therapy for minors.
  • San Diego Mayor Bob Filner is reportedly finally ready to resign from office.
  • A decade after the fact, Roy Moore stands by his decision to place a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state Supreme Court.
  • Apparently, "Cory Booker supports abortion killing, or womb lynching."
  • Glenn Beck continues to compare the United States to the fall of the Roman Empire.
  • Finally, Bryan Fischer says it's "almost as if black victims of violence are of more value to the President than white victims of violence."
Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious